Reposting from
yesterday:
Right in the sense of legal? Yes, the killing was legal. Once we accept that this is an armed conflict, combatants are fair game. Sheikh Yassin directed militants against Israeli targets. He was a guerrilla leader. That makes him fair game.
Moreover, Sheikh Yassin was a war criminal. He deliberately targeted civilians who had no direct association with the conflict and were engaged at the time they were attacked in mundane, day=to-day activities. Yes, it would have been better to put him on trial for that, but we don't need formal proceedings to draw that conclusion.
Sheikh Yassin was a racist. He openly called for the removal of Jews from Israel. It's one thing to call for the removal of illegal settlements from occupied territory; it's not racist to ask that an occupying power respect international law and the rights of the residents of occupied territory by refraining from transferring parts of its own population to land beyond its borders that it controls. However, it racist to tell people to leave their homes simply because they are of the wrong ethnic group.
Was it right in the sense of being a good idea? Israel will see no short term benefit from this assassination. It won't prevent one attack that would have happened anyway. Israel can assassinate all of Hamas' leaders and more will rise to replace them.
Even in the long term, the only thing that is going to break the Palestinian Resistance is the end of occupation. One does not need to call the end of the "Zionist entity" (I don't) in order to realize that Palestinians have some serious legitimate grievances against the occupying power of the West Bank and Gaza. Rightly or wrongly, were I a Palestinian, I would believe that an end to resistance would mean bringing about a world were Israelis can with impunity and without just cause force Palestinians from their homes in order build housing where the former residents are prohibited from living and accessed on segregated roads. That is happening today and as long as it appears to be what Israel is fighting for in the occupied territories, then resistance is natural and just. It will continue.
Yassin's idea of what Palestinian resistance should look like was abominable. His goals for the ends that resistance should be were unobtainable. Nevertheless, Yassin didn't start this conflict and killing him won't end it.
By the same token, Sharon is also a legitimate target. We cannot very well justify the targeting of Yassin on the grounds that this is an armed conflict and not also admit that Sharon and other Israeli officials are also legitimate targets.
Sharon has been no more a positive force for peace than was Yassin. He has never seen a peace agreement that he liked. He actively worked to undermine Oslo. He is the architect of the settlement program, which provides the Palestinian with a legitimate grievance (as noted above). Like Yassin, Sharon has a bloody past that would support charges of war crimes.
Anybody who can claim to be the architect of Israel's settlement program is a racist. The policy rests on the premise that Jews have rights in places beyond Israel's borders where Palestinians live that Palestinians do not.
While it would be as "legal" for the Palestinian militants to target the Israeli Prime Minister as it is for the Israelis to target the leader of a guerrilla organization, and while Sharon the man has no more moral standing in this conflict than did Yassin, it would do the Palestinians no more good to assassinate Sharon than it does the Israelis to assassinate Yassin. The government would have less difficulty choosing a Prime Minister than Hamas had finding a new leader. The assassination of Sharon would not result in one housing unit in one settlement being torn down, the removal of the security wall to the Green Line, the withdrawal of Israeli troops from occupied territory or the establishment of a Palestinian state. It certainly won't bring about the destruction of Israel, which is Hamas' goal.
As the Palestinians have legitimate grievances against the Israeli authorities, so do the Israelis have legitimate grievances against the Palestinian leadership. Israel is not going to be driven into the sea. Sheikh Yassin's demand that Jews go back to Europe was ludicrous and grotesque. The preferred tactic of the Palestinian resistance isn't warfare; it's terrorism. No matter how legitimate the Palestinian grievances are, that make Palestinian guerrillas less warriors than criminals. Until Palestinian leaders, which means those in charge of guerrillas more than it means any figure in the PA, assure the Israelis that civilians will not be targeted, the occupation and the conflict will continue.
Personally, I greeted Yassin's demise with remark of "good riddance." I won't retract that. He was a terrible man who made things worse rather than better. Nevertheless, the Israelis have accomplished nothing by killing him.
By the same token, the Palestinians would accomplish nothing by targeting the Israeli leadership.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
