Israelis assassinate Hamas leader

It absolutely is an 'anti-semitic' issue.

I suggest you go and read the Hamas covenant.

Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes.

There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.

This bit is priceless, the 'enemy' are the Jews, FWIW.

For a long time, the enemies have been planning, skillfully and with precision, for the achievement of what they have attained. They took into consideration the causes affecting the current of events. They strived to amass great and substantive material wealth which they devoted to the realisation of their dream. With their money, they took control of the world media, news agencies, the press, publishing houses, broadcasting stations, and others. With their money they stirred revolutions in various parts of the world with the purpose of achieving their interests and reaping the fruit therein. They were behind the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about, here and there. With their money they formed secret societies, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, the Lions and others in different parts of the world for the purpose of sabotaging societies and achieving Zionist interests. With their money they were able to control imperialistic countries and instigate them to colonize many countries in order to enable them to exploit their resources and spread corruption there.

You may speak as much as you want about regional and world wars. They were behind World War I, when they were able to destroy the Islamic Caliphate, making financial gains and controlling resources. They obtained the Balfour Declaration, formed the League of Nations through which they could rule the world. They were behind World War II, through which they made huge financial gains by trading in armaments, and paved the way for the establishment of their state. It was they who instigated the replacement of the League of Nations with the United Nations and the Security Council to enable them to rule the world through them. There is no war going on anywhere, without having their finger in it.

There's some interesting analysis floating about today. Israel's withdrawal from south Lebanon was presented by Hamas as a victory and may have lead directly to the second Intifada, at a time when, IIRC, there was great hope for peace. By attacking Hamas Israel may be able to withdraw from Gaza without stimulating increasing rhetoric and violence.

Paul

 

Didn't have you down as such an optimist Paul. 200,000 people protesting against the assassination on the streets of Gaza doesn't fill me with the any optimism that it won't have the opposite effect.

Some interesting discussion today about how, in killing Yasin, Israel may have killed a Hamas leader who was increasingly inclined to accept a two-state solution was the only practical outcome.

-- Ian

 

OK, so it's in the Guardian, and therefore pinko propaganda, but nevertheless interesting:

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

-- Ian

 

[quote[Didn't have you down as such an optimist Paul.[/quote]
I'm actually extremely pessimistic about the fundamentalist Islam world in general. It is so intrinsically oppressive that it cannot be long term stable but the only way to keep the free world safe is to defeat it sooner rather than later, doing nothing isn't an option as much as many 'pacifists' would like it to be.

Perhaps the best approach would have been to allow Saddam Hussein to occupy Iran, Kuwait and Saudia Arabia, Jordan, Syria and then defeated him at the gates of Cairo?

FWIW 200 000 (claimed...) people shouting is much better than 1 person blowing up teenagers in a nightclub or commuters on a train.

Paul

 

I don't believe the only options are either doing nothing or engaging in a military strategy which shows no signs of doing anything but make matters worse.

I have no truck with Islamic fundamentalism, and agree with the assessment that it's a barbaric medieval throwback, but it has political roots, gains a large measure of its soft support from the actions of Israel and the US, and can be marginalised if those issues (of which Palestine is only one) are resolved equitably.

It's dangerous to assume, as many in the West do, that the Islamic world is an undifferentiated mass of oppression. Like any movement mobilising large numbers, it is splintered by its own internal disagreements, and significant numbers of Muslims are, in fact, socially extremely liberal, and completely reject the notion that, for example, Sharia law has any basis in the Koran.

Saddam's regime, vile as it was, was actually secular. The way the Iraq question has been confused with the questions of al-Qaeda, Hamas, the Taliban, etc, by the White House is beyond belief.

But the second will follow from the first, there's no doubt about that.

-- Ian

 

Not to mention plenty of advanced munitions, and the meens of delivering them, happily supplied by the US.

 

one thing to be wary of is endless analysis, what needs to happen is a solution, rather than shooting everyone down in flames, its easy to do the media thing and offer relentless analysis, rhetoric, talking, opining and criticisms, however action and solutions is needed.

