Killing Sheikh Yassin was a mistake

The assassination of Hamas' spiritual leader removes a crucial restraining force within the organisation and will have dangerous repercussions, argues Barak Barfi

Yesterday's assassination of Hamas spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin opened a new chapter in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. His death will greatly alter the power balance within Hamas and leave it without a public face. Though this will certainly sap the organisation's morale in the short run, the Israelis should not be deceived. Removing Yassin will not stop the violence or deter terrorists, but will result in further bloodshed and the retaliatory killing of civilians.

It was Yassin ­ the incarnation of evil in the eyes of Israelis - who kept Hamas in line and ensured that its violent outbursts were measured, calibrated, and doled out strategically rather than haphazardly.

In the strange world of Palestinian politics, Yassin was known as a moderate. Though he advocated violence and praised suicide bombers, he did not put faith in a military solution to the conflict. He often spoke of hundred-year truces between Israelis and Palestinians, or of a temporary cessation of hostilities that would grant de facto recognition of Israel.

Read the rest at:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,10551,1176004,00.html

"It was Yassin ­ the incarnation of evil in the eyes of Israelis - who kept Hamas in line and ensured that its violent outbursts were measured, calibrated, and doled out strategically rather than haphazardly."

Wow, those strategic murders of Israeli innocents sure were OK, so let's let him live.

mass murderer.

The author is saying that those who will come after him will be worse. Nowhere are the suicide bombings themselves justified.

V

so he will be hard to replace. They are presently holding elections to replace him.

I don't know enough to agree or disagree with the article in the details, but the broad thrust of its arguments seems to me correct - that this killing will only help the extremists (on both sides I might add).

V

"so he will be hard to replace." not really

this action was a total waste of time.
there's probably a 100 replacements for this guy

plans to kill all of them (replacements including) no matter what they actually do...

Sharon wants Palestinian blood no matter what the consequences. Anyone surprised?

Membership in such a group makes you -- everybody together now -- a terrorist. Leadership of such a group makes you both a terrorist and a threat.

Membership in such a group makes you.. a terrorist or
an accomplice to terror, .. members will be either people
who carry out terrorist attacks or people who aid, fund, supply
terrorists or people who give verbal support, all different
levels of crime. so then go after the lowest level
of crime and ignore the highest, good strategy (NOT)

A new wave of violence will make the Israeli public forget the corruption and bribery scandals wafting around Sharon. It will also serve to justify the contemplated ethnic cleansing of the West Bank, and the continued theft of land.

Ariel Sharon is to be commended on his shrewd and forthright action to secure his powerbase.

evil at work :evilgrin: :nuke: ka-boom

Which basically means that Israel was supposed to accept those "strategic" attacks on civilians as a fact of life.

I reject that notion. And if things get worse for Israel as a result, they will also get worse for the Palestinians and much worse for those who export terror to Israel.

"Which basically means that Israel was supposed to accept those "strategic" attacks on civilians as a fact of life."

yes, your rationalization for more death is very basic indeed.

Again, all you are expressing is your need for blood, a lust for vengeance for vegeance sake...from the safety of thousands of miles and a stocked beer fridge.

Again, you do not claim that killing him was of any benefit except for vengeance...."And if things get worse for Israel as a result" - sounds like you are expecting as such.

"they will also get worse for the Palestinians and much worse for those who export terror to Israel."

there is a winning strategy...let me guess you live in the US?

go figure

B

And I have friends who are on the firing line right now, so your definition of safety isn't realistic.

Yassin was killing Israelis as an ongoing policy. The choice, according to this article, was to accept that. Israel chose not to do so.

No, he was killed so he can't CONTINUE killing.

I never said escalation will help either side. It is just a fact that these many provocations by the numerous Palestinian terror groups will not go unanswered.

Some here expect that they should.

Go figure.

you have to live with your actions/non-actions

Why was Kant such a pisser? because it's all about what 'you' do.

That's like saying "I have lots of black friends"

Back to the point

"Yassin was killing Israelis as an ongoing policy. The choice, according to this article, was to accept that. Israel chose not to do so.

No, he was killed so he can't CONTINUE killing."

Sorry muddle, but was he getting out of the chair and attacking? No he was not. Will this action cause a - or + to future suicide bombings?

That's the point - the anger towards suicide bombings is all mock tears if you support this action because it will lead to more, not less.

That is what the article is about.

"I never said escalation will help either side." but it will escalate will it not? That is what you have restated again here.

So all this act does is satisfy vengeance...but please...bring em on

it's worked well for the US so far.

Mine do to me. Too bad if that isn't enough for you.

One does not have to do all the killing. Did Stalin order the deaths of millions? Yes. Did he personally do it? No.

Screw vengeance. It was done to keep this asswipe from killing more innocent Israelis. Guess what? He won't be doing that any more.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

it's all relative.

He was not the only asswipe that let others do his dirty work for him.

Somebody has to pay the bills

Like Bush, most find the distance from any real danger comforting. They are usually the loudest voices...I wonder why

cowards are all the same....all bark but the first to run under the porch

B

Nor do they run. They are in Israel for the duration.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"I reject that notion. And if things get worse for Israel as a result, they will also get worse for the Palestinians...."
yea they sure will

"Which basically means that Israel was supposed to accept those "strategic" attacks on civilians"
no they don't, but this strategy is crap

this guy was nothing but a figure head, the technical planers
weren't touched.. Sharons Incompetence at work

was this killing in the strategic interest of Israel?

"Wow, those strategic murders of Israeli innocents sure were OK, so let's let him live."

Again you speak to vengeance and retribution. A blood lust.

As King taught us all - this is a loosing strategy...adopted by losers

That's fine and dandy when sitting on a couch 3,000 miles away....but for the poor folks in Israel...?

