Holy cow! I went to CNN.com and saw this:

Hamas founder killed

Now obviously, there is gonna be some major violence towards Israel during the next few days and maybe into next week, but the question i am gonna ask is gonna be this:

How will this effect the peace negotiations?

Personally, i think with the founder of Hamas dead (if he is the nerve center of Hamas), then i think Hamas will shatter and peace negotiations will continue and be successful. There might be splinter groups who would want to continue to target Israel, but i think peace now has a chance

Pales will go looney tunes and CNN will be covering more death soon enough imo. Other than that, im amazed that old coot survived as long as he did.

Breaking News! Hamas founder dead!

This is good news! How he has survived until now is astounding! I imagine there will be protests of outrage and more suicide bombings...but in the long run, it just may cause weakening within the network as well as impose psychological damage. Who knows...hope they don't have the network similar to al Qaeda!

You know, to defeat an enemy, you have to understand how that enemy thinks, play to his weakness, and use your strengths-

Turn the tables a bit here and think more if you were on the other side - how would've the US reacted had Al-Quada been succesful at taking out GW Bush? Even GW haters like myself would be calling for blood, and even his enemies would be looking for ways to hurt and get revenge on the opposition. Now, since this was a founder of Hamas, and beloved by his poeple, let us take the analogy a tad further- imagine an enormously respected and loved statesmen, even in his conteperary opponents eyes, such as Goerge Washington, was assasinated, how much more would have we used him as a symbol then?

So, given that, what do you think it is going to do to thier movement and the peace process then? How well do you think the peace process will go if Hamas succeeds in killing Sharon (which, I think, overall, would be more positive for the process than killing the Hamas leader)?

It is a cycle that will just grow more vicious.

While I think it is good news, and there will most assuredly be severe retaliations, I am not quite as optimistic as you on the movement toward peace. That Arafat is the stumbling block. What will be interesting is now that the head guy of Hamas is out of the picture will Arafat finally agree to something and keep his word? It is such a volatile situation that it is hard to predict what will evolve out of this breaking news.



Ah, not a Sharon fan! Well, he has his faults and has committed his share of sins, but IMO, Arafat is the weak link in the whole process.

I do not think that the killing of this man will make any difference. The Palestinians will vow revenge, but they are still behind in catching up on previous "revenge" killings. The Isreali government will pursue it's usual course while its civilians die in "acceptable" numbers. And the numbers (and demographics of the victims) are acceptable. Why else does it persist?

Long after I am dead, this conflict will persist.

If Israel still needs help in combating the PLO then they will probably fund a new recruit to lead the Hamas. I'm sure that's all in the past now. Or that all depends if Arafat is still the nemesis to Sharon. Arafat leads the PLO which is secular. The Hamas is a fundamental extremist group that also has it out for Arafat because they see him as weak and not proactive enough. Arafat, on the other hand, can keep his word, the problem is that he represents about 7 nationalities that can’t keep theirs. Not all Palestianians will vow revenge, that is like saying all Jews approve of ethnic cleansing. Sharon and Arafat are the main reasons why there are peace talks being made. If either one of them are assassinated then we are likely to witness a real catastrophe—again.

In the short run this will escalate the violence. In the mid run it wont have much impact. But in the long run it will help the area move closer to peace.

Hamas is an evil enterprise and must be defeated. It cannot be negotiated with. Evil and terrorism are facts of life that must be dealt with in the severest of ways. Anything less has proven unsuccessful and only postponed and intensified the inevitable battles that we're fighting today.





And here lies exposed some of the thinking that if allowed to take hold in the USA will bring down a great nation. Rooting for death to the leadership of one of our staunchest allies seems a bit, shall we say, 'not quite pro-American'?

How will this effect the peace negotiations?

The first question that came to mind when I read this was: What peace negotiations??

Neither the PA nor the Israeli government wants "peace". They want to "win", which means that the other side "loses". How do you have peace negotiations when the outcome you want is for the other side to "lose"?

Anyway, the cycle of violence continues. Expect a wave of suicide bombers in the next 3 or so days. Then quiet and people saying "look what they did!" while pointing at the other side.

If Hamas succeeds in killing Sharon, the guy who takes his place will send in every troop into Palestine and wipe Hamas off the face of the Earth


Definetly not a Sharon fan. Sharon may had his share of killings like Hamas, but in the long term, Hamas is more of a threat. You are actually saying a leader of a terrorist group is not as bad as Sharon? You gotta be kidding me!


Desert Resident:

Well...it's obvious it'll turn into a blood bath for both sides for a while.

I am optimistic about the eace plan now. Now that the brains of the operation is gone, maybe Arafat will get the hint that Israel isn't screwing around and they will eliminate any obstacles to the peace process and the security of Israel

It's about time they took him out!

How will this effect the peace negotiations?

First off, he is now a MARTYR. The Hamas-Palestinian response will be devastating and I think there won't any peace negotiations anytime soon... BUT, if I'm wrong (and I hope I am) and there are peace negotiations in the near future, Arafat won't have Yassin to blame anything on. Arafat now bears the ENTIRE burden of the Palestinian future.

How will this effect the peace negotiations?
Sheikh Ahmed Yassin was nothing more then a spiritual head. I think this is an attempt to escalate this into a full out war. Sharon has been talking about pulling out of Gaza strip, which is against everything that he has stood for in the past. Prior to them pulling out though, they want to crack down on Hamas. I just don't see how a country can preach about peace and then instigate violence. I expect the Israeli's to be attacked and then the whole tit for tat struggle to go on indefinitely.

