Abdel Aziz Rantisi Assassinated







1. Is the assassination of Abdel Aziz Rantisi justified?

2. What are the short term and long term consequences of this action?

3. Are the Israelies and Palestinians heading towards all out war? (i mean a REAL war)

1 - Yes it was. He was dedicated to the complete destruction of Israel. He was a terrorist leader and was actively encouraging the killing of Israeli civilians. He was advocating war and war is what he got. Good riddance.

2 - None really, nothing that we haven't seen before. No doubt there will be all kinds of nations that are "shocked and condemn Israel" and yada yada yada.... Same old, same old. Hamas will "vow revenge" like that means that all of a sudden this "peace-loving" group is going to get angry? Oh please, give me a break. They will attack Israel, they have always attacked Israel and they always will attack Israel until they are destroyed. Meanwhile, another terrorist is dead, who's up to bat next?

3 - With all due respect, I don't know what you mean by a "REAL war"? It seems to me that this is a pretty real war right now. What more could Hamas and Hezzbollah do than they are already doing? They regularly send suicide bombers to attack Israelis, they regularly attack checkpoints. That seems like a pretty real war to me.

1. Yes. He was the leader of a terrorist organization and Israel was doing what itfelt necessary to defend herself

2. Short Term: The usual "We will retaliate and kill hundreds of israelis" whining.
Long Term: Another dead higher up in the Hamas organziation

3. No. But it wouldn't surprise me if it does ever happen

I am sorry, i should have been more clear. What i mean by all-out war was that the Israeli forces would advance on all fronts and try to take complete control of the situation. I guess invade the entire Gaza strip...hope that helps.

If you're referring to a conventional military war, force-on-force, there isn't much of a fight to be had. The Israeli regular army consists of three armored divisions (tanks) and five mechanized infantry brigades (soldiers in combat APCs); additionally, they have nine armored divisions and ten infantry brigades in the reserves. By comparison, the Palestinians have a militia (volunteers with rifles).

In my opinion, I think the Israelis would not want to invade the entire Gaza strip by force and garrison it. This would liekly result in an extended occupation bogged down in guerilla and insurgent-style warfare (bombings, snipings, etc).

1. Is the assassination of Abdel Aziz Rantisi justified?

Only as justified as assasinating Sharon- Actually, I think it would be far more conducive to actual peace if the entire upper Likud cabinent was assasinated, there is no real difference between Hamas and Likud- they are both extremist groups with extremist reactions that are true barriers to peace.

2. What are the short term and long term consequences of this action?

Anytime you "justify" the assasination of a leader of a group that represents a large number of poeple, you are actually usually confirming thier position with possible former moderates. Killing GW Bush would not harm the republican party, but may actually revitalize the entire movement.

Like the drug war, unless you plan on Genocide of the entire Palestenian ethnic group, there will be five smart guys to take the position of each one they kill. It is the hydra, every head you cut off, eight grow in it's place.

3. Are the Israelies and Palestinians heading towards all out war? (i mean a REAL war)

Absolutely not if you are considering a tank vs tank kind of war- We are the military backers of Isreal- it is terribly one sided weapons deal.

As far as actual war, Aquilla is right- it already is, slow burning,(in terms of "all out war") but it is war - and the palestenians are fighting it the only way they can. Do I like thier ways? No- do I think it is honorable? No- do I understand thier rage and reaction? Absolutely.

Since when is blowing up women and babies in busses and restaurants fighting "the only way they can?"

Anyway, back on point, to answer the questions:

1) Yes, this was justified. The head of a terrorist organization that has killed hundreds of Israeli civilians is a legitimate target.

2) Not much in the short term. There may be another Hamas attack, but there would have been one anyway. In the long term, Hamas is weaker. If the Israelis can keep bopping off their leadership, the group will quickly lose organization.

3) An all out war? I think it may happen, but it's not going to be tomorrow.

Since when is blowing up women and babies in busses and restaurants fighting "the only way they can?"
Desperate poeple resort to desperate tactics. Poeple don't blow themselves up while living the good life.

What I don't see, is how poeple can honestly think Hamas will be weakened because of this- I see the exact opposite. Unless there is genocide- there will be hundreds of poeple, all of them vying for position to make this even stronger.

