Hamas Founder KILLED

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
does this action make Israelis safer in either the short or long term? Personsally I doubt it highly. Hence I fail to see the use of this attack. It is not justice (that would be arresting and putting him on trial), it is vengence.

The grand strategy, IIUC is to get out of Gaza, which will economize on military resources. It will also open up a new political dynamic in the territories, given that Mohammed Dahlan, who was in the Abu Mazen govt and defied arafat over control of PA security forces, is strong in Gaza.

There are two big problems with this strategy
1. Hamas is also strong on the ground in Gaza. Arafat may be so afraid of Dahlan he will ally with Hamas against Dahlan.
2. As with Lebanon in 1999, an Israeli strategic withdrawl will be spun as a victory for terror.

Killing Yassin certainly deals with 2, and in the apparent view of Israeli strategists deals with 1. By killing Yassin no one can claim that the withdrawl from Gaza is simply a retreat after defeat. And it weakens Hamas POLITICALLY on the ground in Gaza, during its death struggle with Dahlan. It also sends a not so subtle message to Arafat, should he decide to openly ally with Hamas. Weighing that, and Yassins real value as an inciter, versus some marginal impact on recruitment, it was decided this was a "go"

A counter argument would have to come from a detailed analysis of Gaza politics, not the usual handwringing.

[Whaleboy]

I don't think these targetted killings are a good way to achieve anything, except the further escalation of violence which I think we can all agree is not desireable. Needless to say, they enjoy support (though waning iirc) at home, meaning it works in a democracy, and little international condemnation, or at least, far less than I would like.

Israel should capture these people. Killing them merely martyrs them, making the situation worse. Capture them, don't let them die in custody, and then subject them to a FAIR trial.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Killing Yassin certainly deals with 2, and in the apparent view of Israeli strategists deals with 1. By killing Yassin no one can claim that the withdrawl from Gaza is simply a retreat after defeat. And it weakens Hamas POLITICALLY on the ground in Gaza, during its death struggle with Dahlan. It also sends a not so subtle message to Arafat, should he decide to openly ally with Hamas. Weighing that, and Yassins real value as an inciter, versus some marginal impact on recruitment, it was decided this was a "go"

A counter argument would have to come from a detailed analysis of Gaza politics, not the usual handwringing.

How does this weaken Hamas politically? It just got the biggest possible martyr. Do you think the Palestinians don;t go throught the whole images game? If Dahlan were to move against Hamas, would he not be seen as bein Isreal's toddy by following up?

That is the problem-Yassin might be worth more as a giant poster gazing from above than as a man.

[The diplomat]

I don't understand this argument that killing a terrorist leader will only provoke more terrorist attacks. These groups like Hamas and Al Queda consider westerners to be "godless infidels" that in their minds deserve death. They don't need us to attack them, to want to kill us. They already hate us enough to want to destroy us! So, isn't it better to take out of their leaders so that those leaders cannot continue to plot against us? If we don't kill them, they will only continue to plot against us.

[GePap]

Originally posted by The diplomat
If we don't kill them, they will only continue to plot against us.

So arrest them and place them on trial instead.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by The diplomat
I don't understand this argument that killing a terrorist leader will only provoke more terrorist attacks. These groups like Hamas and Al Queda consider westerners to be "godless infidels" that in their minds deserve death. They don't need us to attack them, to want to kill us. They already hate us enough to want to destroy us! So, isn't it better to take out of their leaders so that those leaders cannot continue to plot against us? If we don't kill them, they will only continue to plot against us.

yes standing far away in europe trying desperately to not be the target of terror attacks it becomes easier to yell at the good guys for getting their boots muddy. afterall, it doesn't rain in europe.

[chequita guevara]

I don't care about Yassin or his bodyguards. It's just that Israel has a nasty and frequent habit of killing innocent bystanders along with their targets. Nothing boils the blood like dead kids.

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap
could they be put to death given that Israel does not have a DP?

Uhh, IIRC, Israel does have the death penalty, although it's only been used once.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


NOt really. While it was the Arabs who first resorted to armed violence, it is not like there was "peaceful" coexistance- think why most Brit. whitepapers writen during their mandate (and all the time as they prepared to create a Jewish homeland) were not very positive about the zionists. For exmaple, the zionist labor movement boycotted any Jewish business that dared employ Arabs "with jewish money", sop as more efficient modern industry built with foreing investment drove the arab artisans out of work, they could not find work at these new factories becuase the owners were bullied into employing only jews, not arabs. As you may guess, this created mass resentment among the ranks of the now unemployed or impoverished.

