Best. News. Ever.

[HaemishM]

A concerted effort by concerned outside governments to raise the standard of living of the Palestinian through public works, education and increased employment has never been tried, and might very well be successful. Has there ever been a hopeless, destitute minority that didn't radicalize against the majority, or vice versa? While it would be best if the Israelis could take the moral high road, the above combined with a stated policy on Israel's part of not attacking terrorists if it would lead to civilian casualties would go a long way to ease tensions.

What do you think the UN has been doing for years? The PLA, to my knowledge, has been receiving foreign aid money for years to do this very thing. The problem is that it ISN'T reaching the man in the street, it's gone to fund Yasser Arafat's Benz. Hamas has actually been in the trenches feeding people, providing social services, and oh yeah, a handy-dandy lesson on how the Jews are really Satan's hand puppets and will rip out your eyes and skullfuck you if you don't do your duty to Allah and blow them up first.

Jihad.

[Mediocre]

WHAT THE HELL DO THEY HAVE TO GAIN BY HITTING HIM WITH A FUCKING ROCKET?

"Fuck with us and get a rocket in the ass"?

That logic has gone so far towards solving the Middle East conflict thus far.

As a general rule, if your logical point for something sounds like a line out of a movie starring Jean Claude Van Damme, there is something wrong.

Is any Hamas member a fair target?  Yes.  However, you really should recognize how completely fucking counterproductive this assassination was.

Imagine that Al-Qaeda assassinated George W Bush.  Would that help them win the war against America?  (Hint:  No.)

[personman]

I don't agree that it makes any difference.  Hamas has stepped up attacks this year, not lessened them.  Killing off the smarter/influential ones makes it easier to draw the group out and eventually eliminate them.  The main goal is to weaken these sorts of organizations enough that mainstream Palestinians can take control of their own future.

[Romp]

Lets take it as a given that this is going to escalate the conflict which I think is a pretty safe assumption.

So why would Sharon do this?

Well here are two possible reasons:

1) he wants to gain browny points at home by being seen as tough on terrorism etc and he thinks escalating the conflict is worth it if it helps his party's chances of being re-elected in the next election

2) he wants to escalate the conflict, because the more he pushes the palestinians, the more bombs that go off in Israel the more excuse he would have for doing something drastic.

Number 1 doesnt seem likely, because the next election isnt until 2006/7.  

And Number 2?  I think there is a possible argument that Israel has been following a policy under Sharon which is designed to piss the Palestinians off as much as possible and to actually escalate the conflict.  Why?  Because it gets Israel the justification to do something drastic which it thinks would end the Palestinian problem once and for all.  Sharon knows that most of the world doesnt support Israel but he also knows that the US does and that if he has the backing of the US he can pretty much do whatever the fuck he likes.

Maybe after 9/11 Sharon saw that the US would see an analogy between Israel's and the US's situation and that if he could exploit this by conflating any action against Palestine as analogous to the war against terrorism.  So he's trying to take advantage of this situation, hoping that Palestinians start escalating the conflict big time, giving him the excuse to do something drastic like I dunno, expel all palestinians from their lands and into Arab countries.  His only problem is getting US backing for something like that.  With the election looming he may feel he has to act soon in case Bush loses because Bush is more likely to support him than Kerry.

Just a theory and I'm probably wrong but it seems to fit the facts better than most explanations.  

One thing which I always wonder is, if Israel were at all serious about any form of peace, why do they keep building more and more settlements on Palestinian territory?

[Tebonas]

Saw a newsfeed of the funeral yesterday. 200000 people were at his funeral. For Israel he was a top terrorist. For the Palestinensians he was an old cripple (sits in the wheelchair since the fifties) and a symbol.

He was let go by Israel 1997 (been imprisoned since 1989) because his health rapidly deteriorated. He was almost deaf and nearly blind. They didn't want him to become a martyr. Because, face it. He is the ideal martyr, and he knew it.