We, as a culture, keep thinking of Hamas and Al-quadia and the like as having a strong central leadership when it does not- it has figureheads, that are easily replaced using the names of the "martyrs" while "cells" operate independently.

Hamas is much more centralized than say, Al Qaeda. Eliminating its leadership is not only in bounds, it is probably the right thing to do.

Believe it or not, eliminating the leadership of the opposition is the surest way to ending a guerilla type uprising. Even if new leaders step forward, we can assume that they are at least slightly below the competency of those they are replacing (otherwise, the replacement would have been the leader before...).

The grievances remain, but without leadership the movement is severely diminished.

To be honest, Israel has treated the leaders of Hamas and similar organizations with kid gloves for too long. They operate with impunity under some banner of being legitimate leaders.

So:
1. Is the assassination of Abdel Aziz Rantisi justified? Yes it is.

2. What are the short term and long term consequences of this action? Short term, it will cause some outrage, as all similar attacks have done. Long term, it waters down the Hamas leadership, which is a good thing.

3. Are the Israelis and Palestinians heading towards all out war? (i mean a REAL war) I don't think so, but I thing Israel has shifted somewhat in its attitude towards the Palestinians. The old approach was obviously not working because you cannot negotiate with terrorists. If the Palestinians had a leadership which foreswore violence, then they would already have their Palestinian state. Hamas and similar organizations are a barrier to peace, not a conduit to it.

1) I don't believe the assassination was justified. I say this because if the Israelies and the Palestinians are to negiotate a peace settlement, this type of action on both sides cannot continue.

2) I believe the short-term consequences is more violence from both sides. Right now, the Palestinians are in no mood for talking. Especially since President Bush has aligned the US position in the conflict more with Israel. Its very difficult to predict the long-term consequences, this conflict is so unpredictable you never know what's going to make the news except more bloodshed.

3) I think is possible they maybe heading towards an all-out war. However, each and every day provides another opportunity for both sides to negiotate a settlement. There is always hope that something can work out that will settle this conflict. One thing is for sure, more violence IS NOT the answer.

Ok, I see. I suppose such an action could result if Hamas reacts with an unusually large wave of suicide bombings that are "successful", but otherwise I doubt Israel has the desire to go back into Gaza with over-whelming force and start knocking houses down again. I also don't see any inclination of the Arab countries in the region to attempt to join the fray with a direct military action against Israel - such actions in the past haven't worked well for them. Basically, it's pretty much the status quo for now although Israel's continued targeting of the Hamas leadership does appear to be having something of a chilling effect on Hamas. I just heard a report that Hamas isn't very anxious to announce a new leader at the moment.

1. Is the assassination of Abdel Aziz Rantisi justified?
Heck yes - this is an organization that has been declared a terrorist organization by the US and EU. Rantisi was considered a moderate because he only wanted to kill all the Jews in Israel, the others could live.

I will let Jack Straw, Great Britian's Foreign Minister have the last word on dealing with terrorist leaders.

"They had the opportunity to hand themselves to justice and answer for their crimes. They refused to do this. It goes without saying that we would have much preferred this, but the news that Saddam's sons are no longer a threat to the security of Iraq will be a reassurance to the Iraqi people."
– Jack Straw, July 22, 2003, on the killing, by US troops, of Uday and Qusay Hussein

"One has to treat such claims and proposals by al-Qaida with the contempt they deserve. This is a murderous organization which seeks impossible objectives by the most violent of means."
– Jack Straw, April 16, 2004, on the proposal, by Osama bin Laden, to arrange a truce with Europe

2. What are the short term and long term consequences of this action?
Short term - Well the new head of Hamas is too afraid to announce that he is the leader. Otherwise none - Hamas is still trying to kill anybody and everybody they can.

Long Term - Getting harder for Hamas to find leaders willing to send somebody else's child to commit suicide. And this is a bad thing?

3. Are the Israelies and Palestinians heading towards all out war? (i mean a REAL war)
Hamas has been at a real war since 1987. Now if you mean will Israel start acting like the US Army and crush them. I doubt it, the US doesn't like Israel acting like a sovereign nation too much. But if Israel did well instead of hundreds dead per year, maybe just maybe the death toll would return to the pre-PNA levels of 10-20 per year instead. Nah the US, EU and UN don't really want peace that bad.