Did arab incomes actually drop during the mandate period??? My impression was that the overall demand for labor increased, and wage levels with it, leading to in-migration to Palestine from Egypt, etc.

The Labour movement did NOT want a society of Jewish Landowners and Factory owners relying on arab labor. IE they did not want a South Africa. To remake the Jew as laborer, it was necessary that Jews work as laborers.

In any case, the main policy demand the arabs made of the british under the mandate, and which they advocated for with violence, was NOT enforcement of fair labor codes, it was the reduction and finally the elimination of ALL jewish immigration. Economic concerns could have been negotiated. At a time when the Jews of Europe faced extermination, eliminating immigration was not something the Labour Zionist leadership could accept. As it was the Revisionists were criticising them, with some reason, for accepting limits on immigration, and not pushing for unlimited immigration.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by GePap
So arrest them and place them on trial instead.

yeah, I am sure if Israel had just asked Yassin politely to surrender, he would have.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


How does this weaken Hamas politically? It just got the biggest possible martyr. Do you think the Palestinians don;t go throught the whole images game? If Dahlan were to move against Hamas, would he not be seen as bein Isreal's toddy by following up?

That is the problem-Yassin might be worth more as a giant poster gazing from above than as a man.

Depends on what he was doing as man, which is why I said that whats required is detailed analysis of Gaza politics.

Surely Dahlan wont move against Hamas this week. In fact first he has to consolidate his own power vis a vis the residual Arafat loyal forces. Its not clear how an enraged Hamas effects this. Its also not clear to me that everyone in Gaza suddenly rises up in sympathy for Hamas now. They all know who Yassin was, and why Israel targeted him. The folks who attend his funeral, etc are largely ones who supported Hamas to begin with.

[Az]

Israel should capture these people. Killing them merely martyrs them, making the situation worse. Capture them, don't let them die in custody, and then subject them to a FAIR trial.

Why should we? we're at war against them.

How would you propose to capture them, anyway?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
On the notion that raids are impossible- Israel launches raids in the extreemly densely populated refugee camps all the time to arrest militants-if the IDF will risk soldiers lives, and the lives of Pal. civilians to get low level militants, all of sudden this is utterly impossible with high level ones?

I would expect that Yassin is better protected than low and midlevel Hamasniks. In particular he was apparently constantly on the move, so that info on where he is goes cold very fast, something probably not true for the guys lower down, how dont command the number of safe house, the comm networks, etc. Basically if you here hes at point X and send in a raid, he'll be gone before the commandos finish fighting there way through to where hes at, if not well before.

Look at whats happening in Wazirstan, where it appears Ayman al-Zawahiri has escaped a cordon of 7,000 Pakistani troops.

[Ned]

I haven't read through this whole thread, but just let me say that I think Israel waited far to long to deal with this monster.

I am also surprised with the British and French condemnations.

This morning Condi Rice call this evil killer a terrorist. Hopefully the US administration will issue a statement to that effect and block the Brits and the Frogs from condemning Israel in the UN. If Bush issues any condemnation of this, he will lose a lot of points with me.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Did arab incomes actually drop during the mandate period??? My impression was that the overall demand for labor increased, and wage levels with it, leading to in-migration to Palestine from Egypt, etc.

We need to find the numbers for this to continue

The Labour movement did NOT want a society of Jewish Landowners and Factory owners relying on arab labor. IE they did not want a South Africa. To remake the Jew as laborer, it was necessary that Jews work as laborers.

Fine notion-of course, this is likely to have real life consequences.

In any case, the main policy demand the arabs made of the british under the mandate, and which they advocated for with violence, was NOT enforcement of fair labor codes, it was the reduction and finally the elimination of ALL jewish immigration. Economic concerns could have been negotiated. At a time when the Jews of Europe faced extermination, eliminating immigration was not something the Labour Zionist leadership could accept. As it was the Revisionists were criticising them, with some reason, for accepting limits on immigration, and not pushing for unlimited immigration.

To begin, the violence begun in the late 20's, before Nazism, so the whole part about Jews facing extermination was not in the cards when the violence begun.