Tell me why they are our staunchest ally.
- The 5.5 billion dollars a year they are given.
- The numerous UN resolutions that they have ignored.
- The numerous UN resolutions that we have vetoed.
- The US warship that they suspiciously attacked.
- The weapons that we sell them to oppress the Palestinian people
- The way the media turns a blind eye to attacks on the Palestinians, but manages to reports every instance of violence on Israelis.
- The false intelligence they had given us to justify a war in Iraq.
- The ability to make our administration withdraw criticism of Israel.
- Our direct unconditional support for Israel is why we are currently fighting the WOT.
How is not being Pro-Israeli, being not Pro-American. I see it as the complete opposite. Supporting a government that directly oppresses a population of people isn't being "pro-American."

Ok, I think it would be helpful to know a little bit about Hamas, and why this is such a big deal. To the rest of the world, hamas is a semi-political terrorist organisation, bent on the elimination of the state of Israel, and sponsor (directly or indirectly) of probably 2/3 of the suicide bombs and attacks against Israel. It has a 'political wing' (much like the IRA had Sinn Fein) but that has lost all credibility in the last 5-8 years.

That is the world view. To the people of Palestine this is an organisation which has fed, clothed, educated and sheltered them. In the 1960s and 1970s, the cornerstone of the Islamic movement's success was an impressive social, religious, educational and cultural infrastructure, called Da'wah, that worked to ease the hardship of large numbers of Palestinian refugees, confined to camps, and many who were living on the edge of poverty. Hamas grew directly from this movement, founded in 1987. Hamas was a direct evolution from the Muslim Brotherhood, which was founded in 1928. This is why they became popular, respected and even loved by the people.

Now in the last 10 years they have radicalised, the Hamas charter of 1998 reads like a war proclamation (and is pretty funny, singling out as enemies organisations like the Rotary club) but they still have the legacy of being the only organisation that really helped the palestinian refugees and people for decades. But the situation has also redicalised. In 1998, support for the organisations politics was at 14% in Palestine, in 2001 following the latest Intefada it was at 25%.


That is why Hamas is so dangerous, and why it will most certainly NOT collapse or fall apart because a leader, or a few leaders are killed. Sheikh Ahmed Yassin was the founder of Hamas, and as such a critical figurehead who spoke often about the organisation's more extreme policies (elimination of Israel, extermination of Zionism, etc).

But he was also a 70 year old man who was a quadriplegic and incapable of functioning without constant care. He and apparently an assortment of bodyguards and caregivers were killed by rocket fire on the steps of a mosque after finishing their prayers.


Israel may feel better knowing that this man with the powerful history and influential voice is dead, and perhaps from a strategic point of view it makes sense to eliminate such people who are a focus of radicalism.

But to the Arab works, Israel fired an barrage of fragmentation rockets at a wheelchair bound elderly cripple on the steps of a mosque, a cripple who represented an organisation that fed, housed, educated and clothed countless refugees and hopeless people. To them, his radical political views probably seem justified by this attack.


There are no easy answers in the Middle East. Killing this man will cause a wave of attacks for a couple weeks, probably 5 or 6 explosions, killing 2 dozen people or so. Israel will then continue retaliating, bulldozing homes and building its wall, more Palestinians will be kicked out of their homes, or cut off from their work, and become refugees in desperation turn to Hamas or similar organisations, and become the agents of 'revenge' for the next attack. (refugee camps provide an estimated 70% of candidates for suicide bombings) This killing is just a slightly higher visibility step in a seemingly endless cycle.

Oppression of the Palestine people




I've seen on Fox News reports of deaths of palestine civilians whenever Israel does one of her strikes

Do you ever see it when they burn down orchards, bulldoze house, steal water, the imprisonment, and the torture. None of these things are reported in the mainstream media. Look at the reporting of of the Sheikhs death. They have all said how this man is completely evil and ignores why he was so beloved by the people. In the profile it dedicates approximately one sentence to what Vermillion took about 10 paragraphs to sum up. The other 20 paragraphs in his Fox profile just says how much of a thorn in the Israelis side he has been. Do think that they will mention all the misdeeds in Sharons Bio?

The killing of the Hamas leader will actually increase tensions between Israel and the Palestinans. I don't believe there will be an end to the violence for quite some time.

What I'm concerned about is Hamas blaming the US for involvment because of our relationship with Israel. It will be interesting to see what happens in the months ahead. Hold on folks, this could get even more uglier.

Ok...so this was an elderly gentleman...in a wheelchair.

I understand what people are saying, to be affiliated with a terrorist organization is always wrong. Being a leading figure or founder is even more wrong. This does not mean that assasaniation is right. In my book, murder is wrong. Israel has already been condemned by my own nations government over this, and as always I had hoped the US administration would offer something more than 'urging both sides to remain calm'.

What confuses me the most is the Israeli governments abstract belief that they are going about this the right way. This is yet another mistake. As Amf has pointed out, both sides are determined to win. This would be expected of terrorist organizations, it is the very nature of their existence - to bring about change using force. Israel will continue to be its own worst enemy if it does not stop attacks in civilian areas, it must focus on peace if it is ever to stabilize the region. No amount of bullets or bombs will ever result in peace, afterall it is not just Palestine it has to worry about - Israels actions are fueling hatred across several Arab states. Like I said, their own worst enemy.

I sympathize fully with the Israeli people who live in fear of terror attacks, and am saddened and angered when I see reports of civilians killed in suicide attacks. At the same time, it is perfectly logically to feel the same level of sadness and anger when it is Palestinian casualties after an Israeli attack. At the end of the day people are dead. Death leads to anger, and inevitably terrorism. The actions of Israel today produce the terrorists of tomorrow. Want to win the war on Terrorism, Mr Bush? Then why are you giving one of the causes of terrorism so much money?

