Live by the sword ...

[JohnLocke]

Live by the sword ...
The Ottawa Citizen
Tuesday, March 23, 2004
----
Whether yesterday's assassination of Hamas founder Ahmed Yassin was a good thing depends on the answer to two questions: 1) Is the world better off without Sheik Yassin? and 2) Was it in Israel's strategic interest to kill him? In both cases, the answer is yes.
Ahmed Yassin was among the most brazen killers that the modern Middle East has produced, which is quite an achievement when you look at the competition. His hands were stained with the blood of hundreds, and we aren't referring only to Israeli civilians who died in the Palestinian terror attacks he supervised. We're also thinking of the Palestinian children whom he taught to believe that death is preferable to life and that a good Muslim is one who immolates himself in a pizzeria or a discotheque.
In interviews, you could see the old man take lascivious delight in the blood of his followers -- followers such as Reem Riyashi, a Palestinian who blew herself up in January, leaving her two children motherless. "I always wanted to be the first woman to carry out a martyrdom operation, where parts of my body can fly all over," she said in a videotaped message. Shortly after, Mr. Yassin ghoulishly confirmed that Hamas was now recruiting female bombers.
Clearly, the world is better off without Mr. Yassin. But should Israel have been the one to provide that service? The usual suspects, from Amnesty International to Canada's Foreign Minister Bill Graham, have condemned Israel for carrying out an "extra-judicial killing." Meanwhile, the Arab street is inflamed. In the best of times it's easy to find crowds chanting "Death to the Jews," but in Gaza some 200,000 took to the street. Could it be that the benefits of eliminating Mr. Yassin are outweighed by the costs, such as renewed terrorism and international criticism?
We don't think so. Killing Mr. Yassin hasn't made Israel more vulnerable to attack. For Hamas, the fact of Israel's existence was always sufficient motive. When Israel elects left-wing governments, Hamas sees it as a sign of weakness and calls for more martyrs. When Israel elects hawkish governments, Hamas sees it as provocation and calls for more martyrs.
(...)
----
Read the rest here.

[JohnLocke]

1. An interesting article...

From a purely military perspective, the writer is correct in saying, "Killing Mr. Yassin hasn't made Israel more vulnerable to attack. For Hamas, the fact of Israel's existence was always sufficient motive" and that Israel made a good strategic move in killing Yassin.
However, from a diplomatic standpoint, I fear this might not be the case...

[tinnypriv]

2. "Ahmed Yassin was among the most brazen killers"

"Ahmed Yassin was among the most brazen killers that the modern Middle East has produced"

So unlike the current Prime Minister of Israel who has personally carried out lidice-style massacres (i.e. they were not directed or "inspired" like Yassin). He's actually proud of those too (same as Yassin).

Of course, this is unmentioned in this article, as usual. Note that this is an easy case since Sharon is a convenient punching bag - there are plenty of other cases of "brazen killers" lauded and in some cases pardoned by the guys currently in charge in Israel. But, I guess the author is using the operative definition of "brazen killer" - i.e. Brazen Arab Killer.

[bluesoul]

4. Excellent point

Tinnypriv. Sharon should have then been in jailing serving life prison for all his crimes, killings (Sabra and Shatila) and all the blood he has on his hands. Something the pro-I team fails to acknowledge...

[LoneStarLiberal]

3. Living And Dying By The Sword

Killing Mr. Yassin hasn't made Israel more vulnerable to attack. For Hamas, the fact of Israel's existence was always sufficient motive. When Israel elects left-wing governments, Hamas sees it as a sign of weakness and calls for more martyrs. When Israel elects hawkish governments, Hamas sees it as provocation and calls for more martyrs.

This is a correct sentiment in my estimation. Killing him hasn't made Israel more vulnerable. What is likely is that in the short run Israel will see a surge of attacks or more brazen attacks or both as revenge is satiated.

The idea of living by the sword and dying by the sword is too sadly appropriate when discussing Israel and Palestine. As long as Israel builds a crooked fence that is not defensible to placate illegal fundamentalist squatters instead of building a robust fence demarcating a static line of defense, then attacks continue. As long as Palestinians are more interested in living 30 years in the past in the present than they are in exercising control over the PA and organizations like Hamas and al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade, then attacks will continue.

In short, as long as both sides continue to live by the sword, both sides' civilian populations will continue to bear the burden of dying by it. Both governments are to blame, both sides' fundamentalists are to blame.

[Toronto Ron]

6. "As long as Israel builds a crooked fence...attacks continue"

That's a bizarre statement: Obviously, terrorist attacks predate the building of the security fence. And in fact, the number of attacks has declined over the past couple of years, partly because of the fence and partly because of Israel's elimination/capture of so many terrorist leaders.

I'm no fan of Sharon - I believe in a viable Palestinian state existing alongside Israel - but it's plain to see that his harsh policies against Hamas et al are effective to some extent.

I doubt that Hamas terrorism will stop even if a peace process gets underway and eventually succeeds. The evidence for this is: (1) Their statements, and (2) Palestinian terrorism predates 1967.

[Aussie_Hillbilly]

7. Palestinian terrorism predates 1967

Of course. Israeli terrorism, land stealing and UN-resolution-ignoring predates 1967 too.

[Noon_Blue_Apples]

5. Ummm, they don't address their own assertion

"2) Was it in Israel's strategic interest to kill him? In both cases, the answer is yes."

but the masked authors (that is what these editorials are - cowardly assertions)make no 'strategic' case. Their answer is based upon some need for retaliation and vengeance. That is all they state here - they want to kill us anyway so lets kill them first.

Strategic Interest?

"live by the sword" - ummm, you might want to heed your own advice Izzy.