My basic question is this- can anyone here think they would have behaved differently form the Palestinians? We have seen before how anti-immigrant violence springs up-people in conservative societies all of a sudden see things change radically as new immigrants sweep in. New people with new ideas and languages and cultures are a great shock to the system even in liberal pro-immigrant places like the US. But the situation for the pals. was even more radical for a few reasons- One, of course, is the Pals had no self-rule. IN the 1920's the US put very tight and strict limits on immigration-most states in Europe were even more stingy-and no one blames them. I am sure if the pals had had self-rule, they would have also shut the doors-but you could no more fault them than the uS and every other state in which nativist policies win out-but the problem was the pals did not have that choice- think of it, you see all these immigrants come in and you have no says in whether they can come. Does anyone expect people in this situation to be happy about it? Add on top of this that the immigrant are not coming to join their society, but to create a new one, their OWN, on what you consider your land-so not only did they have no political control over immigration into the mandate (someone in London did), but the immigrants are not coming to become part of their society, but to create a brand new separate one which happens to be in the same parcel of land.

I doubt most highly that ANY people would be willing to let such a situation develop.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Depends on what he was doing as man, which is why I said that whats required is detailed analysis of Gaza politics.

Surely Dahlan wont move against Hamas this week. In fact first he has to consolidate his own power vis a vis the residual Arafat loyal forces. Its not clear how an enraged Hamas effects this. Its also not clear to me that everyone in Gaza suddenly rises up in sympathy for Hamas now. They all know who Yassin was, and why Israel targeted him. The folks who attend his funeral, etc are largely ones who supported Hamas to begin with.

While Dahlan might be able to consolidate his power in Gaza vs Arafat, I doubt he will make any inroads against Hamas, now that Hamas has one great martyr to use as the trump card.

As for not all of Gaza showing up- I would never expect a million people to show. I would say the people who would "understand" why israel did it (as in, not only know Israels claims but also willing to see those claims as valid) are a much smaller group than the inbuilt Hamas supporters. I think for the mayority as a whole, they are not out becuase they are hidding indoors.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by GePap

My basic question is this- can anyone here think they would have behaved differently form the Palestinians? We have seen before how anti-immigrant violence springs up-people in conservative societies all of a sudden see things change radically as new immigrants sweep in. New people with new ideas and languages and cultures are a great shock to the system even in liberal pro-immigrant places like the US. But the situation for the pals. was even more radical for a few reasons- One, of course, is the Pals had no self-rule. IN the 1920's the US put very tight and strict limits on immigration-most states in Europe were even more stingy-and no one blames them. I am sure if the pals had had self-rule, they would have also shut the doors-but you could no more fault them than the uS and every other state in which nativist policies win out-but the problem was the pals did not have that choice- think of it, you see all these immigrants come in and you have no says in whether they can come. Does anyone expect people in this situation to be happy about it? Add on top of this that the immigrant are not coming to join their society, but to create a new one, their OWN, on what you consider your land-so not only did they have no political control over immigration into the mandate (someone in London did), but the immigrants are not coming to become part of their society, but to create a brand new separate one which happens to be in the same parcel of land.

I doubt most highly that ANY people would be willing to let such a situation develop.

I would have been more practical. lots of ppl get raw deals as a result of war. borders constantly get redrawn. eventually ur gna have to deal with it and prove that u r a good people. not a vengeful and inept mass of seething hatred.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap

1. What would you do???

IIUC the Nez Perce fled to Canada in the 19th c escaping the US army. If the Nez Perce were to come and claim a right to unlimited migration to the US I hardly see how anyone could deny it to them. Even if they were all born in Canada. Even if they intended to maintain their own seperate culture.

2. Was it inevitable - for all the conservatism of arab culture, there was considerable ferment at this period. In particular when the arabs under Hashemite leadership rose against French and British colonial rule in the early 20's (1921 - they were mainly unhappy that Syria had been given to the French, rather than kept for a unified Hashemite state, as they thought they were promised) they offered to cut a deal with the Zionists. The Zionists refused, expecting (correctly as it turned out) that the Europeans would win. Zionist - ARab enmity has much to do with the political maneuverings of the time, and is not completely a result of inevitable culture clashes.

3. Timing - yes, the first big riots took place in 1929, but it continued and expanded in the '30s, reaching a peak IIRC in 1936.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Look at whats happening in Wazirstan, where it appears Ayman al-Zawahiri has escaped a cordon of 7,000 Pakistani troops.

A few problems with the comparison- 1. Israel has much much better info tracking Palestinian militants-after all, they knew Yasisn would be leaving said mosque said day-and earlier they knew were he was and dropped abomb-this point to far better info.

Gaza is tiny- plenty of people to hide amongs, but not much room at all. Also Gaza is fully chained in and its back to the sea-were would Yassin have gone? Swim to Cyprus perhaps?