And yes, I have considered the consequences of not fighting back. I know this might be difficult, but now and again it is possible to swallow adolescent pride and not hit back. The reward for playing nice is far greater than the satisfaction of showing who is bigger and badder. The nations of Europe tripped over themselves as they rushed to Spains aid on the 11th of March, offering intelligence sharing and police resources, and words of solidarity. Spain has no intention of obliterating human beings, rolling tanks and attack choppers into civilian areas and firing artillery rounds near crowds. Spain has no intention of assassinating old men in wheelchairs and proudly claiming responsibility, no matter how 'evil' they are.

So how will this affect peace negotiations? Again Amf hit the nail on the head. What peace negotations.

Maybe...just maybe...if the US administration stood on solid ground and condemned Israel for its actions (which does not mean you have to support the other guy Dubya) and urged them to pull out and behave, progress would be made.

George: be tough, be nasty, shout at Israel and make them sit at the table, afterall they are supposed to be the responsible ones, they are the state involved in this conflict. Oh, and Israel has WMD! Yes, they really do, and their government orders assassinations and the military carry out attacks in civilian areas, often with a lot of civilian casualties, just like that mad hatter Hussein you hated so much. In fact, just stop spending the American peoples money on it, that would be a good start.

Yeah we do. We see and read about Israeli actions. The orchards are destroyed because of Avocado root rot caused by the fungus Phytophthora cinnamomi. It's simple disease control. You've misrepresented this action as starving the Pals out - again.

And bulldozing homes? Because:
1) Tunnels underneath these houses allow the transport of bombs the Pals strap to themselves to blow up Jewish mommies and their babies
2) Because the Palestinians are harboring the terrorists. Israel, has no other way to flush them out, unless they just used rockets all the time. Would you like that better?
3) Many have made themselves into military targets by firing rockets into Israel from those buildings

Once again, Del Fuego, you have mischaracterized the actions of Israel to defend terrorism.

Killing the Hamas leader will be helpful over the long term, but horrible over the short term.

Today, the world is outraged over the demise of one terrorist.

Within the next couple weeks, dozens of innocent Israelis will die. There will be no outrage. There never is.

you think maybe this is what sharon WANTS?

I think this might only escalate the current situation over there. hama's and other groups (islamic jihad, hezbollah, etc...) will vow revenge. this wil give israel the reson they need to not pull out of gaza (as they were planning to) after a couple suicide bombings israel will bulldoze more homes, and carry out more attacks (all while playing the victim. remember who started THIS cycle of violence when buses start blowing up) after a few raids and assaults hamas or some other group will blow up more buses, and so on and so on.

best case scenario: this doesn't explode into all out war and the cycle of violence simply continues. (too bad that JEWISH settler kill P.M. rabin, who was actually working toward peace. if he hadn't, rabin might have ended this whole mess years ago)

as for this weaking hamas: when JFK was shot, did america fall apart? no. I view this as something similar. the main difference is that hamas dearly loved their leader, and thought he was a great man. if anything this may unite all the groups that loved yassin, and make them that much stronger.

in the end, this is likely to destroy any chance at peace. someone will take his place, as always happens when a leader dies. this isn't the first time israel has tried to kill this man, I'm sure he was smart enough to set up an heir or something.

Having written a long post in this thread recently about the error of killing this man, I will now play the devil’s advocate, and point out the other side:

What the Hell is Israel supposed to do? They are between the proverbial rock and a hard place, dealing with an existence in a land that hates them, yet committed to the protection of the Jewish people and the Jewish state. Committed even more than other nations are committed to protecting their own, because of the origins of the state, a nation to protect its people when the rest of the world failed so miserably to protect them from 1935-45.

Israel has been involved in three wars, all of which either caused or provoked by its neighbours. It was attacked by Hussein in 1991 in a ploy to reactivate these old hatreds. National newspapers of internationally recognised states (such as Saudi Arabia) still spread the centuries old lie about Jewish boys grinding babies into their bread, or killing virgins in the dark for sacrifices. As someone who has been to Saudi, the borderline insane tall tales which make it to the front pages are so absurd as to be laughable, yet it is standard fare for Saudi, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Iran, UAE, Kuwait, Lebanon, even Egypt, though not as publicly.

These states either deny the holocaust ever happened, or praise it as being a step in the right direction. Unless you have been there, you cannot imagine the culture of hate and propaganda surrounding Israel, seriously worse than a black man at a KKK rally.

So what is Israel to do in the face of this? Arm, defend and protect. They make sure they cannot be pushed around or defeated by force of arms, and they take what steps they can to defend themselves. Now, the negotiations with Palestine have not ever gone well, both sides backed down from earlier positions, and Israel has been criticised (probably rightly so) for stepping back from earlier agreements and commitments, and for not offering enough at the bargaining table. But at LEAST Israel is prepared to negotiate at all.

What is the position of Hamas, and in particular, Sheik Ahmed Yassin? Do they want right of return, or an end to the creation of settlements?


No, Hamas is committed to the complete annihilation of the Israeli state. They claim ALL of Israel as their land, and Yassin has been quoted as saying things such as that he would agree to the creation of a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank, but only as a temporary base from which to launch attacks against Israel.

Yassin is not someone you can negotiate with. At least the IRA, the ETA and the Chechnians have pseudo-reasonable political goals. Even Al Quaida said it wants US troops out of the Middle East, which while not very realistic, is at least possible. The political goal of Hamas is to drive the Israeli people into the sea, how does one ‘compromise’ with that? Let me be clear: If every single one of the Oslo accords were actually met and agreed to by Israel, Hamas would not stop bombing.