Yes, this move was pure genius. If you want to escalate the conflict and want to whip the Palestinensians in a frenzy and radicalize even more of them.

What this conflict needs are two bullets. One for Arafat, one for Sharon. Fucking crazy old warmongers, both of them.

[koboshi]

What this conflict needs are two bullets. One for Arafat, one for Sharon. Fucking crazy old warmongers, both of them.

Fair and balanced!
Let’s do it at the same time, then show it on split screen... no, wait!  lets make up some great Fox News graphic with the live shot from both executions balancing on that justice-is-blind statue's scales with a big ol’ American flag behind it...
And a jet...
Ooh, yea, this is goanna be sweet!

[Calantus]

Saw a newsfeed of the funeral yesterday. 200000 people were at his funeral.

I wonder how many terrorists and/or terrorist supporters would have been killed it Israel carpet-bombed the guy's funeral? Just a thought.

[koboshi]

Saw a newsfeed of the funeral yesterday. 200000 people were at his funeral.

I wonder how many terrorists and/or terrorist supporters would have been killed it Israel carpet-bombed the guy's funeral? Just a thought.

Is it wrong that I had thought about that too when I saw that in the news?

[ArtificialKid]

What this conflict needs are two bullets. One for Arafat, one for Sharon. Fucking crazy old warmongers, both of them.

Except that Sharon has had the ability to wipe Palestine off the map this whole time.  Think Arafat would think twice if he was in a similar position?  They're not the same.

[koboshi]

Except that Sharon has had the ability to wipe Palestine off the map this whole time.

[Bitch-slap="Sharon"]damn another one[/Bitch-slap]
[Bitch-slap="ArtificialKid"]you got that cause you with him![/bitch-slap]

[Snowspinner]

What this conflict needs are two bullets. One for Arafat, one for Sharon. Fucking crazy old warmongers, both of them.

Except that Sharon has had the ability to wipe Palestine off the map this whole time.  Think Arafat would think twice if he was in a similar position?  They're not the same.

Yes. I do think he would think twice. Because, frankly, he's not stupid, and he knows that completely eradicating Israel would actually be bad enough to cost him the international support he's managed to gain over the years, so that his country would be a pariah, and, probably, would get the shit kicked out of it by the US. Repeatedly.

[Tebonas]

Your faith in Sharon is nice, Artificial Kid. But his history counters your claims.

They are the same, and they are both intelligent enough to know what they can afford to do without pissing off too many people who could hurt their position.

[Katukov Strikes Back]

Saw a newsfeed of the funeral yesterday. 200000 people were at his funeral.

I wonder how many terrorists and/or terrorist supporters would have been killed it Israel carpet-bombed the guy's funeral? Just a thought.

Is it wrong that I had thought about that too when I saw that in the news?

Might have been all the guys ripping off bursts from AKs and wearing fake bomb belts that gaves people that idea.

Had to love that headline from the AP "Mourners set off pipe bombs at funeral."

[ArtificialKid]

Because, frankly, he's not stupid, and he knows that completely eradicating Israel would actually be bad enough to cost him the international support he's managed to gain over the years,

Nah, he can't even keep his own people in check.  If he were in the position Israel is in today and showed any signs of moderation, he'd be capped quicker than you can say "al-axa".  He's a valid leader only as long as he's an underdog with an active enemy, which is why it's in his best interest to keep the holy war simmering at all times.  Otherwise people start to wonder why they don't have, you know, basic social and health services that aren't Israeli-provided.

[HaemishM]

On Monday, Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz and various security agency chiefs decided to go after all the Hamas leaders, a security official said Tuesday, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The Israeli army chief, Lt. Gen. Moshe Yaalon, hinted that Arafat might eventually be targeted as well. The killing of Yassin should be seen as a signal "to all those who choose to harm us that this will be their end," Yaalon said.

From this AP news article.

Yeah, I'd pretty much say Sharon is tired of pussyfooting around. Looks like 1982 all over again.

