Per the story linked below, other government’s are generally dismayed with Israel’s targeting and killing of Hamas leaders as being unhelpful and provocative in solving the terror issue. Are Israel’s selective targeting and killing operations against Hamas leaders and operatives a good realpolitik strategy in the long run, or will it simply make the problem worse?
Israeli Strike Kills Another Hamas Chief
I find the insistence that Israel has the right to defend itself from terrorism, with concomitant condemnation of killing leaders of terrorist group extremely ironic. If you are not allowed to kill the leader of the main terrorist group targeting you, what does it mean to be allowed to defend yourself? Outside of civil security measures (like border patrols and airport security), which do not constitute “defending a country” in the way the word is traditionally used, what should Israel be allowed to defend itself?
Frankly I think those who rant about this “escalating” the situation have lost a lot of credibility since the assassination of Yassin. There was quite a bit of worry over revenge attacks and yet there has not been one major attack in the just under a month since Yassin’s killing. Of course the next time there is an attack it will be argued that it is revenge for Yassin and Rantissi but the truth is that if there is one attack in a one- or two-month period (a far lower rate than they were happening a year and a half ago), who’s to say whether such an attack would have happened anyway? Clearly Hamas itself can’t dislike Israel anymore than it already does, and nobody is going to die to avenge either of these two assholes who would not have already been willing to die to fight Israel before.
In the long term, the policy of assassinating Palestinian terrorist leaders is a good one, as it hurts the terrorist groups’ command structure. Furthermore, as the intifada and likely the occupation approach their endgames (pullout from Gaza, hawks such as Sharon recognizing the need to eventually leave the OT), these assassinations serve a political end: eliminating the most visible (and radical) leaders as candidates for political power in a future Palestinian state, and also portraying these groups as weak, unable to protect even their own leaders from Israeli power. While I think that Israel must do more to reach out to Palestinian moderates such as Sari Nusseibeh, eliminating the extremists will do a lot of good in the long term, and extremely little bad in the short term.
In the long run, who knows, but in the short run, I bet there is hell to pay.
Well, it will certainly make the next Hamas leader think twice before becoming the next Hamas leader.
-LC
I think I’ve said it before, but my prediction is that Israel is planning for a Palestinian civil war. Over the next 1-2 years, they kill off more and more senior leaders; when the wall is done, they kill Arafat and climb behind it, and a power struggle among the Palestinians erupts.
I think you underestimate the dedication of these people to the cause.
As for the idea of the Palestinian civil war… interesting concept, though I don’t think it would work. Even if it does, in the short term, eventually the war would die down. At best, Israel would be buying themselves a few years.
“We should be struggling together!”
“We are!”
“No, against the Romans!”
“Oooooooh”
I do not see how we can be allowed to try to kill binLaden and Al Qaeda’s leadership, yet Israel isn’t allowed to go after Hamas.
Is it a good strategy? Depends on how effectively it fucks up the group. Sometimes killing off the old leadership brings new leaders in who are much better than the old foges who were running the show. Frex, many people cite the loss of Germany’s military leadership in WWI as one of the reasons they had such great leadership in WWII.
Unless you think the guys they are killing off has special expertise or something, I can’t see how this really helps. Hamas doesn’t really seem to be the sort of organization that reqiures a central head to function effectively.
In this case, isn’t the opposite more likely? The killings have radicallized the radicals: so doesn’t it stand to reason that the extremists are more likely to get their voices heard at this point?
Forget about ‘realpolitik’ this is a continuation of Israels flagrant disregard for international law.
I know Ranteesi was the head of a terrorist organisation, but I cannot see how Sharon is any different.
Ranteesi wanted to die a martyr - the Israelis helped him - and thus consolidated hatred of Israel and the USA across the arab world.
Later hamas leaders will not be as public a target as Ranteesi.
So I think it is a terrible move to assassinate Palestinian leaders. Not only does it acts to polarise the world even further - it is illegal and immoral.
To those saying that the assassination of whathisnutz was ‘illegal’, what law in particular is purportedly being violated?
Many official media reports refer to the risks for Israel in killing Rantissi but, given Israel’s avowed aim to kill these people, it seems a smart move, tactically.
As **Fang ** suggest above, the “gates of hell” have yet to open after Yassin’s killing and, as any person who has their birthday on December 25 will know, you may get a slightly bigger present (revenge attack) but it not be the equal of two presents.
Plus Israel has been able to further disrupt what had apparently been a well-organised organisation both by taking out an important cog and hampering the ability to operate of a successor.
The BBC is reporting that a successor has been chosen but, for security reasons, will not be named - this, IMHO, is a tactical mistake by the Palestinians, because if (or most likely, when) Israel finds out his identity, they will be able to kill him with minimum fuss, thus denying the Palestinians one of their main, albeit fairly ineffectual at the moment, weapons - outrage - internationally, but more importantly, among palestinians from whom future Hamas recruits will come.
I think you already know the answer to the question, and I’m not sure why you’re asking it, but anyway the answer is “The Geneva Convention”, which the US seems to take seriously in some cases:
What the heck does your linked article have to do with a nation killing the head of a terrorist organization?
Regardless, according to Convention IV,
So the ‘human shields’ crap is just that; Crap. If these idiots want to hide among the people, and the people are dumb enough to let them, Israel is well within its rights to engage in ‘military operations’. A good read on the matter.
Thanks for the Dorothy Dixer, Brutus. I had always assumed you would be pro-killing-sans-trial.
These political assassinations …
Extrajudicial killing are not only illegal under the Geneva Convention but are illegal under Israeli law.
“Israel’s policy of assassinating Palestinian activists is illegal according to Israeli law. Israel has outlawed the death penalty.” Read all about it at this site.
These assassinations also kill and injure other people who happen to be within the blast area. Killing people who are not even suspect of crime is also illegal under Israeli law.
On preview, I see from your reply to desmo, I was wrong about assuming a DD.
It’s actually Article 3, Para 1 (d)
The above in answer to Brutus, of course, not Antechinus.
A) Rantisi is not a protected person under Convention IV, so the protections of Convention IV do not apply to him. Note the definition of who is eligible for said protections:
Bolding mine.
By what convoluted logic can you argue that Rantisi is not taking active part in the hostilities? You yourself acknowledge that he is the head of a terrorist organization Hamas. Just because he is not the one climbing onto buses does not clear him of wrong-doing.
B) Were you just too lazy to scroll back to the top of your response, since I wasn’t pulling a DD?
In fact Brutus it is article 3 para d
"(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. "
From Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War
Oh it looks like Desmo already posted this.
So are you saying Kofi Annan does not understand international law?
No I was stirring.