Comments on: “Removal”

By: Robin

Robin — Wed, 24 Mar 2004 18:27:22 +0000

More perspective on this issue here: Middle East viewpoints.

By: mc

mc — Wed, 24 Mar 2004 09:26:11 +0000

Sebastian, you haven’t actually said why it should be good in the long term. Terrorists don’t need any spiritual leader when they have large support and well-organised structures. You cut off one head, another one springs up. I just can’t see the usefulness of striking like this. I think the ordinary operations, especially by Israeli intelligence, are far more productive in terms of results. For all attacks that do turn out successful, there’s dozens that get prevented. They do an amazing job, even if it’s in the background. I get the feeling these assassinations on prominent figures are more for political resonance purposes. But, those effects seem to me to be more directed at Israeli citizens rather than terrrorists. You placate the anger, you show your people that even while you’re dismantling settlements and releasing prisoners and terrorists and considering withdrawal, you’re not being a wimp. It’s a show of force. Understandable, and like I said, I do consider it a right, both ethically and politically. But as for practical effects on terrorists and their supporters… I have serious doubts there’s any.

By: mc

mc — Wed, 24 Mar 2004 09:17:57 +0000

neil – The problem that arises for me, mc, is where do you draw the line? Uhm, the line is pretty clearly drawn between civilians being purposefully targeted by terrorists and civilians dying in strikes in reaction against terrorists. Like, if you’re trying to strangle me, I’ll grab a knife and shove it in the nearest part of your body. So that you won’t kill me… I don’t want to kill you. I just want to stop you from killing me. Self-defense. When it involves larger communities, and not just individuals, the lines may appear less clear, only because you don’t see an immediate reaction against the attacker only. But the principle is the same. Placing due process aside, we know that Ariel Sharon has also made several decisions to strike civilian targets which have resulted in the deaths of innocent people (as have most world leaders). Terrorist or not? Assassination justified or not? Neither. It’s a war. I’m sorry but though I’m 100% left wing European I never shared that equating of Israel’s self-defense to terrorism. It seems stupid. It’s like tunnel vision. You’re isolating the defense reaction and forgetting about the attack that spurred it. Else, what would you advocate in terms of self-defense? I mean, strictly self-defense, aside from the political solutions which have in fact been tried and tried and tried anyway. I’m not sure about Sharon striking civilians on purpose. Right now, Israel always chooses targeted strikes. I haven’t heard of any indistcriminate bombings of entire cities. They use up to 3 missiles to get at one terrorist. If other people around him die, well it sucks, but it sucks a bit more that terrorists should strike at all, doesn’t it? Just because it all sucks, doesn’t mean there’s no rights and all wrongs. The word ‘terrorist’ is so ideological that it is almost entirely without meaning, especially when it is applied to the accomplices or supporters of people who are actually carrying out acts of death and destruction. I don’t know what you mean there by accomplices of supporters etc., Terrorism is something very precise and specific, I think that’s a given. You can view it as equal to the military defense reaction to it, if you really like, fair enough, everyone has their opinions. But that doesn’t make any sense to me. I don’t see terrorism as part of any valid fight for whatever. The moment a group uses terrorism to advance their aims, they’re disqualifying them completely, even if the aims may be legitimate. See the Basques and ETA… I may not approve of the actions Aznar took in response, I may hate Aznar and his policies, but I still cannot see how he could be defined a terrorist. Ditto for Sharon.

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Wed, 24 Mar 2004 00:55:49 +0000

I’ll admit that the question of whether or not the killing was justified (clearly yes) and whether or not it was strategically wise are different. My guess on the strategic value is that in the short term in it a touch risky, in the medium term it is probably good, and in the long run it is almost certainly good. It is risky in the short run because it can enflame some particular outpouring of immediate violence. In the medium term it is unlikely to provoke more violence than was already likely from Hamas, but its leader can’t actively inspire anyone else. Also there might be some particularly deadly infighting among Hamas leader trying to gain control of the money (I mean spiritual organization.) Long run, hard to speculate, but if the medium run guess is correct, the long run outlook is good.

By: msg

msg — Tue, 23 Mar 2004 23:16:56 +0000

The metaphor of this time may well be that guy who was arrested for kicking the bear. It was in Tennessee, but it could have been downtown LA. Tourist sees a young black bear attack a fawn, in order to eat it, tourist attacks the bear. Morality. – Our laws and moral codes are a thin shield, and easily warped. Underneath is the same ancient fang and claw. At some point the threat that Israel and the Arab world are to each other becomes a contest of animal power, regardless of how it started, regardless of the moral teachings and justifications of either side. The illusion is that an identifiable morality underlies the aggressive action and defensive reaction, that something deep within us all is deeply moral. But it’s really something we’re reaching for, some of us, something we’re trying to create. And it’s easily torn down, or bent to the selfish ends of lesser men. In that light the work and sacrifice of people like Itzak Rabin becomes more heroic than ever.

