“Removal”

Or maybe flight.

Terry Pratchett has the right idea — call it “inhumation.”

Well, I, for one, think it’s quite understandable–even laudable–that Belton felt a little squeamish about the killing. Personally, I consider it to have been necessary and morally justified, and I suspect Belton feels the same way. But I still find the thought of killing anyone–even a terrorist leader–viscerally unsettling.

Killing–even justified killing, as in self-defense or (in my view, under certain circumstances) execution of a convicted murderer–is a disturbing, unhappy business, and that is why most of us try to avoid thinking about it, even when it may be necessary and right. I can hardly rejoice that someone, even someone like Sheikh Yassin, had to be targeted for death.

The late Sheikh and his followers, on the other hand, did rejoice at the deaths of their victims, and even of their own suicidal colleagues. (Yassin is quoted as saying, “The day in which I will die as a shahid [martyr] will be the happiest day of my life.”) Let them celebrate death, I say; I will continue to celebrate only life.

I think we can assume the author did not avoid the use of the word “assassinated” or “killed” or “eliminated,” or “rubbed out,” etc. to protect readers’ delicate sensibilities, or out of respect for the off’ed…

Would the author have used the same word if he disagreed with the political rationale for the “removal?”

Bush has led the way in euphemisms for push-button guided missile assassinations, actually. I can’t remember the exact words, but when an armed drone knocked out a group of Al-Qaeda suspects in Yemen, Bush gave a speech with a yuk-yuk ‘we won’t be seeing them round these parts’ line.

But I associate ‘removal’ with firing. Or defeat. Such as Bush’s being removed from the White House.

Yes, “removal” also makes me think of the mob. Make it a bit self-defeating to be using it in place of “killing” here.

This European has a mixed reaction to that “removal”. On the one hand, I agree with Sebastian. Hamas is a terrorist organisation; there’s a war situation there going on, and in the absence of a situation where terrorist leaders can be brought to trial, the ethical and political right to kill terrorist leaders is a no-brainer for me. I don’t think it’s a matter for rejoicing. But I don’t see why a “spiritual” (uh) leader of a terrorist organisation cannot get the same treatment that organisation administered to others.

On the other hand, I just can’t help wondering, why now? Was it necessary? Was it wise? What’s the point of killing one leader, if the organisation is still there and well functioning? And why do they kill these guys with such conspicious methods? Just the thought of a missile sent out to kill one person… I don’t quite the intended effect of that. What tactical advantage does it give? I see none, but then again, I’m an outsider, so there’s a lot of things about that situation I don’t get.

I always thought that the word assassination was used for the killing of political or public figures because it was slightly more morally ambiguous than plain old murder. It does seem to contain at least the implication that the person assassinated’s status or acts might have contributed to the process that saw them killed.

Using the term also acknowledges that it is at least arguable that the killing of a public figure might have more generally beneficial effects without necessarily implying approval of the act itself. On the other hand, if you do think the act is justified, you can use the term assassination instead of murder in justifying it.

“Removal” is a grotesque euphemism. I wonder how many Isreali citizens will be “removed” by suicide bombers as a result of Yassin’s death?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.