[personman]

More confirmation that Yassin's assassination has destabilized Hamas.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040323/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians_8

Neither of the two personalities now running the show has a track record of strategic decisioning.

[Snowspinner]

Nah, he can't even keep his own people in check.  

How is this relevent? The international community, at least, is solidly on the side of the Palestinians. If they anihillated Israel, the international community's support would become much less existant.

[daveNYC]

Because, frankly, he's not stupid, and he knows that completely eradicating Israel would actually be bad enough to cost him the international support he's managed to gain over the years,

Nah, he can't even keep his own people in check.  If he were in the position Israel is in today and showed any signs of moderation, he'd be capped quicker than you can say "al-axa".  He's a valid leader only as long as he's an underdog with an active enemy, which is why it's in his best interest to keep the holy war simmering at all times.  Otherwise people start to wonder why they don't have, you know, basic social and health services that aren't Israeli-provided.

Don't forget about the schools and charities that Hamas runs.  Puts a new spin on compassionate conservatism.

[Daeven]

Because outside of the US, the international community is of the opinion that Israel is totally in the wrong on this.

So? Once upon a time lots of people thought the world was flat. Weight of numbers does not give emperical weight.

[Snowspinner]

Which would all be very relevent if I were making an ethical judgment, instead of a practical observation about world politics.

[Foix]

I have to say that this is a development that I didn't expect. There was widespread anger and revulsion at the assassination in Iraq, which was to be expected, but what wasn't was that al-Sistani--the man who will quite likely have more influence over the Iraqi government than anyone else come 2005--released a statement expressing solidarity with the Palestinians and offering support 'whether moral or physical.'

It would be a perverse irony if our government overthrew the distasteful but non-threatening regime of Saddam Hussein only to allow into power one that will do everything that it incorrectly accused Saddam of. But we can take heart in the fact that the Shiites will presumably be too preoccupied fighting against the Sunni and the Kurds next year to divert many resources to supporting Palestinian terrorists.

[Comstar]

Saw this over at Fark.

Israel says all militant leaders Marked for Death, no one is Above the Law. Israelis are Out For Justice, Militant Leaders are Hard to Kill. Arafat still Under Siege, Palestinians Under Siege 2. All of Middle East is On Deadly Ground.


Anyways, Sharon did it because he's an evil overlord. Evil Overlord's don't need good reasons.

[WayAbvPar]

Saw this over at Fark.

Israel says all militant leaders Marked for Death, no one is Above the Law. Israelis are Out For Justice, Militant Leaders are Hard to Kill. Arafat still Under Siege, Palestinians Under Siege 2. All of Middle East is On Deadly Ground.


Anyways, Sharon did it because he's an evil overlord. Evil Overlord's don't need good reasons.

Now if Israel would launch a missile strike against Steven Seagal, all would be right in the world.

[Romp]

More confirmation that Yassin's assassination has destabilized Hamas.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040323/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians_8

Neither of the two personalities now running the show has a track record of strategic decisioning.

You really think the new leadership is a good thing?

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,9061140%255E2,00.html

A HAMAS hardliner who has pushed for accelerating attacks on Israel and ruled out all compromise is the new leader of the Islamic militant group in Gaza following Israel's assassination of the group's founder.

Abdel Aziz Rantisi, a 54-year-old paediatrician, told tens of thousands of cheering Hamas supporters at a Gaza City soccer stadium that he was chosen in secret elections.

One by one, senior Hamas officials got up and swore loyalty to him.

The announcement came a day after Israel assassinated Hamas founder Sheik Ahmed Yassin and hours after Israel renewed threats to try to kill the entire Hamas leadership ahead of a possible withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.

Founded by Yassin in 1987, Hamas wants to destroy Israel and replace it with an Islamic state. Israel says Hamas killed 377 Israelis in hundreds of attacks, including 52 suicide bombings, over the years.

In his acceptance speech, Mr Rantisi made his priorities clear.

"My people, we must unify under the umbrella of resistance," he said, and exhorted the Hamas military wing to "teach this Zionist occupation a lesson".