Not likely he would be surrounded by 600 heavily armed militants, given
a. the pals have a harder time importing heavy weapons than AQ or militants in Pakistan
b. Any large concetration would be fodder for the Israeli airforce, and the pals know this.

[Whaleboy]

Why should we? we're at war against them.

To steal from Charles Kennedy. War implies that they are warriors. Are they warriors? Because there you are ascribing them some sense of honour. No they're not warriors, they're just murderers, twisted criminal murderers.

How would you propose to capture them, anyway?

If Israel stopped attacking, the situation would cool down, not to mention the fact that it would be helped by the implimentation of proposals including a viable Palestinian state. Extracting them in an atmosphere of relative amicability (as opposed to the **** storm kicked up by Israel) would be far easier than now. At the moment, you have yourself a catch-22. That's all very well on the theoretical level, but on the ground, people are dying. Revenge counts for very little if more of it is being generated.

[Pekka]

You guys always talk about numbers. War is nota bout numbers, that's how you take massive beatings counting on them. It never works.

Israel is able to defend itself. For how long? That would be a question mark, but it would hold on for a while against aggressors even if US withdrew its support and Europe wouldn't help at all if the aggressors came. Israel would be standing there for some time. Mujahediins are all about loud talking and showboating, and less action and more running away. It's a fact and I don't think this is a racist remark.

And if they are really in trouble, I'll be coming in with my Susie Q's. Israel - saved. They have to worry about the terrorism for sure, and smaller attacks, but bigger attacks? Susie Q, coming to get you. Nothing to worry about.

[Az]

To steal from Charles Kennedy. War implies that they are warriors. Are they warriors? Because there you are ascribing them some sense of honour. No they're not warriors, they're just murderers, twisted criminal murderers.

by saying their warriors doesn't imply they're honourable. the SS weren't honourable, and that's just taking from the top of my mind.


I've bolded the false assumptions in this text.

If Israel stopped attacking, the situation would cool down, not to mention the fact that it would be helped by the implimentation of proposals including a viable Palestinian state. Extracting them in an atmosphere of relative amicability (as opposed to the **** storm kicked up by Israel) would be far easier than now. At the moment, you have yourself a catch-22. That's all very well on the theoretical level, but on the ground, people are dying. Revenge counts for very little if more of it is being generated.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
1. What would you do???

IIUC the Nez Perce fled to Canada in the 19th c escaping the US army. If the Nez Perce were to come and claim a right to unlimited migration to the US I hardly see how anyone could deny it to them. Even if they were all born in Canada. Even if they intended to maintain their own seperate culture.

Of course they could be denied. They would be denied. The right of return was created for refugees only, and only after WW2. Any Palestinian who has stopped being a refugee has no right to demand entrance to Israel-the Germans kicked out of Eastern Europe don;t get to go back unless those states allow them to, by their own choice of policy. IN the real world, getting to "go back home" is something reserved for a small amount of highly defined people.

2. Was it inevitable - for all the conservatism of arab culture, there was considerable ferment at this period. In particular when the arabs under Hashemite leadership rose against French and British colonial rule in the early 20's (1921 - they were mainly unhappy that Syria had been given to the French, rather than kept for a unified Hashemite state, as they thought they were promised) they offered to cut a deal with the Zionists. The Zionists refused, expecting (correctly as it turned out) that the Europeans would win. Zionist - ARab enmity has much to do with the political maneuverings of the time, and is not completely a result of inevitable culture clashes.

So in essence, as you just said, the zionists decided to ally themselves with the foreing imperialist powers as opposed to the locals. You expect this to be popular with the people who are now under foreign imperial rule? And then of course, one of these foreign imperial powers helps the zionist with pro-zionist immigration policies coming out of London and the British government, and not any entity in which the locals had any political say.

3. Timing - yes, the first big riots took place in 1929, but it continued and expanded in the '30s, reaching a peak IIRC in 1936.

A year after the passage of NUremberg laws t a time even most German Jews and Jews in Eruope did not even imagine what was coming? Yet the palestinians should have known?

How far would you have gotten if you went to a pal in 1936 and told them: the jews need a safe home? The obvious response would have been: well, YOU take them in if you care so much..why should I be forced to? And what valid answer would you have to that? That this land was their biblical homeland, so it is rightfully theirs? Oh yes, that would surely convince the locals now living there....