Killing these people is not a great solution, but what other solution presents itself? By taking such a strong stand, even against an old man, Israel is stating that it refuses to be intimidated, and that it is here to stay. Hamas might do well to pay attention.

True, Hamas probably would not stop bombing, but they also wouldn't as many reasons to drive arabs into Hamas. As the quality of living increases in Palestine the Arabs would have less reasons to hate the Israelis. Before this current infatida, the Palestinians were just sitting back while the Israelis were opening settlement after settlement. If they do nothing then they will surely become refugees. Make no mistake, the Israelis are the invaders and the Palestinians have everything to lose.

That is beside the point. Israel is a democracy, and what incentive do they have to compromise with an organisation which will respond to their compromises with more bombings? The phantom that maybe, eventually, support for hamas would drop? So what?

The people of Israel want to stop being afraid to get on buses, and compromise with an entity intent on their destruction will not do that. So, they take a hard line and strike down their attackers wherever they can.

I'm not saying it is a moral or proper stance, but it certainly is an understandable one. Should the US have tried to compromise with Al Quaide after September 11th? After all, some of their grievances do have merit, and a withdrawl from the Midle East would eventually, maybe have reduced support for Al Quaida. So why was the only option to strike back?

Clearly an extreme parabole, but a parabole none the less. I am not defending ALL the actions of Israel,not the wall, certainly not the increase in settlements, but the violent actions against hamas are simply the only option left open against an enemy who publicly and openly refuses to compromise.

That is laughable! The Israelis have everything to loose. They are the MINORITY surrounded by enemies on three sides that would rather them be driven into the sea. NONE of the Islamic nations over there have done more than either tuck their tales in between their legs and run away when Israel kicked their butts, have made weak treaties and have never gone out of their way to extend the olive branch. No, you are quite wrong, being hated by all your neighbors makes Israel the one who's more at risk at loosing everything.

It is a democracy that that does not represent the Arab population, nor does it take the concerns of the Arab population into consideration. Just the policies regarding working permits and building permits impedes the life of the Palestinian population.

What makes the situation so different from the Palestinian situation. Don't you think they would like to go to Mosque without fear of missiles overhead. Or how about building a house on land they have lived on for decades without it be bulldozed. The only difference I can see is that the Palestinians are powerless to stop them.

No, but ask yourself what where the major grievances of Al Qaeda. One of the most important was the unconditional backing of Israel. I agree with you because I don't think the way the Palestinians fight their oppression is moral or proper, but I think it is an understandable one as well. More so then then the expansion of their settlements because the feel like they are "gods chosen people."

Even though Hamas has declared a seize fire which was ended by Israels decision to start targeting Hamas again, this compromise has to start somewhere. Remember what Ghandi said, An eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind.

How on Earth could they possibly lose it all with the largest most advanced military in the region backed by the worlds only superpower?

You have a point. You would think that the Palestinians would have learned by now...

14% of the population of Israel identify themselves as Muslim. They all get one vote, same as everybody else. They also are afraid to get on buses. Arab Israelis gain the same benefits, rights and privilidges of Jewish isralis, there is no bias or discrimination based on religion. Can hamas say the same about non-islamic people in palestine? Assuming there are any left?

I know the Palestinians are disadvantaged, and that many of the Israeli policies are unfair. I would love to see those policies change. In many of them, Israel is clearly in the wrong.

My point is, I am an agnostic from Canada commenting on this, and if I was an Israeli citizen, I would be asking what is my incentive to compromise? What advantage did the Israeli people gain from unilaterally withdrawing from Lebanon in 2000?



I agree, there are similarities, so why have they shown equal reluctance to come to any kind of moderate solution at the Israelis have? Why do theycontinue to hold parades for duicide bombers, and fund the actions of Hamas? Neither side is innocent in this conflict.



Go back through the last 20 years and see just how many cease fires hamas has called. Then see how many of them were broken by a suicide bombing, or attack. Perhaps this time Israel did not want to wait for the inevitable.



The estimated 300 or so kiloton range nukes owned by the Israeli government, are impressive, but they are a paper tiger. In case of a general conflict, where do you suggest the Israli government launch them? Most targets are close enough that radiation and fallout would affect Israel. They are a Middle eastern MAD program, which only has limited value when the opposition has shown that they are more than willing to die for the cause.

Maybe He's watching the right wing Press! e.g. CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC. Just Kidding!
On Fox it's fair and balanced gore!
The rest of them, like Europe, blame it on the Israelis, just another Passion of the Christ for secularists, I guess

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...in_040322165819

So, those of you opposed to Israel still say that the Islamic world really wants Jews there and not driven into the sea?

What about the people in the occupied territories. They have no say as to what goes on in their own country. They cannot even obtain building permits for the land that they live on.

Sure the is nothing but love for Israeli Arabs.


Well that particular time started this current wave of violence and has since brought the road map to a complete halt. How can you advocate peace while starting violence. Thats like saying "lets be friends" then punching you in the eye for something you did before.

I was refereing to the air superiority and the ground troops though. Compared to the cold war era weapons that the surrounding area possess the Israelis would easily brush off the majority of the attacks with their early warning radar. The Israeli intelligence is also supposed to be second to none as well.

Might does not necessarily make right. How would you feel if we invaded Canada and attempted to colonize it and use the backlash to fuel a war to any that oppose us?

wait a minute. If we can go after OBL and Al Queda (sp?), Israel has EVERY right to hunt down the leaders of terrorists organizations who threaten them.