Mr Rantisi has rejected even a temporary truce with Israel and any compromise with Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority. His aggressive style is particularly popular with younger Hamas activists

Hamas also did a lot of good charity work under Yassin, who else wants to bet that resources are shifted from those projects into killing Israelis instead?

[personman]

You really think the new leadership is a good thing?

Depends.  As far as Palestinian extremist politics goes it was hugely self-destructive.  On par with declaring war on the USA.  Which Hamas did yesterday.  Since I'm fed up with what passes for Palestinian "leadership" I think it is a wonderful thing.

I hope no one is taken in by Hamas' "charitable efforts".  But then US ex-pats from Ireland still support the IRA so I suppose there is still no bounds to human stupidiocy.

[ArtificialKid]

Nah, he can't even keep his own people in check.  

How is this relevent?

You said Arafat wouldn't wipe out Israel if he had the power.  The fact that he can't keep his pet monsters from blowing up a bus during a cease-fire casts doubts on that claim.  Even if he were as reasonable as you seem to think and not bugshit crazy, he can't unwind his own toy soldiers.

[Romp]

You really think the new leadership is a good thing?

Depends.  As far as Palestinian extremist politics goes it was hugely self-destructive.  On par with declaring war on the USA.  Which Hamas did yesterday.  Since I'm fed up with what passes for Palestinian "leadership" I think it is a wonderful thing.

I hope no one is taken in by Hamas' "charitable efforts".  But then US ex-pats from Ireland still support the IRA so I suppose there is still no bounds to human stupidiocy.

so why do you think its a wonderful thing that more bombs are going to go off, more Israelis and Palestinians are going to die and peace is going to be further away than ever?

re: charity, its not a question of being 'taken in', its a fact that they do do it and my prediction is they are now going to do less of it which can only be a bad thing right?

I assume you think that somehow Hamas is eventually going to be destroyed by this strategy but there are hundreds of people ready to take the place of each leader that dies and I bet Hamas just got a whole bunch of new members in the last few days.

[SavageX]

The problem here is that the US is taking part of the blame for this.  This is not good for those of us who enjoy leaving the country on business or pleasure.  Oh yeah, that right.. they can hit us here at home too.

If our country can denounce the acts of the suicide bombers then we can denounce the assassinations as well

[Foix]

You said Arafat wouldn't wipe out Israel if he had the power.  The fact that he can't keep his pet monsters from blowing up a bus during a cease-fire casts doubts on that claim.  Even if he were as reasonable as you seem to think and not bugshit crazy, he can't unwind his own toy soldiers.

While I can't say that I have as benevolent an opinion towards Arafat that Snowspinner does, it has to be pointed out that there is no apparent connection between your two statements. Because Arafat has little control over Hamas and their ilk--though you nevertheless refer to them as 'his' for some ill-defined reason--he desires the complete destruction of Israel?

The reality of the situation is much simpler. As Arafat himself is ostensibly not a part of the death-to-Israel wing of the Palestinian movement, his word carries no weight with the people who are. While he undoubtedly has symbolic value with the man on the street, and he is capable of winning feuds within the Palestinian Authority itself, groups like Hamas are rapidly eclipsing the power of the PA; according to the recent Economist story, it has already done so in Gaza. (Have I mentioned recently how much I love The Economist?)

Arafat's true motivations have always been somewhat hard to fathom. But he can hardly be blamed for not successfully restraining the extremist elements in the movement. The situation being as it is, any apparent willingness to compromise with Israel is immediately taken as a sign of weakness, with a commensurate decrease in respect. His successors, generally less charismatic men with less impressive credentials in the movement, have done even more poorly than he himself has. In the months and years to come, Arafat might seem in retrospect to be a positive dove compared to the Palestinian leaders who may come to win the hearts and minds of the common man in Gaza and on the West Bank.

[Vercingetorix]

[...]
Abdel Aziz Rantisi, a 54-year-old pediatrician, [...]

