Hamas leader is killed
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 05:07:13 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  Hamas leader is killed
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3
Author Topic: Hamas leader is killed  (Read 12012 times)
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,767


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: March 23, 2004, 06:22:17 PM »

I'm sure you've all seen this before, but the 'spiritual leader' of Hamas, Scheyk (English spelling?) Yassin, was killed yesterday by Israeli forces...and it seems to have triggered a new rise in activity on both sides. Though I suppose we should all be happy to see him go, a more imortant question might be how this will affect the peace process. Any thoughts?
Logged
dunn
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,053


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: March 23, 2004, 06:34:20 PM »

Hamas=Al Qaeda
Yasin=Bin Laden
Logged
M
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,491


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: March 23, 2004, 08:27:01 PM »

Sheik is the English.

This is why Israel sticks by the Sharon coalition, for all its many flaws and failures: Arik is not afraid to actually DO something. Sure, it has to be in his own method and on his own schedule, but still.

Hamas is in trouble leadershipwise (I think Abdel Aziz Rantisi will take over, though), but they do have a major recruiting argument. Still, they'll take time getting back on their feet. The question is, what will Jerusalem do with this moment of weakness in the terrorists' front?
Logged
Siege40
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,821


Political Matrix
E: -6.25, S: -4.26

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: March 23, 2004, 10:24:21 PM »

Sheik could be transformed into a martyr, a man like so many others that have paid in blood to the Israelis, or so the Palestinians might see it. We will see perhaps some revenge killings (attempted or otherwise), perhaps in the Israeli government or something along those lines.

Siege40
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: March 23, 2004, 11:43:20 PM »

I'm sure you've all seen this before, but the 'spiritual leader' of Hamas, Scheyk (English spelling?) Yassin, was killed yesterday by Israeli forces...and it seems to have triggered a new rise in activity on both sides. Though I suppose we should all be happy to see him go, a more imortant question might be how this will affect the peace process. Any thoughts?

It makes the final, necessary fight-to-the-death between the two peoples that much closer.  I like it.
Logged
M
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,491


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: March 24, 2004, 12:19:16 AM »

To clarify, sheik is a fairly generic Arabic tital, not a name; Yassin's first name wa in fact Ahmed.

If they could, siege, they would. Tourism Minister Rechavam Ze'evi remains the only Israeli govt figure murdered by targeted killing in a 3.5 year so far intifada, however, so it seems unlikely that they have these capabilities.

In fact, historically terrorists have been less, not more, effective immediately after strong Israeli reprisals, and most grimly successful after 2-3 month lulls and Israeli withdrawals/ negotiations.
Logged
dunn
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,053


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: March 24, 2004, 02:48:42 AM »

To clarify, sheik is a fairly generic Arabic tital, not a name; Yassin's first name wa in fact Ahmed.

If they could, siege, they would. Tourism Minister Rechavam Ze'evi remains the only Israeli govt figure murdered by targeted killing in a 3.5 year so far intifada, however, so it seems unlikely that they have these capabilities.

In fact, historically terrorists have been less, not more, effective immediately after strong Israeli reprisals, and most grimly successful after 2-3 month lulls and Israeli withdrawals/ negotiations.

true
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,767


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: March 24, 2004, 02:01:32 PM »

I'm sure you've all seen this before, but the 'spiritual leader' of Hamas, Scheyk (English spelling?) Yassin, was killed yesterday by Israeli forces...and it seems to have triggered a new rise in activity on both sides. Though I suppose we should all be happy to see him go, a more imortant question might be how this will affect the peace process. Any thoughts?

It makes the final, necessary fight-to-the-death between the two peoples that much closer.  I like it.

You like the fact that a lot of people will die? That's pretty disgusting...

M, to clarify, I did know what sheik MEANT, just unsure of the ENglish spelling of the word... Smiley

On the issue, it seems likely that the spiral of violence will just keep on going...at least fighting Hamas is better than fighting the PLO, if Hamas were wiped out things would be a lot easier.
Logged
M
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,491


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: March 24, 2004, 03:02:22 PM »

Seige seemed to assume sheik was his name.

Gustaf, Hamas is a major PLO member, as are Islamic Jihad-Palestine, PFLP-GC, and many others noxious terrorist groups. I assume you meant the PA, the recognized pseudo-independent Palestinian government, and its "police" militias. The definition between these two institutions is somewhat blurry, as Arafat leads both, but the PLO is, and only claims to be, a terrorist umbrella group, while the PA is semi-legitimate (long as you don't worry about things like democracy and accountability.)
Logged
dunn
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,053


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: March 24, 2004, 03:19:33 PM »

Seige seemed to assume sheik was his name.