It is a monstrously difficult situation tho', I can sympathise with Pauls opinion that fundamentalism ought to give way to the kind of democracy that Muslims find accpetable within their religion,if at all possible, and terror ought to be stamped out, as it is a threat to freedom, and perhaps construing it as a war is justified, and any leaders who engage in it are a legitimate military target.

The trouble is, the Islamic psyche is such that stamping out a direct threat is considered an attack on the whole of Islam, and then they all rally around and become a potential threat, then the logical concluson is that the whole of the Palestinians will have to be liquidated, and on to the whole world. this is the sad conclusion that infects some Israeli hard liners.

What can you do? Nothing and let the bombing of innocents continue, or act and others will simply jump in their place and it will continue ad infinitum.

Israel cannot give in as fanatics everywhere will see bombings a road to getting what you want.
But then what it is doing is clearly wrong, too.

I have no answers to this.

It is simply the reality that we live with, and the road will be long, more bombs will go off, more innocents die on both sides, sadly, tragically, until one day, maybe, we will be peaceful, in thousands of years, then again, maybe not.

The har-megiddo valley is not far from their, from where the bibilical word armageddon derives, some scholars say Israel will be nuked by terrorist fanatics. All very interesting

However, Western 'terrorism' is insidious and sophisticated, and perhaps being a leader of a country means that to act in your countries and peoples best interest, others interests become less, and this could result in acts which could be defined as terrorist, tho' not in the sense of the word as in killing innocents 'explicitly'.

The solution is what John Lennon said, for there to be no countries, differences, religions, as where there is desire, there is urge, and that has to be fulfilled and satisfied, which leads to me above you, I am more important, my needs have to be met, this leads to hurting others more, and to crime, and to murder.

 

There was a common cause. Iraq supported Hamas with large amounts of money, the Palestinians supported Iraq even when the rest of the Arab world was against them back in 1991. Both groups want(ed) the destruction of Israel.

It's much easier to defeat an enemy you can see.

You really think Hamas can raise its successful attack rate? I doubt it. Or that Al Quaeda will now be more motivated to bomb?

Paul

 

Palestine cannot give in as armed aggressors everywhere will see military invasion and occupation a road to getting what you want…

Me neither!

Tony.

 

I don't believe this to be the case.

Paul

 

On the one hand we have the eradication of Israel and the removal of the Jews so that the entirety of Palestine can become a fundamentalist Islamic state.

On the other we have a political settlement along the lines of the Oslo Accords.

The former is the only outcome acceptable to Hamas and they will continue to 'struggle' until it is reached. The former is acceptable to Israel and (presumably) most rational Palestinians. The best of a bad job.

You simply cannot equate the two positions without tacitly supporting the Jihad.

Paul

 

But in the context of a "War on Terror" the invasion of Iraq was a spectacularly hollow victory. FWIW I would have supported the war if the claims of Saddam's threat were actually true. They clearly weren't, even at the time of the invasion, and the result of making war without international support is a less safe world. The post-hoc re-justification of the war as a gesture to free the Iraqi people from a despot has an awfully hollow ring to it too. I don't buy the simplistic position held by some leftists that it's a simple case of imperialism, or that the war was primarily fought for oil, but I don't buy the paranoid militarism that passes for US foreign policy since 9/11 either.

Well, no doubt Hamas has many new recruits volunteering for suicide bombings today. As for the lunatics of al-Qaeda, I doubt they need any more motivation than they already have.

I'm not a pacifist. If I thought that what are primarily political problems like Palestine could be solved militarily, I'd have no problem with that. But they quite clearly can't.

-- Ian

 

hmmm I think some hard line Israelis would like to see the end of Palestine

 

I never really understood the invasion of Iraq. Why it was then rather than years ago. The 'coalition' had been standing on his neck since 1991 and resolving that was a good thing, especially when lifting the boot would have simply allowed Iraq to develop the WMD that haven't been found. But it wasn't presented very well and I think too much political capital has been squandered.

But should Israel tolerate constant killing of its citizens in random attacks? Turning the other cheek is a nice idea, but it doesn't work for long term peace with neighbouring bullies with designs on moving in.