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


A few problems with the comparison- 1. Israel has much much better info tracking Palestinian militants-after all, they knew Yasisn would be leaving said mosque said day-and earlier they knew were he was and dropped abomb-this point to far better info.

Gaza is tiny- plenty of people to hide amongs, but not much room at all. Also Gaza is fully chained in and its back to the sea-were would Yassin have gone? Swim to Cyprus perhaps?

Not likely he would be surrounded by 600 heavily armed militants, given
a. the pals have a harder time importing heavy weapons than AQ or militants in Pakistan
b. Any large concetration would be fodder for the Israeli airforce, and the pals know this.

where would he go - to another part of crowded Gaza.

Ok, GePap, its 7AM, you get a report from an informant (at risk to his own life) that Yassin is in Mosque X, and will be leaving in 15 minutes. You dont have IDF everywhere in Gaza - theyre all outside populated areas, on main roads, near settlements, and at crossings. As soon as they start moving in Gaza city there will be roadblocks, AK-47s, being fired, roadside bombs, etc. Do you send them in wheeled vehicles, with their vulnerabilities in the close streets of Gaza? Do you send in armor, safer but slower? Can you get a force their in 15 minutes? Can you search EVERY house in the city, with a population doing everything they can to slow you down?

[Whaleboy]

Is Susie Q somehow related to DanS?

[Az]

GePap, LotM, your discussion is lacking a VERY important aspect. while allying with the imperialist powers, this certainly didn't have to piss off the proto-palestinians ( for a lack of a better word), for a rather simple reason: they didn't like those arabs at all. The palestinian arabs, and the Jordanian arabs, you know, those from Lawrence of Arabia, are two distinct groups that are rather at odds with each other, the falachs and the nomads.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


To steal from Charles Kennedy. War implies that they are warriors. Are they warriors? Because there you are ascribing them some sense of honour. No they're not warriors, they're just murderers, twisted criminal murderers.



If Israel stopped attacking, the situation would cool down, not to mention the fact that it would be helped by the implimentation of proposals including a viable Palestinian state. Extracting them in an atmosphere of relative amicability (as opposed to the **** storm kicked up by Israel) would be far easier than now. At the moment, you have yourself a catch-22. That's all very well on the theoretical level, but on the ground, people are dying. Revenge counts for very little if more of it is being generated.

substitute israel for palestine and I agree. otherwise I think ur full of crap.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


where would he go - to another part of crowded Gaza.

Ok, GePap, its 7AM, you get a report from an informant (at risk to his own life) that Yassin is in Mosque X, and will be leaving in 15 minutes. You dont have IDF everywhere in Gaza - theyre all outside populated areas, on main roads, near settlements, and at crossings. As soon as they start moving in Gaza city there will be roadblocks, AK-47s, being fired, roadside bombs, etc. Do you send them in wheeled vehicles, with their vulnerabilities in the close streets of Gaza? Do you send in armor, safer but slower? Can you get a force their in 15 minutes? Can you search EVERY house in the city, with a population doing everything they can to slow you down?

Last time they know where he would be staying (the bombing that failed), so its not like Israel could not find, if it wanted, info on were Yassin would be sleeping one night and then plan a raid like that. After all, they have shown the ability to point to where a high ranking militant would be sleeping for the night.

[Whaleboy]

by saying their warriors doesn't imply they're honourable. the SS weren't honourable, and that's just taking from the top of my mind.

I don't count the SS as honourable. The German army (more or less) was honourable (several notable exceptions of course) but I count the SS as non-warriors.

If Israel stopped attacking, the situation would cool down

Don't see a problem with that. It's not unlike turning the heat off a pan of boiling water. Currently, you're trying to boil an egg without making the water bubble!

Extracting them in an atmosphere of relative amicability (as opposed to the **** storm kicked up by Israel) would be far easier than now.

Don't see a problem there either. Two cooperative states handing over murderers. That would take time with Israel and a future Palestine, but Hamas's activities are far less active during ceasefires.

Fundamentally, the pro-force people need to show how the current strategy will work.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Azazel
GePap, LotM, your discussion is lacking a VERY important aspect. while allying with the imperialist powers, this certainly didn't have to piss off the proto-palestinians ( for a lack of a better word), for a rather simple reason: they didn't like those arabs at all. The palestinian arabs, and the Jordanian arabs, you know, those from Lawrence of Arabia, are two distinct groups that are rather at odds with each other, the falachs and the nomads.

OK, this is a bit unclear in how it is writen-how does this affect the ongoing discussion?