Sheikh Ahmed Yassin was killed on Monday, March 22. While he was being wheeled out of an early morning prayer session, he was struck by missiles fired from Israeli helicopter gunships and died instantly, along with seven others. More than a dozen people were injured in the attack, including two of his sons. The Israel Defense Forces issued a terse statement:
"This morning, in a security forces operation in the northern Gaza Strip, the IDF targeted a car carrying the head of the Hamas terror organization, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, and his aides," the IDF statement said. "Yassin, responsible for numerous murderous terror attacks, resulting in the deaths of many civilians, both Israeli and foreign, was killed in the attack." Hamas official Ismail Haniyeh commented: "This is the moment Sheikh Yassin dreamed about". The Hamas leadership said Ariel Sharon had "opened the gates of hell."
The international community, including the EU and UN secretary general Kofi Annan, firmly condemned the assassination of Yassin. The United States Administration has sent confusing statements. Condoleezza Rice, seemed close to endorsing the killing, saying "Hamas was a terrorist organisation and Sheikh Yassin was heavily involved in terrorism." State department spokesman, Richard Boucher, struck a very different note, saying he "the US government was deeply troubled by the attack."
I guess the question is whether this was an act undertaken under the framework of war. Only during war does one accept such targeted assasinations, such frontal murder. Only during war, when the objective is to bring the enemy to its knees and surrender, is it conventional to trespass over enemy territory and launch a broad attack. Obviously, Sharon assumes Israel is at war, which raises the question of what his war objectives are. Does he honestly think he is simply engaging a war on Hamas and other terrorist organizations, which happen to be intertwined with a oppressed population? Is it a broad war against Palestinians - this is most assuredly how they percieve it, along with most of the Muslim world. Does he hope the assasination will help decrease terrorism? He is falling under the same misleading conception - to which the Bush administration falls victim - that terrorism can be fought with brutal violence. It may sound like a trite cliché, that violence breeds more violence, but rings true.
Perhaps this isn't an idication that Israel is at war. Assuming, this was "simply" a targeted assasination, I am compelled to still react against it. I am against the death penalty, and think more would have been acheived by arresting and trying Yassin. Others would not have to have died during his assasination. And most importantly, it would have projected a message of justice, not revenge, that would contribute to an eventual peace process. The targeted assasination merely lead to acts of counte-revenge.
BBC obituary
Wikipedia biography
"This morning, in a security forces operation in the northern Gaza Strip, the IDF targeted a car carrying the head of the Hamas terror organization, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, and his aides," the IDF statement said. "Yassin, responsible for numerous murderous terror attacks, resulting in the deaths of many civilians, both Israeli and foreign, was killed in the attack." Hamas official Ismail Haniyeh commented: "This is the moment Sheikh Yassin dreamed about". The Hamas leadership said Ariel Sharon had "opened the gates of hell."
The international community, including the EU and UN secretary general Kofi Annan, firmly condemned the assassination of Yassin. The United States Administration has sent confusing statements. Condoleezza Rice, seemed close to endorsing the killing, saying "Hamas was a terrorist organisation and Sheikh Yassin was heavily involved in terrorism." State department spokesman, Richard Boucher, struck a very different note, saying he "the US government was deeply troubled by the attack."
I guess the question is whether this was an act undertaken under the framework of war. Only during war does one accept such targeted assasinations, such frontal murder. Only during war, when the objective is to bring the enemy to its knees and surrender, is it conventional to trespass over enemy territory and launch a broad attack. Obviously, Sharon assumes Israel is at war, which raises the question of what his war objectives are. Does he honestly think he is simply engaging a war on Hamas and other terrorist organizations, which happen to be intertwined with a oppressed population? Is it a broad war against Palestinians - this is most assuredly how they percieve it, along with most of the Muslim world. Does he hope the assasination will help decrease terrorism? He is falling under the same misleading conception - to which the Bush administration falls victim - that terrorism can be fought with brutal violence. It may sound like a trite cliché, that violence breeds more violence, but rings true.
Perhaps this isn't an idication that Israel is at war. Assuming, this was "simply" a targeted assasination, I am compelled to still react against it. I am against the death penalty, and think more would have been acheived by arresting and trying Yassin. Others would not have to have died during his assasination. And most importantly, it would have projected a message of justice, not revenge, that would contribute to an eventual peace process. The targeted assasination merely lead to acts of counte-revenge.
BBC obituary
Wikipedia biography
posted by André Levy @ 8:42 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home