1. Is the assassination of Abdel Aziz Rantisi justified?

This is a tough one. Justified? An eye for and eye and we will all end up blind one day. Israel claims that the PLO is not doing enough to stop guys like Rantisi. It takes Israel Gun ships and missiles to deal with him, things the PLO does not have. What does Israel expect them to do? If it is a matter of capturing him, then Israel should have captured him and brought him to trial.

2. What are the short term and long term consequences of this action?

I bet that it is going to be tough to fill the position of Leader of Hammas. I think that the Palestinians will begin to see Hammas as detrimental to their cause. As long as Hammas remains adamant on the destruction of Israel, they will lose support, and personnel.

3. Are the Israelis and Palestinians heading towards all out war? (i mean a REAL war)

Impossible. This would already be a REAL war if the Palestinians were equipped with a legitimate Army, Air Force, etc. My take, it is as real a war that they can fight using any and every type of ammunition at their disposal. If by REAL you mean that Palestine will get support from outside nations similar to Israel, then it will NEVER happen. The United States will Never allow support to that side of the conflict. The US Government calls those people terrorists.

1. Is the assassination of Abdel Aziz Rantisi justified?

I don't really know.
Its very easy to take the stance that as a terrorist he deserved what he got, but the problem with this stance is that it ignores everything but the actual event itself. If, by killing a person your action causes further bloodshed, then how exactly is it justified to kill some one? What is the purpose of killing some one like Rantisi if by doing so you actually cause more terrorist actions?

It seems to me, that Rantisi's death, like the death of the old wheel chair bound cleric before him was not carried out now because Ariel Sharon wishes to end the violence, but rather because he wishes to fan the ebbing flames that will lead to further Hamas actions.

In the light of Ariel Sharon's recent political maneuvers I would say that the killing of Abdel Aziz Rantisi is not justified since I believe he was killed in order to upset the balance of power amongst the Palestinians in order to deny them the political unity they need to be able to negotiate this latest proposal. In other words, Sharon is making sure Arafat is powerless to prevent further terrorist actions taking place.

You can rest assured that when Hamas strikes back, the blame will once again fall on Arafat for not having done more to prevent it.


2. What are the short term and long term consequences of this action?

I see several distinct short term consequences of the action. These are that Hamas will be forced to dig further underground and this is shown clearly by their new leader's identity being kept a secret.

That Hamas's more moderate voices will be silenced by the ever growing frustration of the aggressive elements and this I believe was the reason why Rantisi was killed. Rantisi was a legitimate target in today's political climate so no one who matters is too bothered by his death. Rantisi himself realised this and thus made the claim that he wished to die a martyr thus attempting to capitalize on his own demise.

That in order to counter this blow, Hamas will be forced to strike back which will allow Israel to take yet another step towards the gradual destruction of the Palestinian people.


In the long term I think this is just one more step down the road to the eventual destruction of the Palestinian people. I think what we are seeing here is a genocide stretched out over decades if necessary by an Israeli hard core which answers to no one but itself. The idea that these people are interested in peace, or can be controlled by the USA is as much an illusion as the idea of the road map to peace.

The risk these people are taking though, is that by each assassination, 'accidental' death and land grab, they are pushing the Palestinians further away from any chance at peace. The consistent refusal of Israel to accept peace is clearly shown by the willingness of the Israeli hard core to murder even their own leaders if those leaders move towards genuine peace and against such a position, the Palestinians are without any recourse to a peaceful solution.

In the end they will have nothing left to fight for. This is clearly already the case with a minority of Palestinians since they are willing to kill themselves in order to fight back. The risk is they will then attempt to use weapons which cause far more destruction than any yet employed. Since the Palestinians have already reached the point where they believe death is preferable to life under Israel, then its only a matter of time and logistics before some uses a WMD against an Israeli city.


3. Are the Israelies and Palestinians heading towards all out war? (i mean a REAL war)

By my way of seeing things, the two sides are already engaged in low intensity warfare.
This is a situation which neither side can allow to erupt into full scale warfare though. For the Palestinians this would mean instant defeat and for the Israeli's the risk is the loss of logistical support from America and since Israel is already winning this war by means of a slow gradual approach then they don't really need to step up their time scale and risk exposing themselves.

