Yassin Ahmed -reaction to an unlawfull killing

[M-A_19]

Hi all,

I wondered if anyone had any thoughts on what will happen in the Middle East now that Israel has finally manged to kill Yassin Ahmed.

I was amazed that my own govenment has found the backbone to condemn firing missiles at guys in wheelchairs.

I remember one of the BBC's Middle East corespondents once saying that in Arab public opinion, attacking Hamas was equivalent to bombing the National Health service in the UK.

[VonWeiner]

I think both sides know who they are dealing with.

Hamas knows Israel. They understand if you carry out terrorist attacks, proclaim your hatred of Israel (even to the point of denying its existence) and continue to support any group that attacks Israel, you will get attacked back. What can they expect but a missle in their leader's laps?

Israel knows Hamas and the Palestinians. They understand that by occupying their land (illegaly), by treating Palestinians like criminals, by settling on more land (stealing), they are going to be attacked. The Palestinians don't have helicopters and tanks (one reason they hate the USA), so they use terror attacks.

The Arab world has hated Israel since its founding (1947?) and has carried out open warfare with them. The strange arrangement by the UN/Europe/USA allowed Israel to come into being and it has turned into one of the hottest regions on earth (I say strange because I don't completely understand it - not because I have a negative opinion of it).

Groups like Hamas have claimed responsibility for countless attacks on Israel. They have called for the destruction of Israel and the death of all its citizens. Whatever their motivations, what can they expect but to have their leaders killed? I am surprised it has taken Israel this long to start killing the leaders of these internationally recognized terrorist organizations.

Do I condone shooting missles into crowds of defenseless people? Absolutely not. Do I condone the detonation of bombs amongst innocent people? No.

I think both sides have a lot to answer for. I know most arabs I have met understand exactly what groups like Hamas are about. They know Hamas is no gentle organization (like the National Health service ). Most arabs I know will correct you if you say Israel. They will say it is called Palestine. They don't even acknowledge Israel's existence.

And most Israelis I have known understand that what their gov't is doing to the Palestinians is wrong, and understand why they are attacked. But then again they look at the arab world as a people against them (can you blame them?).

It is so complicated. I think both sides understand completely what they do. All the screaming in the streets at the death of this leader is just more propaganda to fuel the fires. Hamas has been calling for the deaths of Israelis and Americans alike for years. And Sharon has been responsible for some pretty bad atrosities himself.

Both sides think they have a religious right to the land. It will never be solved I think, with out alot more bloodshed.

One more thing to add. I think its fine for the leaders of these organizations (Israeli gov't, Hamas, Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, etc..) to say kill, kill, kill, but its the other 95% of the people who want to live their lives in peace that get caught in the crossfire. Most in Israel and the Arab world would be willing to compromise, I think.

[M-A_19]

I myself don't know any Arabs at all and have had only passing business contact with a few muslims.

The only time I have left the UK was to visit Iceland so I can claim no local knowledge on the middle east, just an interest on how a problem can be so insoluable.

I think the BBC guys point, was to do with Hamas's investment in local community projects providing the kind of social support that is otherwise non-existant in palestine. This sort of activity brings in the kind of community support (hiding activists, donations, recruitment etc) that a group like Hamas cannot live without. and a wider sense that when Hamas is attacked, the community itself feels under attack.

People often draw parralells with the Northern Ireland situation when they talk about the middle east. I think that in the end, the militants in northern ireland came to the table because the support from their respective communities for violence was waning. I don't see any action by any party in the middle east that seems aimed towards reducing enthusiasm for violence in either community

I asked the original question to see if anyone thought that this particular round of tit-for-tat would be any diferent than the last one.

I'm concerned that I may have started a thread almost as pointless as the conflict it discusses :(

[Jules]

I must say that although I don't think it was the cleverest move on Israel's part, I can't muster much sympathy for the guy.

He was the leader of an openly terrorist organisation, and for my money that makes him fair game - a military target - wheelchair or not. You don't go to war then get all surprised when you get hit back, but then logic isn't a strong point on either side of this conflict.

Good points about the IRA and how Hamas maintains it's support though - the fall in IRA support seems to have been about the same time that the Irish economy boomed within the EU, which I think removed a lot of the anger towards the British - hard to maintain a chip of your shoulder when you're doing better, and people become less political with prosperity it seems.

I guess what's needed in Palestine is a non-violent Muslim organisation to replace Hamas in providing that social help. It still wouldn't help with those who believe in the destruction of Israel, but hopefully they could become as much a minority as our own extreme right-wing Nationalists.