Israel got them both which in my opinion probably compounds the positive effects.
As to who the next leader of Hamas will be, it won’t really end up a secret.
I said
(Bolding added in this re-quote). By that, I mean things like the fact that Rantissi wasn’t killed at least twice last week, because there would have definitely been civilians around (and hurt) at those times. By that I mean that both Yassin and Rantissi were killed using Helicopter-borne, relatively smaller sized, munitions, rather than dropping a 500-pounder on them from a combat airplane - remember, Rantissi already walked away from a previous attempt, for exactly that reason.
It’s a war. In a war, sometimes civilian casualties are not avoidable if the objectives are to be achieved. But I think I can make a good case that Israel tries to minimize these civilian casualties, rather than take a “don’t give a damn” attitude about them.
Conversely, the Palestinian terrorists, of course, are out specifically to cause civilian casualties on the Israeli side. So much for comparative ethics.
Dani
If israel isn’t going to suffer the consequences, then I fear tht some other country will, probably Britain.
Do I smell FEAR?
I disagree, obviously. As I’ve stated before, I don’t see much positive coming out of Yassin’s killing. By all accounts he wasn’t a real operational chief except for Hamas’ charity work and the ideological damage he had did ( which was profound ) was largely accomplished. Whatever positive was achieved by damaging the functionalitry of Hamas, was in my opinion compromised by the propaganda failure of turing him into a martyr. But we will see - a decade or two should be sufficent to get enough distance to render a judgement :).
I forgot to mention another “on the record” pont by the way ( the original “#3” ):
I think Israel’s tactics of assassination suck ass. Using missile strikes with the inevitable collateral damage is a woeful tactic. Much better that IDF suffer higher casualties themselves for the sake of greater precision. The lives of Palestinian civilians are indeed worth more than those of Israeli combatants under these conditions, just as the lives of Israeli civilians are worth more than those of Palestinian combatants. No, you don’t want to take that to an extreme - civilian casualties are inevitable in conflict. But when you’re talking assassination rather than bombing a factory or compound, the civilian body count is gratuitous and, again, very bad propaganda.
- Tamerlane
What I don’t understand is that Mossad used to be pretty good at “strategic removal”. Did their fuckup of the Meshal assassination put them out of business as far as assassinations are concerned?
I don’t really agree with this - from a practical POV, it doesn’t make sense.
Extracting a Hamas leader surrounded by armed bodyguards in a heavily-politicized and populated city in Gaza is almost certain to result in more Palistinian civilians killed in the crossfire resulting gun-battle, not less – and I dare to say, probably by a couple of orders of magnitude.
And that is of course on top of the numbers of Israeli soldiers killed.
I think the alternative you propose is actually less moral, as it will result in more killed to no purpose. The real choice, of course, is between risking civilian lives and leaving Hamas leaders alone.
An argument can be made either way - I am leaning towards the former, but I’m willing to concede that the latter has a good case too.
But there is no such halfway house as “sending in the ground troops for greater precision”. That is just an illusion. What you would get is a bloody gunfight in one of the most crowded places on earth. Dare I say that if Israel chose this course, they would get heavy blame for it?
And, in fact, the last time the Israelis tried sending in troops to make arrests (Operation Defensive Shield), that’s what happened, leading to the destruction of much of the old city of Nablus, damage to the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, massive disruption of the Palestinian economy and daily life, controversial things in Jenin (I’m not touching it), and the deaths of about 500 Palestinians.
Not sure I agree. I wasn’t talking about “extracting”, I was talking about killing. Infiltrating snipers is much riskier and more difficult for the IDF than using guided munitions and would probably have a lower success rate, but snipers are a lot less likely to take out bystanders. They are, of course, a lot more likely to get killed themselves - retrieval would have to be pretty darn quick. Further, realistic opportunities would be far fewer.
If it is just a question assassinating Hamas leaders vs. not asassinating them, I remain torn, as I said. But if it comes down to letting them walk vs. getting them with a good chance of getting a significant number of bystanders as well, I say let them walk. YMMV, obviously.
As for making arrests without incident or with only minor incident, it’s been done ( it’s been bungled as well, as CA pointed out ). It’s just hard - again opportunities would be few. All a matter of your sense of urgency, I suppose.
- Tamerlane
I can’t imagine how infiltrating snipers into (say) Gaza would be accomplished, or if infiltrated, they would not be the target of a big chase; or if chased, they would not shoot back and call for help - probably resulting in the arrival of helecopter gunships (and ensuing carnage).