The difference between the US and Al Queida and Israel and Palestinine is that Israel is directly oppressing the people of Palestine. They have made life unbearable in the occupied territories in order to drive out the Arabs so that they can further their settlements, which has been the goal of Israel since Ben Gurion. (sp)

Bull...Palestine is attacking Israel and Israel has every God given right to defend herself...even if that means killing Hamas' founder. He was the mastermind behind many attacks against Israel and Israel just cut him off permanently

Quit rooting for Hamas.

Thats a pretty fine line you are drawing. While I agree some (possibly many) of Israels's policies are unreasonable towards the Palestinians living in occupied territories, one man's opression is another man's self defence.

Saying they have 'made life unbearable to drive out the Arabs' is just rhetoric, and not true.

Put it this way, the UK was 'occupying Northern Ireland' from the point of view of some, so the IRA decided to blow up pubs in London and Belfast. Did the SAS have 'no right' to hunt down and arrest (or kill) the IRA leaders, because some people felt their occupation of Ireland was unfair? Does Russia have 'no right' to hunt down the leaders of the Chechnian rebels because Russia is (to the poit of view of some) occupying Chechnia?

Things are not so simple Rev. Hamas took to suicide bombings in discos and civilian buses, and when they did that they LOST the legitimacy of the Palestinian plight to support their cause.

The palestinians are opressed in many ways, and Israel has a lot to answer for, no question. But again, were I am Israeli jew, I would be asking myself: what choice did Israel have?

Palestine, and to a lesser extent Hamas, has the same god given right to defend themselves, especially when the Israelis have not been made to suffer helplessy in poverty as the direct result of Israels violations of Geneva conventions and numerous UN resolutions. So quit rooting for the death and oppression of the Palestinian people.

The actions that result from those policies that even you find unreasonable are the reasons that I believe that the Israelis have lost the legitimacy to claim self defense.

If their is one organization that has showed animosity towards Israel other then the Arab league it is the UN. The UN has allowed the arab nations to harass, invade and murder Israelis since the late 40's and have done nothing. It is only when Israel gets sick of dying and counter attacks that the UN does anything. The UN has been appeaseing the Arab League since the 40's. The Palestinian problem is the fault of the arab league not Israel. It was the Arab League and their invading armies that displaced the Palestinians. A 1947 UN resolution that Israel agreed to granted a seperate and soverign nation to the palestinians and the Arab League rejected it. Israel has a right to defend itself. The PLO is an Egyptian terrorist organization. It isnt a palestinian liberation front. Fatah is rooted in a terrorism. A group whose doctrine calls for the extermination of Jews. The whole PLO started as a front to attack and cleanse Jews not promote freedom for the palestinians. Israel is encompassed by hostility on every border and the UN never acknowledges it. Would you trust a body who offers appeasement at the cost of your citizens???

and when was the last time the british used a 2000 pound bomb on an apartment building to kill one man, killing 14 innocents in the process? (july, 2002) when was the last time the british buldozed several houses just because one person there was involved with the IRA? now, I'm not saying that the israelis do not have a right to hunt down terrorists, but I highly disagree with their methods. they use extra-judicial killings. they bomb nieborhoods, regardless of whom might get hurt. they show no regard for innocents. they insist on killing the terrorists and innocents be damned!

I have read over and over what else they could do. plenty. first, stop the extra judicial killings and collective punishment (the latter is a violation of geneva conventions) they could use money the would spend on bombs and rockets and build schools, hospitals and roads. they could improve the quality of life for the people in the occupied territories. rather then treating them like dirt they could treat them as people. this would go a long way to helping end terrorism over there (why kill those that help you) it could also go along way toward destroying hamas once and for all (by ending the peoples dependence on hamas) and possibly get palestinians to support israel. this isn't appeasment of the terrorists. yes, I'm sure attacks would continue, but if people thought that hamas was trying to do them harm (let's say israel starts building schools and stuff. hamas attacks the construction teams. who would YOU support, those trying to obviously help you, (israel) or those trying to prevent them (hamas)?

unfortunatly that is unlikely to happen. many Jewish leaders look at arabs in general, and the palestinians specifically, as lessers. (EXAMPLES OF HATE SPEECH from "by way of deception": )

also, I should point out that I don't think the pals are going about fight the israelis the right way either. it is wrong, even in my book to bomb buses full of civilians. they should be confronting the IDF more directly. they should be using tatics that make it hard to demonize them. they should also try to use nonviolent civil disobedience. who would look like the bad guys if 15 pal. protesters doing a sit in were gunned down by the IDF?



actually, it is the israelis who are the invaders. according to David Ben Gurion, Israel's first prime minister: israel's supporters keep saying they have the right to defend themselves, but seem not to want to extend that right to others.

I think we need to remember that there are no "people of Palestine", there's no such thing as "Palestine". Whether there should be or not is an entirely different debate, however until soverignty is taken away from Israel, it has the right to defend itself from terrorists within, and ilegal aliens, etc.

I honestly, was unaware that negotiations were still alive, and I assume that if they were, they won't be anymore for a while. The PA is going to be severely PO'd at this, and why not, a top terrorist being taken down in what they consider to be a holy war, it's going to be ugly for the next few weeks.

CP

What the Palestinians do isnt self defense its terrorism. Going into market areas and detonating yourself is not self defense. Israel didnt steal the land. They won it in defensive wars. It is held for security. It isnt self defense because the Israelis didnt start it. You cannot defend from a country that is not invading you nor defend yourself from a nation in which your people are responsible for the initial conflict. The occupation itself is a measure of Israeli self defense. The racism exibited be the arabs especially Arab leaders in the region is what is apalling. The average Palestinian is more literate then most of its arab neighbors and the palestinian income is even higher then certain other Arab Nations. Israel is a secular democracy that allows Arabs in the Knesset. You think the PLO has Jews? You think any arab nation has Jews in their government? The Palestinians are a growing population of people. You want to talk about racism?