By: neil

neil — Tue, 23 Mar 2004 22:14:57 +0000

The problem that arises for me, mc, is where do you draw the line? Placing due process aside, we know that Ariel Sharon has also made several decisions to strike civilian targets which have resulted in the deaths of innocent people (as have most world leaders). Terrorist or not? Assassination justified or not? Go outside of the political sphere and you’ll find some private citizens who are indirectly guilty of knowingly causing deaths. Would a targeted missile strike have been appropriate against the Philip Morris executive office building? How about the guy who posted the web site giving addresses of abortion doctors and requesting that they be killed? Should he have been extrajudicially removed? The word ‘terrorist’ is so ideological that it is almost entirely without meaning, especially when it is applied to the accomplices or supporters of people who are actually carrying out acts of death and destruction.

By: nick

nick — Tue, 23 Mar 2004 21:25:04 +0000

Better for the world that he was killed. I’m sure your moral calculus would be refined, were your daily commute to involve an Israeli bus.

By: mc

mc — Tue, 23 Mar 2004 21:16:08 +0000

Aside from the kill-assassinate-murder-remove-terminate-interrupt air support language mess, I think Patrick has a good point here: “the question of whether Israel was right to kill him lies only in the realm of strategic, not moral, debate.” I too find it just a bit too rich that there’s so much discussion on whether it was ethically right or not to kill a terrorist leader. But the tactics may be very wrong all the same. It’d be interesting to hear more discussion on that, perhaps?

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Tue, 23 Mar 2004 19:14:30 +0000

“Yassin could indeed have been brought to trial. Israel had done it before.” Of course, and then when there were bombings dedicated to the release of that ‘political prisoner’ they could release him. Or maybe Hamas could engage in the fun kidnapping, torture and then exchange of ‘prisoners’ like they did in the mid 1990s. That would be fun. Better for the world that he was killed. (To be clear I intentionally did not use the word murdered.)

By: Patrick

Patrick — Tue, 23 Mar 2004 18:31:05 +0000

I believe the correct term to use is “whacked”. Yassin was “whacked”. I think it also correctly conveys the fact that all parties to this conflict behave like mobsters.

By: Barry

Barry — Tue, 23 Mar 2004 17:18:28 +0000

Jamie, I think that you’re assuming that ‘assassinate’ means something less heinous than ordinary murder. I wouldn’t be surprised if the term was used to indicate a more heinous crime.

By: anon

anon — Tue, 23 Mar 2004 17:05:04 +0000

You’re right, Hezbollah is Shi’ite, Hamas is Sunni. I was indeed reacting to Sistani’s condemnation of the killing. Regardless, the political implications here are not good. Yassin could indeed have been brought to trial. Israel had done it before. Lining up and yelling “evil!” every time one of these guys dies is not the way to think about things. Sharon is the power player here, not Yassin. Sharon has an agenda of annexing west bank land and avoiding compromises or peace talks that would force him to give any back on Palestinian terms. He is demonstrably willing to kill large numbers of innocent (as well as guilty) Palestinians to do that. This was about moving his agenda forward. Like the poster above, I recommend Juan Cole’s blog for a good commentary on this. I’m somewhat disappointed in Kieran for chickening out on posting his view on the actual assasination and just posting a somewhat cutesy little paragraph on language use.

By: mc

mc — Tue, 23 Mar 2004 17:03:07 +0000

Patrick is assuming the word ‘assassination’ necessarily contains a judgement on the right to assassinate, rather than describing the act itself. assassinate – To murder (a prominent person) by surprise attack, as for political reasons. Doesn’t it fit perfectly?

By: neil

neil — Tue, 23 Mar 2004 16:44:12 +0000

I think plover is right, it’s an intended ironic usage. But I think that’s what Kieran was assuming also—the unarticulated implication of using that phrase ironically is that it’s describing a minor, routine, inoffensive event.

By: Brett Bellmore

Brett Bellmore — Tue, 23 Mar 2004 16:27:31 +0000

“I wonder how many Isreali citizens will be “removed” by suicide bombers as a result of Yassin’s death?” None, I would guess, since they were going to be “removed” in any case. In fact, given that Israeli deaths from suicide bombers have actually declined since Israel started killing terrorist leaders, maybe it will save a few.