Gustaf, Hamas is a major PLO member, as are Islamic Jihad-Palestine, PFLP-GC, and many others noxious terrorist groups. I assume you meant the PA, the recognized pseudo-independent Palestinian government, and its "police" militias. The definition between these two institutions is somewhat blurry, as Arafat leads both, but the PLO is, and only claims to be, a terrorist umbrella group, while the PA is semi-legitimate (long as you don't worry about things like democracy and accountability.)
M
I just wish most Americans and europeans would have known the matirial the way you know it.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,767


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: March 24, 2004, 03:49:02 PM »

Seige seemed to assume sheik was his name.

Gustaf, Hamas is a major PLO member, as are Islamic Jihad-Palestine, PFLP-GC, and many others noxious terrorist groups. I assume you meant the PA, the recognized pseudo-independent Palestinian government, and its "police" militias. The definition between these two institutions is somewhat blurry, as Arafat leads both, but the PLO is, and only claims to be, a terrorist umbrella group, while the PA is semi-legitimate (long as you don't worry about things like democracy and accountability.)

Ah, OK, sorry for the mix-up there. I'll readily admit to not being all that knowledgeable on the inter-palestinian organizational structure. Wink

I was just thinking that destroying the PA, as far as I can see, ensures eternal conflict, whereas striking against the really radical groups look a little more hopeful as a strategy. THe way I view it, it's not so much a question of moral right and wrong by this stage, but more of trying achieve the best ends. Sadly, there is no one really good to cooperate with on the Palestinian side, so Israel somehow has to find a way to deal with the situaiton as it is. I am more and more thinking that the best thing is to pull out of the occupied territories altogether, perhaps with some American security ensurances and let the Palestinians do whatever they want with their land.
Logged
M
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,491


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: March 24, 2004, 03:53:22 PM »

That does seem to be a fairly sensible solution, but it is much easier said than done.
Logged
dunn
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,053


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: March 24, 2004, 03:55:42 PM »




 I am more and more thinking that the best thing is to pull out of the occupied territories altogether,
Though that might be a solution this are not 'occupied territories' but a land 2 groups of people claim. It us the historical Hartland of the jews, It has a vast majority af arabs now.
Jordan anexed the west bank in 48' and no country but Pakistan accepeted it 'de Jure'. in 67w they attaced Israel that hold this teritory since
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,767


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: March 24, 2004, 03:57:25 PM »

That does seem to be a fairly sensible solution, but it is much easier said than done.

Everything always is... Sad

But I do think that if Israel got out of the occupied territories and removed their colonies there, it would help them a lot, both in the eyes of the world and security wise (less to worry about). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the main reason for the occupation was to make it easier to protect agianst attacks from Arab sattes? Seeing as that is now much less likely I think getting out makes some sense.
Logged
dunn
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,053


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: March 24, 2004, 04:02:41 PM »

That does seem to be a fairly sensible solution, but it is much easier said than done.

Everything always is... Sad

But I do think that if Israel got out of the occupied territories and removed their colonies there, it would help them a lot, both in the eyes of the world and security wise (less to worry about). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the main reason for the occupation was to make it easier to protect agianst attacks from Arab sattes? Seeing as that is now much less likely I think getting out makes some sense.

no
read my earlier post
Logged
M
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,491


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: March 24, 2004, 04:03:23 PM »

The preferred word is settlements. Some of these are quite near the Green line and are large in population (sometinmes dozens of thousands), so it is a reasonable argument that Israel annex some border territories. Also, East Jerusalem is fully integrated into Israel, votes in elections, etc., and the city has been officially Israel's "eternal, undivided" capital for decades. That is unlikely to be ended anytime soon.

A plurality of Israeli politicians these days more or less would like to ditch the territories, and are finding that, unlikely as it would seem at face value, the Palestinians are bent on prolonging the occupation so they can cry bloody murder about Israeli oppression. So the question becomes, how do you force self-rule on them regardless?
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,767


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: March 24, 2004, 04:10:37 PM »




 I am more and more thinking that the best thing is to pull out of the occupied territories altogether,
Though that might be a solution this are not 'occupied territories' but a land 2 groups of people claim. It us the historical Hartland of the jews, It has a vast majority af arabs now.
Jordan anexed the west bank in 48' and no country but Pakistan accepeted it 'de Jure'. in 67w they attaced Israel that hold this teritory since

I know, I know. though all of that's true, regardless of reasons it IS occupied by Israeli forces, wouldn't you say? Against the majority of the people living there wishes? But I was only using the common term, not placing a value in it.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,767


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: March 24, 2004, 04:12:18 PM »

The preferred word is settlements. Some of these are quite near the Green line and are large in population (sometinmes dozens of thousands), so it is a reasonable argument that Israel annex some border territories. Also, East Jerusalem is fully integrated into Israel, votes in elections, etc., and the city has been officially Israel's "eternal, undivided" capital for decades. That is unlikely to be ended anytime soon.