There are also two points which I do not understand.

The first is this. The climate of the middle east is growing ever more volatile again. We are seeing a wasps nest being repeatedly provoked by our own forces apparently for no real reason. What is the point of all this confrontation? Is this revenge for the attack on 11 Sept? for the Marine barracks in Beirut or being kicked out of Iran?
No matter what the reason is, the fact is if we continue with this course of action then at some point these wasps are going to sting us.

Which brings me to my second point; why do so many people on this forum and in the west at large act as if this act and others like it will have no further consequence when we've seen time and again how each action by the west provokes a response by the east?

I quote;

GoAmerica


Goldblum


Amlord


What I'm seeing from these responses, and others like them on the TV news, is a dismissive attitude towards any notion of a threat. As if these people/ terrorists could not possibly be any threat to us.

Its as if we believe we are entitled to tell them what to do, to interfere in their lands, and in their cultures and we expect them to do nothing about it.

Its most telling that in the nineties when a peace deal was brokered between the Israeli's and the Palestinians, the Palestinians were allowed to be present. Today, Sharon goes to see George W Bush and apparently gets permission to do as he will.

The assumption seems to be that George W Bush now answers on behalf of the middle east, and the people there are so insignificant a threat that we don't even have to take their views into consideration.

Considering this attitude, and the total mess its made of the situation both in Israel and Iraq, as well as in Iran, Beirut and Somalia before, just what exactly is this assumption based on?

Why should the people of the middle east even care about us and what we think of them?

What is to stop them from using the most destructive weapons available against us?

2 down and one to go(Arafat) and when the Israelis get him they'll have hit
the trifecta!!

Not only is the news great that another terrorist has bit the dust but it is also having an effect on the next major terrorist.

From today's Jerusalem Post


So it has aided stability in the region two fold. How nice to see such a bonus effect.

I think it will be really helpful if Sharon were assasinated as well- and Netanyahu while they are at it- it is just too bad the Hamas is just not as effective as the Mossad in assasination- I really do think that long term continued assasination of both sides leaders might eventually leave some actual hope for peace in some poeple that may decide it is in thier best interests to negotiate a true compromise and settlement. A good, long term- tit for tat assasination would be very helpfull, starting with Sharon and working it's way all the way through the Likud. With all the old radicals gone- and the new ones looking at thier own mortality, there might be some "movement" in the peac movement after all!

1. Is the assassination of Abdel Aziz Rantisi justified?

Yes, as the leader of a militant group actively waging war against a nation he is a valid and high value military target.

2. What are the short term and long term consequences of this action?

Very little. Another will rise to fill the post. However, depending on how effective Israel demonstrates itself to be at ferreting out and eliminating subsequent leaders, it may have a longer term deleterious effect on Hamas' ability to function effectively.

3. Are the Israelis and Palestinians heading towards all out war? (i mean a REAL war)

Hamas has been engaged in REAL war for a very long time know. They wage total war against Israel and in total war civilians are legitimate targets. Israel has always been restrained from engaging in total war against Palestinians. Instead they focus on "military" or belligerent targets. The reasons for restraint are varied and complex but I think it can safely be said that if Israel engaged in total war against "Palestine", if Israel showed the same single-minded determination to exterminate an entire people that Hamas displays, there would be few left to resist.

"Provokes" is an interesting choice of words as it denotes causality. Who has provoked who in the clash between radical Islam and the West? Which side does not see compromise as an option? I'm interested to hear your response.

Case in point...read the following hypothetical and try to answer it honestly: If all Palestinians dropped their guns and armaments immediately the result would likely be peace but if Israel immediately and completely disarmed what would the Palestinian and greater Arab response be? I think a large amount of Jews in the Red Sea wouldn't be too far fetched.

No. While it is interesting to make the comparison to the Hussein brothers, I believe they were in a house firing on the people who were trying to arrest them. Let's be clear -- they were not assassinated. If Rantisi was resisting arrest and killed while doing so, then that'd be fine.



More of the same. Anyone who thinks this tactic works has no idea about the nature of terrorist organizations -- or of the mindset of people willing to blow themselves up.



The type of war you are speaking of would not be possible in the region between these two parties.