Bring em on....go nuts guys...enjoy what you harvest...

I seek killing the guy planning those lovely "strategic" attacks on Israeli civilians. Those were an ONGOING effort. Killing Yassin ends THAT effort at least.

But the 16 bystanders who were injured because of a reckless missile attack in front of a crowded mosque in order to kill one feeble, wheelchair ridden old man is an egregious violations human rights and human decency. There are far, far better ways this could've been done. Haven't they heard of snipers?

Snipers require folks on the ground and there is no guarantee they will work either.

Having troops on the ground requires support troops to protect them and that starts equating to combat and more die.

I guess they can't walk and chew gum.

"that starts equating to combat and more die"

some cowardly words there...

oh, you mean more 'non-palestinians' die...yes, yes, the collateral damage...so this is to protect SOLDIERS from VIOLENCE...ok then

Yes, put troops on the ground and more die on both sides. So this sort of strike protects BOTH Israelis and Palestinians from a larger combat.

it is faulty logic

There are cowards in uniforms on both sides who are too eager to let someone else pay with blood as opposed to their own.

Again to the point ... you believe that a rocket attack at the entrance to a populated place of worship is the best the IDF can do to kill a cripple in a wheel chair...I guess that's all that needs to be said of the IDF. They are the same as suicide bombers - no matter how nicely pressed the uniform is or how many fruit baskets they received form the US this week.

You still want to make the assertion?

This action was the safest for 'all' involved including palestinian civilians...


B

Here are the options:

First choice, letting him continue to kill innocent Israelis or acting against him.

That choice is clear.

Next, HOW to take him out.

Either a major military action, some special Delta Force team (always works in movies, not always in real life) or from the air.

First choice -- lots of dead probably on both sides.
Second choice -- no clear success, likely dead on both side and possible loss of team
Third choice -- it worked.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

HE'S IN A FUCKING WHEELCHAIR!! He isn't killing anyone himself!! He's paralyzed, he's blind, and he's deaf! He's a figurehead and nothing more!!!

Thankfully. But he was in a wheelchair for decades and that didn't stop him from startin Hamas and leading it down the road to terror.

As any disabilities advocate will tell you, being in a wheelchair does not you incapable of other acts.

it worked therefore it was right

seems now this site wants to protect right wing logic.

Sorry if Machiavelli and neocons are connected at the hip. You want to use the logic ....

principles only go so far I guess...maybe your 'soul' has something to do with it.

B

oh, you mean the four bodyguards and two sons that were injured. The highest number I heard was 7, why do you say 16? Maybe to make a point?

According to hospital staff, seven dead.

are amongst the things that makes this an extrajudicial killing, not to mention that they contribute to the inflaming of opinion amongst Palestinians. Even if we were to agree that he deserved it, one could not agree with the action without accepting guilt by association for, say, his sons.

V

the mosque wasn't damaged, so that is irrelevant. Yassin only goes out to pray. The early morning assassination was the ideal time and place.

if you are bent on killing him, then limited options are on offer. There is an interesting parallel here with WWII. When the raid on the heavy water plants in Norway was being planned, Bomber Command argued that they should simply be levelled from the air. There was no doubt that the action would succeed, but although the projected collateral deaths were only in the low hunderds (only by WWII standards) the British opted to send commandos instead. The first squad failed its objective but the second one succeeded. Subsequently, military historians have largely accepted that it was correct to go with higher risks and casualties among the soldiers in order to protect the civilian population.

V

Here, sending in troops into the area in question would have escalated violence and likely cost more lives.

Need I remind everyone how upset the pro-Pal folks got when Israel sent in troops into Jenin instead of blasting the terror HQ from the air.

the sniper option, with commandos infiltrating and taking him out from a rooftop would have been a hell of a lot more risky but might have prevented civilian deaths.

V

Etc. It always looks good from the sidelines.

this fact at least is well known. The rest is very tricky and risky, I agree (more so in the getaway I think), but that's why I drew my parallel.

I am not pretending these are easy decisions, I am just trying to point out that even if you agree with the priniciple of this killing you may not agree with the methodology.

V

Chose the methodology and it worked.

Kind of hard to fault that success.

The mission obviously did succeed. My questioning is of how much consideration the IDF gives to things like collateral damage as opposed to the value it places on the lives of its own soldiers.

V

as Bin Laden was 'successful'

as Bush was 'successful'

as Arafat was 'successful'

all short sighted cowardly BS.

Soon, israelis will follow the americans and give citizenship to mexicans who sign up for a tour....some folks just don't like getting their own hands bloody.

You would think such war mongers would be jumping at the bit for a little action....others leave it to their 'friends'

"It always looks good from the sidelines"

no shit

Cut off the head, the snake will die.

I hope you are right about Hamas dying, but somehow I doubt it.

V

Although he escaped one assassination attempt, he might not the next.

Nor is he really the head. He's an icon and not much more. And now he's a martyred icon. Great job folks - hundreds of more terrorists will now take his place.

cut off one head another will grow. Do you remember how Herakles killed the Hydra? The Hydra didn't llike it.

Nice try, buddy! How about "Martyr one, inspire thousands."

Cut off the head, dozens more fight over the privilege of replacing it.

enough heads, maybe the smarter ones will get the message that they cannot win. Maybe then the Arabs will be willing to 'give peace a chance'.

the assassination was totally preventative. He was the co-ordinating and planning center of Hamas. Some analysis agrees with you, but many, those in the military echelon in Israel believe that Hamas is severely weakened. So yes, soon it will be safe to come home, Barak.

Strange how the leadership of Hamas starts getting twitchy when they're the targets.