Nation......... Jewish pop. 1948......Jewish population today

Algeria....... 140,000 ....................under a 100

Egypt............75,000......................... 100

Iran............100,000........................ 11,500

Iraq............150,000............................ 100

Lebanon........20,000.............................100

Libya............ 38,000................................0

Morroco.......265,000........................... 5,700

Syria.............30,000.......................Under a 100

Tunisia.........105,000...........................1,500

Yemen.......... 55,000.......................Under 200

That is racism. The history books of the Palestinains and other Arab neighbors are racist. This is the world the Israelis are surrounded by. How the Israelis have had the patience not to purge every Palestinian out of Israel is astounding. The nation of Israel has had Jewish links well before any Palestinian inhabitation and well before Islam was even a religion. By the time of zionism 80 percent of all arab property in the region was owned by Cairo landlords. The palestinian people were a group of disunited nomads. It was the Jews who plantedt he olice trees and made the region habitable for the masses. It was the Jews who brought democracy to the region. It was the Arabs and their war of genocide that displaced the Palestinians. It was the arabs who rejected an independent Palestine.

The killing of a nearly blind and deaf old man in a wheelchair via a missle attack while he was on his way to pray conjures up a ugly image that really makes the Israelis look bad.

But this was not just some feeble old man being taken out. Sheik Ahmed Yassin had the blood of a lot Israelis on his hands Yassin's chances of dying a natural death were considerably higher than those innocent civilians butchered in a spray of high explosives and carpenter nails triggered by sucide bombers on buses.

Still, high-profile assassinations like this do nothing to further peace in the Middle East and only perpetuate a endless cycle of blood, death and suffering. Isreal's agressive "eye-for-a-eye" policies only reinforces the extremists and weakens the moderate Arab leaders that want peace.

The ramifications of this act won't bring Israel one day closer to peace. Hamas will strike back---HARD. To make matters worse, they are now threatening to expand their revenge to include the United States as well.

Ariel Sharon may have demonstrated how tough he is, but he isn't the one who will pay directly for his actions this day. It will probably be another busload of Israeli citizens who aren't as well protected as the Prime Minister that suffer the wrath of Hamas.

The cycle of blood goes on.....

What peace negotiations?




This action is the latest in a long line, perpetrated by Ariel Sharon with the clear purpose of inciting further reactions from the Palestinians so the IDF can use ever harder methods.

One point of information and a coupla questions, kalabus:


Um, actually, no. The word you are looking for is "offensive" - as in "initiated by Israel". Look at the history: the occupied territories were taken by conquest (even if only to hold them "for security"). This is not meant to be a defense of Hamas or the Arab League or Egypt or Lebanon or anyone else. But it doesn't help to clarify the issue by citing facts which are not... well, factual.


If the occupied territories are being held for security purposes only, why are ordinary Israeli citizens settled there as residents? Surely land held "for security" should only be occupied by defensive military posts. Settling innocent, working families in a "defense zone" strikes me as gross irresponsibility.


Are you sure? You mean this has nothing to do with the fact that many of those Jews may have relocated - voluntarily and happily - from places like Egypt, Iran, and Morocco when the state of Israel was established? If those hundreds of thousands of Jews were forcibly ejected from their homes and marched to the border, you might have a point. Were they??

:::::::::::::::::::::::::

I'm inclined to agree with moif here. Judging Ariel Sharon by just about every other action he has taken in his life (including acts of outright terror such as the Sabra and Shatila massacres during the 1982 invasion of Lebanon), I suspect that the murder of Yassin had nothing whatsoever to do with a desire to resume any kind of "peace negotiations".

The goal of the Likudniks is to establish an Israeli state based on Eretz Yisrael as described in Deuteronomy, extending "from the Nile to the Euphrates" - and they are serious about it. This was the policy of the Irgun and the Herut and is the policy of the Likud - in opposition to the more moderate position of the Revisionists. This movement has included such terrorist organizations as the Stern Group and Lehi and such noted terrorists as Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir.

I do not mean to defend Yassin or Hamas or any of their activities. But that should not imply any kind of support for the equally heinous Begin, Shamir, or Sharon - nor their ultimate plans for the region.

Why did Isreal attack? From www.palestinefacts.com:

King Hussein of Jordan signed a defense pact with Egypt on May 30, 1967, under which Jordan joined the Egyptian-Syrian military alliance of 1966 and placed its army on both sides of the Jordan river under Egyptian command. He had little choice since Jordan housed 700,000 Palestinian Arabs whose rioting in November 1966 almost brought down Hussein's government. On June 4, Iraq joined the military alliance with Egypt, Jordan and Syria. President Abdur Rahman Aref of Iraq added these words to the mountain of provocation:

The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear -- to wipe Israel off the map. (end of quote)

If someone tells me they will kill myself and my family you can bet I will attack them at the first opportunity. Isreal could not wait until they were attacked.



Yes, Wertz, and what is the goal of Hamas? Is it not to drive the Jews into the sea?

Maybe I should add this, from the Hamas Covenant:

Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. Abusing any part of Palestine is abuse directed against part of religion. Nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its religion. Its members have been fed on that. For the sake of hoisting the banner of Allah over their homeland they fight. "Allah will be prominent, but most people do not know."

Now and then the call goes out for the convening of an international conference to look for ways of solving the (Palestinian) question. Some accept, others reject the idea, for this or other reason, with one stipulation or more for consent to convening the conference and participating in it. Knowing the parties constituting the conference, their past and present attitudes towards Moslem problems, the Islamic Resistance Movement does not consider these conferences capable of realising the demands, restoring the rights or doing justice to the oppressed. These conferences are only ways of setting the infidels in the land of the Moslems as arbitraters. When did the infidels do justice to the believers?