A plurality of Israeli politicians these days more or less would like to ditch the territories, and are finding that, unlikely as it would seem at face value, the Palestinians are bent on prolonging the occupation so they can cry bloody murder about Israeli oppression. So the question becomes, how do you force self-rule on them regardless?

Well, those are more technical points, I'd say. The exact borders, I mean. On settlements, I was searching for the word, but couldn't find it at first. On your ending question, they would have to rule themselves if you didn't wouldn't they?
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,590
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: March 24, 2004, 04:21:11 PM »

How about this: Israel keeps all the Golan Heights, part's of West Bank and all of East Jerusalem.
Palestine get's: Gaza, Most of the West Bank... and the Negev area (as a trade off for E. Jerusalem).

Jordan should give most of the East Bank
Logged
dunn
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,053


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: March 24, 2004, 04:25:03 PM »

How about this: Israel keeps all the Golan Heights, part's of West Bank and all of East Jerusalem.
Palestine get's: Gaza, Most of the West Bank... and the Negev area (as a trade off for E. Jerusalem).

Jordan should give most of the East Bank


I will grab it, Barak offerd Arafat better deal and Arafat started the 2nd Intifadah
Logged
MAS117
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,206
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: March 24, 2004, 04:34:18 PM »

Kick some ass Israel
Logged
M
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,491


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: March 24, 2004, 04:39:57 PM »

Mostly I like Realpolitik's idea, but it would be a sliver of the Negev, at most as large as Gaza itself. Soem parts of the Negev are Jewish or pro-Israel Bedouin, and Be'er Sheva and Eilat are large, 95+% Jewish cities.
Logged
YoMartin
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 299
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: March 24, 2004, 05:01:47 PM »


Hopefully not yours...

Thatīs the problem with "selective attacks" -who does the selection? Even if this time they really killed a terrorist (and even ignoring the obvious consequences this will have in any peace process for years), I canīt agree with giving any state a free hand to kill whoever it wants. Especially if a war criminal runs that state...

BTW, I wouldnīt be surprised if this conflict lasted for decades. Unless some secular values replace the dogmatic-religious ones that currently prevail in both sides, the problem wonīt be solved by any compromise about which territories belong to Israel and which to Palestine. I donīt see the mindsets there ready to accept this kind of pragmatic solution to the problem. But I donīt foresee a bright future for atheism there...
Logged
dunn
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,053


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: March 24, 2004, 05:10:07 PM »


Hopefully not yours...

Thatīs the problem with "selective attacks" -who does the selection? Even if this time they really killed a terrorist (and even ignoring the obvious consequences this will have in any peace process for years), I canīt agree with giving any state a free hand to kill whoever it wants. Especially if a war criminal runs that state...

BTW, I wouldnīt be surprised if this conflict lasted for decades. Unless some secular values replace the dogmatic-religious ones that currently prevail in both sides, the problem wonīt be solved by any compromise about which territories belong to Israel and which to Palestine. I donīt see the mindsets there ready to accept this kind of pragmatic solution to the problem. But I donīt foresee a bright future for atheism there...

who are you to call a democratic elected prime minister a war criminal. and If you reffer to Sabra&SHatila those were christians arabs killing muslims Arabs.
Logged
M
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,491


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: March 24, 2004, 05:58:51 PM »

Israel is completely dominated by religious values? You are clearly confused about this. Israel's Jews are about 60% secular, 20% somewhat observant, and only 20% very observant. A major party and one of Sharon's coaltion partners, Shinui, is a specifically secularist, anti-religious party. The parties of the Left are generally secularist, and and Likud, Ichud Le'umi, and even Mafdal are not religious so much as nationalist. The specifically religious parties currently have a grand total of 14 of 120 Knesset seats.

As for dogmatic, what has Israel not tried? War, peace, occupation, withdrawal, negotiation at gunpoint and in luxury at European palaces, American mediation, European mediation, you name it.

Sabra and Shatila, as dunn points out, was a massacre by Lebanese Christians of Palestinian Muslims. no Israelis or Jews were involved. Or are you trying to pin Jenin massace on him, because that was a battle, not a massacre, just like Deir Yassin was.

Who does the selection? The best intelligence services in the world, buddy: the Mossad and ShinBet.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.062 seconds with 12 queries.