Paul

 

I wonder if the invasion of Iraq was for Bush jnr to say, I did what you failed to do daddy!! so there,

or for the desire to alleviate his fathers regret about not having done it.

So, the conclusion thus far is...

1. Israel is wrong in oppressing the Palestinians.
2. Suicide bombings are wrong.
3. Israel needs to defend itself.
4. Palestine seeks establishment and wishes to flourish.

To feel sorry for the Palestinians and to give in is evidence of giving in to terrorism, so that cannot happen.

Israel should not oppress innocent Palestinians.

How can the 2 come together?, mediated agreement is the only option, first they have to agree on mutual things, but the hard liners will constantly perpetrate atrocities, and scupper the process, i cannot see a realistic way out.

 

Why wasn't it finished in 1991 I often ask myself, when the coalition had the Kuwait invasion to legitimise the action. Looking at it purely from the point of view of realpolitik, Bush Snr screwed up. I suspect Richard Clarke's book may help to answer why Bush Jnr thought now was a good time to finish the job. It was clearly a mistake in my view. He's dug a hole that'll take years to get out of.

Turning the other cheek isn't an option, but targeting Yassin now (when they could have killed him at any time - he wasn't exactly in hiding) seems like remarkably poor timing. No doubt they did it to prevent Hamas claiming victory for the withdrawal from Gaza, but it will be counter-productive, I'm sure. Perhaps they killed him in the hope that a violent reaction would give them an excuse for not withdrawing from Gaza. Anything's possible.

ISTM that the political leadership of neither side really has any stomach for the roadmap. Given that the West have minimal ability to influence the view of the Palestinian side, I think it's time to begin to put major pressure on the side we do have some influence over - the Israelis. This would have the side benefit of making the West appear to give a damn about the fate of the Palestinians, a politically astute game to be playing at this time, I would have thought, as progress on the Palestinian question will doubtless erode some of the soft support for Islamic terrorism.

All very cynical, of course, but cynicism is the reality of Middle Eastern politics, which is why it's been allowed to get so messy.

-- Ian

 

Wasn't it because the Saudi's advised that it would turn into another Iran/Afghanistan if you removed Saddam?

Saddam was a reasonable compromise - a butcher with no religous axe to grind, who could keep his Arab neighbours worried, so that they would buy Western technology/training and winge a bit less about Israel..because they needed our help, instead of the West just needing their oil, and therefore having to dance to the Opec tune.

 

On both sides I am sure that there are more moderates than extremists – most of the people getting killed on both sides are ordinary folk going about their daily business.

The key is to marginalize the extremists. The trouble is that whilst Hamas is a (admittedly powerful) religious faction, the right-wing extremists and murderers in the Israeli government are 'official' and are seen to have full western support. The lines are not drawn equally, and the underdog is usually seen to have more credibility than the oppressor. IMHO the UN needs to act and get Israel to behave lawfully before anyone can start any really meaningful dialogue. Building huge illegal walls through occupied territory and murdering religious leaders is certainly not the way forward.

Tony.

 

A good start but things must I think go further and include many of the people who have vested intrests or who have been in charge throughout this sorry period of history. This will be hard as you may well have to take the knife to several stratum such as politicians, some religious types, some public servants from both communities.

Just how deep do you need to cut to ensure the trust of the other side?
Who cuts first?
What happens if external proxies flood into to fill the gaps?

Auric

 

As an old Belfast boy, I know of only one way out. You have to regard your past history as a lesson in what not to do, sit down with the other party and say, "We're both in this hole together NOW and getting nowhere fast - starting from HERE, how do we work together to build a better future for both our peoples in this country? Especially for the kids - they are are future. ANd we don't want them to inherit this misery after we've gone. We're both going to hurt, but that comes with the territory. It'll take courage and understanding and a willingness to compromise that makes the Swiss look like rabid extremists. But it's the only way to go".

Problem is, it has yet to work in Northern Ireland. And only a miracle will make it work in the Middle East, and, as our US cousins would say, we appear to be fresh out of them there.