Difference between us, I guess. I would do everything in my power to defend my loved ones, but I would not resort to "preemptive" murder. I have received death threats - so has my partner - so has one of my sons. These threats were sorted out by the authorities, not by me sticking a knife in someone's neck. Sure, if one of these people had turned up on my front lawn, they would not have left it in one piece. But I can't condone vigilantism except as a last and mortal resort.

For what it's worth, Israel could easily have waited until the Egyptian alliance (formed under a defense past) made a move - and was well-prepared to retaliate, quite possibly before any targets were reached. The outcome would doubtless have been the same - except Israel may then have been on the side of right instead of wrong.

We will, of course, never know whether the alliance would have made a move or not, though. Israel undeniably attacked first - as many believe had ben their intent all along. Let us not forget that Israel had a strikingly similar agenda to that of Abdur Rahman Aref. The Kingdoms of Israel and Judah, which conservative Zionists claim as their right as Eretz Yisrael include the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as well as Transjordan, south-western Syria, and southern Lebanon (and some claim even more territory). The Egyptian alliance could make exactly the same "self-defense" claim that you are making on behalf of Israel.


Yes, it is - and I have never denied that. I just wish there weren't denial on either side. The hands of Ariel Sharon are every bit as bloody as were those of Ahmed Yassin. You won't catch me defending either murderous scumbag. That's all.

Offensive????? Absolutely NOT. How on earth can you say the six days war was offensive??? The attack was preemptive but calling it offensive? Thats like saying a man is surrounded and his life is continually threatened until is only chance to survive is to aatack first. Syria had been shelling the Israelis since 1965. The Israeli pleas to the UN went unheard. In 1960 Israeli foreign minister Golda Meir went before the UN general assembly and begged the Arab league to meet with David Ben Guerin and device a peace plan. Nasser who was a Nazi Sympathizer and arab hero said that Israel was decieving the world and that Egypt would never recognize the Jewish state On March 26, 1964 Nasser went before the United Arab Republic National Assembly and said the following. "Israel and the imperielism around us, which confront us, are two seperate things. There have been attempts to seperate them, in order to break up the problems and present them in an imaginary light as if the problem of Israel is the problem of the refugees, by the solution of which the problem of Palestine will also be solved and no residue of the problem will remain. The danger of Israel lies in the very existence of Israel as it is in the present and in what she represents." The arabs were talking of wiping out the Jews well before Israel's defensive preemptive strike. The Syrians were bombing w/o halt on the Golan Heights. In the 4 months before the war the Arab league had launched 37 incursion strikes into Israel. On May 22 Egypt sealed the Straights of Tiran.

Some quotes from the Arab Leader Nasser before Israel was forced to defend itself

"Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel."
"The Arab people want to fight." May 27 th 1967
"We will not except any coexistence with Israel. Today the Issue is not the establishment of peace between the Arab states and Israel. The war with Israel is in effect since 1948." May 28, 1967


On May 30th Nasser says. "The armies of Egypt, Jordan Syria and lebanon are poised on the borders with Israel...to face the chalenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not declarations." .........How on earth can you dare say Israel went on an offensive war?? How is being surrounded by hostile armies threatening to kill you and you respond an offensive act??

President Abdur Rahman Aref of Iraq added the words. "The existence of Israel is an error that must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy whuch has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear...to wipe Israel off the map."

Israel facing such hostility and certain obliteration launched a preemptive but absolutely self defensive strike on June 5th.

So um no the word is defensive. The Arabs had 250k troops 2000 tanks and 700 aircraft poised to destroy Israel. The Arab league initiated it. Israel didnt have a choice. Attack or be exterminated.

How will this effect the peace negotiations?

Just a reminder on what the topic for discussion is here.

I don't think this is going to have much of an effect on the negotiations, certainly not in the long term. Killing this murderous cretin might in the short time slow things down a bit while Arafat and company "save face" by talking "tough" and threatening to send more children into Israel to kill Israeli children, but overall, not much effect. Those big tough terrorists who send children to kill children are more worried about their own skin and bank accounts than anything else, so they'll continue to play the game. In the meantime, the UN will act "outraged", the so-called "world community" will perhaps prevail on the Nobel committee to award a posthumous peace prize to this terrorist and the song of the day around most of the world will be "The Beat goes On". Meanwhile in Israel there is one less murderer to worry about and their song will be "Another One Bites the Dust".

Let me ask, if this was a justified killing why so many nations have condemned the action and called it illegal under international law?

'The assassination of the Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin provoked widespread condemnation from world leaders amid predictions of a new cycle of violence in the Middle East and calls for calm. Only the United States fell short of outright criticism of the attack.'

UNITED NATIONS

The UN secretary general, Kofi Annan: "I do condemn the targeted assassination of Ahmed Yassin and the others who died with him. Such actions are not only contrary to international law but they do not help the search for a peaceful solution."

UNITED STATES

Condoleezza Rice, National Security Adviser: "Let's remember Hamas is a terrorist organisation and Sheikh Yassin has himself, we believe, been involved in terrorist planning."

Scott McClellan, a White House spokesman: "We are deeply troubled by this morning's actions in Gaza."

Lou Fintor, a state department spokesman: "The US urges all sides to remain calm and exercise restraint ... There was no warning given to us."

EUROPEAN UNION

Javier Solana, EU foreign policy chief: "[This] is very bad news for the peace process."

EU foreign ministers' joint statement: "Not only are extra-judicial killings contrary to international law, they undermine the concept of the rule of law which is a key element in the fight against terrorism."