It just doesn’t seem like a safe or realistic alternative to me. But then again, there is nothing safe in war, much less in guerrilla or terrorist conflict - particularly as the said terrorists or freedom fighters make damn sure that they are surrounded by plenty of civilians.
In reality, the choice is simple: risk innocent civilian lives (I don’t care what method is chosen, they all risk civilian lives) … or don’t go after them. Demanding perfect civilian safety is the equivalent of demanding that they do nothing, because perfect civilian safety can never be guarenteed if you are trying to kill specific, very wary people living in a crowded city.
The same considerations rule out arresting them (or trying to), or in fact interfering with them in any way - in other words, the only ethical thing for Israel to do is leave them alone and try to intercept them at the border, before they kill anyone.
If I was living in Israel, I wouldn’t like the sound of those “rules”. They in effect concede perfect safety to planning and organizing terrorist attacks. Since the actual persons who carry out such attacks are deluded teenagers who intend to die in the attempt, the real terrorist masterminds can carry out their plots without any risk at all.
I far prefer trying to interdict their plans before they make the actual run with a bomb strapped to their body.
Well poking around at least one ( biased, admittedly ) cite reports that 38% of Israeli assassination attempts and 55% of recent attempts were carried out by aircraft. Meanwhile undercover units and military raids accounted for most of the rest. Including, apparently, actions in Gaza. The undercover actions would appear to me to be an altogether more palatable method - the question of course is whether it is an ineffective method for getting senior leadership.
Again, from a somewhat biased source, but they do seem to have set of statistics at least:
http://www.pchrgaza.org/files/Reports/English/pdf_killing/killing%20report6.pdf
- Tamerlane
Unfortunately, it requires Adobe reader which I don’t have on this computer … but I think that different methods would be required for different targets. A senior figure surrounded by armed guards is not likely to be as easy to get to by a lone assassin as a lower-level figure sans escort.
You can use google to format the pdf as html. Put in the link in the search box, and click on “view as html”.
Meanwhile Washington Times report Hamas is in a crisis as leaders are killed.
It appears, at least according to the terrorists themselves, that killing terrorists reduce terror.
Also it’s quite interesting that enhanced security measures are listed as a barrier to making terrorist actions in Israel. Would those measures be the security fence? As well as the last paragraph: “Arafat is still against any action by the Palestinian Authority’s security services against Hamas, because he doesn’t want to do it while Israel gives no political price.” Seems Arafat has thrown away all pretences, and is now quite obvious about his use of terror as a bargain chip. According to Nabil Khatib naturally.
As you yourself said, it’s a war. And a one-sided one at that. If the Palestinians were as well-armed as the Israelis, do you think they would still resort to suicide bombings?
Leaving morality firmly aside for the moment, the Palistinian way of waging war is not a good but desparate tactic for a ‘liberation’ movement, resorted to because other courses are not available. It is a worthless tactic. It convinces the (more powerful) enemy that you are not reasonable; it angers them, and causes them to respond in kind. In this type of war, a race to the bottom in terms of terror tactics can only result in the destruction of the weaker party.
If I was a Palistinian leader, and my main concern was in wringing concessions from the Israelis, a far more effective tactic would be to adopt non-violence and shame the Israelis with peacefull rallies, sit-ins, and other sorts of non-violent demonstrations. This would play to Palistinian strengths and Israeli weaknesses.
Of course, this account misses the point by a mile - Hamas has zero interest in getting concessions, or in forming a viable Palistinian state. They are an apocalyptic movement which hopes to goad the Israelis and the Muslim world into a war of extermination, resulting in the utter destruction of Israel. They make no secret of this.
There’s a difference betwenn blowing up a school bus full of kids and calling about the King David Hotel three times.
Again I ask - if the Palestinians had the Apache helicopters and the tanks and all else the IDF is armed with thanks to the US military, would the Palestinians resort to suicide bombings? You can criticize their tactics all you like (as I do), but how can criticism of the tactics become rejection of the reasons they fight when there appear to be no other recourses to the prosecution of their war for liberation?
And a difference in spell checking and not.
Which are what? Does a peaceful sit-in or rally somehow prevent the IDF from attacking with armed force those sitting in or rallying?
No, but it makes IDF justification for such actions harder. So long as the IDF attacks guerillas or bombers, both the IDF and the Israeli people can say, “They deserve it.” If the IDF attacks unarmed peaceful protesters, that becomes harder to do. Peaceful protests appeal to one’s compassion and moral sense a lot more than violent ones.