Did he accidentally receive his diploma ? Does he genuinely love children ? (in the non-Boogish sense of the word, of course) Or was he refused at the Torture tests for too many casualties ?

[...]
The killing of Mr Yassin is a great gust in the Palestinian Authority’s [PA] house of cards. While it nominally governs the Gaza strip and its 1.2m Arab inhabitants, Israeli incursions and checkpoints have weakened the grip of the PA’s security forces on the territory. As the PA has become riven by factional infighting, support for Hamas has steadily grown—in Gaza, its influence now exceeds the PA’s. To try to revive the tattered “road map” peace plan, the Palestinian prime minister, Ahmed Qurei, had been trying to persuade the Palestinian militants to agree to a ceasefire. But the militants had demanded in return that Israel halt its assassinations of their leaders and fighters. Now, with Mr Yassin’s death, Mr Qurei’s hopes of a ceasefire seem dashed. Meanwhile, Hamas seems likely to grow stronger, not weaker, on the wings of its newly martyred leader.

According to a http://news.tf1.fr/news/monde/0,,2128272,00.html">highly esteemed journalist colleague (in French, sorry), the assassination is part of Sharon's plan to show how fucked-up the [Gaza] Palestinians are, in political/social organization and peace-keeping capabilities (not that Sharon's efforts actually shine in the latter department, either).

[Arcadian Del Sol]

As it stands now, Israel could wipe the floor with the entire region if it wanted to.

yea but I consider a militery action a failure if even one busload of civilians die.

Terrorists consider that a victory. This is why your argument leaks water like a fish net.

[ArtificialKid]

Because Arafat has little control over Hamas and their ilk--though you nevertheless refer to them as 'his' for some ill-defined reason--he desires the complete destruction of Israel?

"His" in the sense of Arafat as the Palestinian leader.  If you want to absolve him of any responsibility when it comes to controlling Hamas, then wouldn't Israel be correct to refuse to negotiate with him?

[HaemishM]

I think Arafat can be considered a father to Hamas mainly because of all the militant shit he talked back in the 80's to stir up the Palestinians against Israel. Make no mistake, he was in Lebanon talking the same shit Hamas is talking right now back then. I still remember seeing video of him on the news holding up an AK. He wound the Palestinian militants up and only dropped the "Israel must die" schtick when he was given a measure of power by the US/Isreal negotiating team in the 90's. They essentially elected him leader by default.

But he can't control Hamas or the other fanatics, because he wields no real power. Nor do I think he wants them to stop, because Arafat benefits from the chaos.

[Snowspinner]

You said Arafat wouldn't wipe out Israel if he had the power.  The fact that he can't keep his pet monsters from blowing up a bus during a cease-fire casts doubts on that claim.  Even if he were as reasonable as you seem to think and not bugshit crazy, he can't unwind his own toy soldiers.

I'm not sure how his inability to do something is in any way relevent to this. I mean, you're right. He can't calm Hamas et al down. He doesn't have the political credibility or the willin gmanpower to do it.

But this doesn't seem to be in any way a comment on his intent - it seems a comment on the fact that, yeah, he's not actually that powerful.

Perhaps you're meaning to say "won't" instead of "can't"? That's the only interpretation whereby your claim makes any sense...

[cerberus]

two things.

First off the guy looks like the 2nd coming of saruman. That alone might justify the assasination.

2ndly dresden was awful, and I disagree with that book mentioned. Someone reviewing it put it in better words then I could.

The assertion that Dresden was a target of vital military significance that would have affected the outcome of WWII is preposterous. Germany was in full retreat on both fronts by the time Dresden was destroyed. There was nothing produced in Dresden that would have, or could have affected the outcome of the war. The 3 day raid, which used British bombers at night and US Bombers during the day was meant to do one thing, kill as many Germans as possible

Dresden = bad

Nagesake = bad

Neither of them were at all necessary, and both were orchestrated to kill further civilians.