BRITAIN

Jack Straw, Foreign Secretary: "It is unacceptable, it is unjustified and it is very unlikely to achieve its objectives. This kind of so-called targeted killing is well outside international law. I believe it was impolitic. We have to try to ensure that there is, none the less, as calm a response as possible in the Arab world."

FRANCE

President Jacques Chirac: "France unreservedly condemn not only terrorism but all acts of violence, especially when it is a question of an attack which breaks international laws."

THE VATICAN

"The Holy See unites with the international community in deploring this act of violence that cannot be justified in any state of law. Lasting peace cannot come from a show of force."

GERMANY

Joschka Fischer, Foreign Minister: "[I am] concerned about the possible consequences. Everything must be done to avoid a further escalation. Progress must be made with initiatives in the Middle East."

AUSTRIA

Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Foreign Minister: "It would be good if the Quartet nations could meet again. We must contain the Middle East conflict."

NORWAY

Jan Petersen, Foreign Minister: "This act will contribute to increased tensions in the area and will make it more difficult to implement the road map for peace and a possible Israeli withdrawal from Gaza."

POLAND

Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz, Foreign Minister: "I'm afraid it may have negative consequences not only in terms of Israeli-Palestinian conflict but the threat of terrorist attacks on other countries, including European [ones], is growing."

DENMARK

Per Stig Moeller, Foreign Minister: "We have to fight terror everywhere. Israel also has to fight terror ... but extrajudicial killings is not one of the ways."

EGYPT

President Hosni Mubarak: "With this act we have aborted the peace process today. It will have big effects on the region."

JORDAN

King Abdullah II: "We are pained by what happened despite our persistent efforts with all sides, including the Israeli government, to refrain from its policy of military escalation."

SYRIA

President Bashar Assad: "[This is] the climax of terrorism that Israel is continuously practising."

LEBANON

Rafik Hariri, Prime Minister: "[The assasination] will push the region into a new cycle of violence and terrorism and undermine any hope for achieving peace in the Middle East."

IRAN

President Mohammed Khatami: "The heinous crime reflects a cowardly behaviour of the occupying Israeli regime as well as its fear of Palestinian resistance, which is centred on their religious faith."

KUWAIT

Mohammed al-Saqer, head of the foreign affairs committee in parliament, : "They [Israelis] say that Hamas is a terrorist organisation, but the truth is that Israel is a terrorist state."

SOUTH AFRICA

Government statement: "Extra judicial assassinations are in contravention of international law [and] strengthen those not committed to achieving peace in the Middle East."

SUDAN

Hassan Turabi, Sudanese Islamic leader: "I think that this will put pressure on the Arab governments that have so far let down the Palestinian cause."

CHINA

Kong Quan, foreign ministry spokesman: "We are deeply worried about the impact on the region. We are watching the development of the situation."

AUSTRALIA

A spokesman for the Foreign Minister Alexander Downer: "We would urge calm on both sides to try and prevent any further decline into violence in that region."
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politi...sp?story=504104

Yassin was the 'spiritual leader' of Hamas, however he ordered or condoned many killings, including the order to kill Palestinians that cooperated with Israel. He was on all counts a 'terrorist'.

Why the mass condemnation? Perhaps the world is getting a little tired of Israeli tactics, babysitting, funding and continually brokering a lost cause, decade after decade with no end in sight? Are we seeing a turnaround in Israeli appeasement ? Or simple outrage at killing a quadrapalegic? (hardly). Is this going to finally cause the leash to tighten on Israel and specifically, Sharon?
I would welcome Sharon being under pressure to be a lot less gung-ho in his approach.



What 'game' would that be?I dont think the Palestinians see this as a game, neither do the Israelis. Its pretty much life and death. I need an explaination of this 'game'. What bank accounts would that be? Especially in this case. Yassin lived a monks life and was known to never take money he raised for himself or his wife and 11 children. He donated all moneys raised to community services of the Palestinian people, schools and health care, the very reason he was so revered. Suicide bombers are certainley not interested in their own skin. May I ask, WHAT are you talking about, other than blather for blathers sake? Have you got reasoning for this statement?

Everyone (in government), including the US thinks that this will be a detriment to the peace process.

I don't think this will effect peace negotiations one way or another. Yassim was an obstacle to peace that had to be put under house arrest by the Palestinian Authority to prevent him from derailing the peace process. Hamas also does not recognize Israel's right to exist and will not accept any peace unless the end result is Israel's destruction. I also don't think it will speed up the peace process, as Palestinians are obviously enraged, and Yassim's killing isn't going to make Hamas go away.

I do think all the flak Israel is getting is unfair. There is plenty to criticize Israel over but IMO Israel was justified in killing Ahmed Yassim. It has a right to defend it's citzens and Yassim was a terrorist, making him a valid military target. His killing cannot be compared with the assassination of a world leader.

The "game" Arafat is playing is to act like he's continuing the peace process while at the same time sending out terrorists to kill innocent Israelis. Of course, he's not responsible for that, it's the other bad guys like Hamas doing that and he just can't make them stop. He's tried, he's weally, weally tried.

And yes, Arafat is rich. He's been skimming money off the backs of the Palestinian people for years. 60 Minutes reports in part, the following:



So no, Artemise, it's not "blather", I don't "blather".

Well said Nighttimer...I agree with you there, it won't look good killing some crippled old man, however, everyone knows that he wasn't even close to being anything closely resembling innocent. And yes, the cycle of blood will go on, the "Palestinian" terrorists won't take this lying down, and I wouldn't expect anything close to peace negotiations resuming [assuming that they were already established] anytime soon.

Why am I agreeing with so many Liberals lately? I think I'm going to go lay down

CP