“Removal”

by Kieran Healy on March 23, 2004

Where I come from, a “Removal” is when the body of a recently deceased person is transported from their house or the Funeral Home to the Church, where it awaits the funeral ceremony. I believe the phrase “The Viewing” is roughly equivalent in the United States. Which is why “Patrick Belton’s words”:http://oxblog.blogspot.com/2004_03_21_oxblog_archive.html#107999854522914337 threw me off for a few moments:

bq. Haaretz has a number of good pieces about the removal this morning of Sheikh Yassin: … Dichter argued against Yassin’s removal … while Europeans considered Yassin’s removal (to my mind, dubiously – has anyone seen a fleshed-out argument?) as a violation of international law …

Now, Patrick also quotes a news report that uses the correct word in this context — i.e., “assassination” — so I’m wondering why he avoids it himself. I can’t think of any good argument to prefer a euphemism like “removal” to “assassination,” or even to “killing.” Is it well-established in this context? Is the unarticulated implication here that actions of this sort cannot count as assassinations because they are carried out by the State? This seems obviously wrong. Better to just “come out and say”:http://www.jnewswire.com/news_archive/04/03/040322_yassin.asp that you thought they were right to kill him, I think, than let a euphemism do the work for you. If not, then should I expect to read about “removal attempts” in future? And what does this new usage imply about companies who carry out furniture removals?

{ 29 comments }

1

Tom T. 03.23.04 at 1:36 am

Under US immigration law, “removal” is now the official term for what used to be called “deportation.” Used in Patrick’s context, a notice from immigration authorities that one has been targeted for a “removal proceeding” would truly be cause for trepidation.

2

gowingz 03.23.04 at 1:55 am

Or maybe flight.

3

SqueakyRat 03.23.04 at 2:14 am

An Israeli Cabinet minister was quoted as saying Yassin was “marked for death by Israel.” They’re not squeamish about it. Why should Belton be?

4

Omri 03.23.04 at 2:17 am

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

5

Sebastian Holsclaw 03.23.04 at 2:30 am

It is actually a fairly common euphemism for killing. I believe it comes from a mob background.

But I have no trouble with the saying: “Sheikh Yassin was killed as is right and just for those who lead organizations dedicated to the express purpose of murdering civilians.”

6

Dan Simon 03.23.04 at 2:45 am

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.

7

plover 03.23.04 at 4:36 am

My reaction is the same as sebastian’s – that (in the U.S. anyway) it’s a fairly common term associated with the mob. As such, it would generally connote more a mannered irony than euphemism.

That said, the way the word is used twice in the first sentence rings a bit strangely to me; though whether I would have had that reaction if my attention had not been called to the word I don’t know…

8

andrew 03.23.04 at 5:11 am

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?”

9

anon 03.23.04 at 7:49 am

It was neither necessary nor morally justified. Yassin did not play an operational role in Hamas suicide bombings. He was a speechmaker and a politician who provided intellectual and spiritual leadership to Hamas. If Israel had evidence that Yassin was directly involved in military operations, they could easily have arrested him and put him on trial (since Yassin operated above ground). That might have been morally justified.

The killing will not protect Israeli citizens in the future. Yassin’s replacements will be more radical than him. The assasination will however achieve its purpose — cutting off any possibility for peace negotiations, radicalizing Shi’ite and Arab opinion even further against the U.S. so as to draw the U.S. closer to Israel. In general it will create a backlash that will provide cover to Sharon for his broader purposes of unilateral annexation of West Bank land and brutalizing the Palestinian people into submission.

As a side effect, BTW, it will make the U.S. position in Iraq that much more difficult and dangerous. But Sharon does not care about that. Neither do the American posters here, strangely enough.

10

nick 03.23.04 at 7:51 am

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.

11

John 03.23.04 at 8:46 am

Anon, Hamas is a Sunni organization. You are thinking of Hezbollah.

12

pepi 03.23.04 at 8:54 am

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.

13

blogreader 03.23.04 at 9:29 am


Anon, Hamas is a Sunni organization. You are thinking of Hezbollah.

I am no mindreader, but the Shiite part is more relevant. To quote from the blog of Juan Cole:


In fact, a lot of Sistani’s feistiness and determination that Iraq is not going to end up with a long-term Western occupation derives from his low opinion of the Israeli treatment of Palestinians. The US can to some significant degree thank Ariel Sharon’s iron fist for the distrust and suspicion with which their presence in Iraq is greeted.

http://www.juancole.com/2004_03_01_juancole_archive.html#108002597540012091

Sistani is generally considered more influential than his Sunni equivalents.

14

jamie 03.23.04 at 12:03 pm

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?

15

Brett Bellmore 03.23.04 at 4:27 pm

“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.

16

neil 03.23.04 at 4:44 pm

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.

17

mc 03.23.04 at 5:03 pm

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?

18

anon 03.23.04 at 5:05 pm

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.

19

Barry 03.23.04 at 5:18 pm

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.

20

Patrick 03.23.04 at 6:31 pm

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.

21

Sebastian Holsclaw 03.23.04 at 7:14 pm

“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.)

22

mc 03.23.04 at 9:16 pm

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?

23

nick 03.23.04 at 9:25 pm

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.

24

neil 03.23.04 at 10:14 pm

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.

25

msg 03.23.04 at 11:16 pm

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.

26

Sebastian Holsclaw 03.24.04 at 12:55 am

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.

27

mc 03.24.04 at 9:17 am

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.

28

mc 03.24.04 at 9:26 am

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.

29

Robin 03.24.04 at 6:27 pm

More perspective on this issue here: Middle East viewpoints.

Comments on this entry are closed.