Israeli Airstrike Kills Hamas Founder

[KevinTheOmnivore]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040322/D81F6VR00.html

Israeli Airstrike Kills Hamas Founder

Mar 21, 11:47 PM (ET)

By IBRAHIM BARZAK

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (AP) - Sheik Ahmed Yassin, the founder and leader of the Hamas militant group that targeted Israelis in suicide bombings, was killed by missiles fired from Israeli helicopters as he left a mosque at daybreak Monday, witnesses said.

Hamas confirmed the death in an announcement broadcast over mosque loudspeakers and vowed revenge against Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

Witnesses said Israeli helicopters fired three missiles at the wheelchair-bound Yassin and two bodyguards as they left the mosque, killing them instantly.

A total of four people were killed and 12 were wounded in the attack, witnesses said.

Yussef Haddad, 35, a taxi driver, said he saw the missiles hit Yassin and the bodyguards.

"Their bodies were shattered," he said.

Yassin was by far the most senior Palestinian militant killed in more than three years of Israeli-Palestinian fighting. Since September 2000, 474 people - the majority of them Israelis - have been killed in 112 Palestinian suicide bombings.

Sharon's government has gone after militant leaders using Israeli helicopter gunships in a controversial policy that has resulted in a number of civilian casualties in addition to the deaths of senior figures in Hamas and other groups.

Yassin was viewed as an inspirational figure by his followers in the Gaza Strip and West Bank. His death could spur violent protests not only in the Palestinian areas but in the wider Arab and Islamic world, where he was well-regarded as a symbol of the Palestinian battle for independence.

Thousands of angry Palestinians gathered minutes after the attack, calling for revenge against Israel.

In announcing Yassin's death, Hamas said, "(Israeli Prime Minister Ariel) Sharon has opened the gates of hell and nothing will stop us from cutting off his head."

Ambulances and fire trucks raced to the scene with sirens wailing, and rescue workers gathered up the shattered bodies.

Outside the morgue at Shifa Hospital in Gaza City, Hamas official Ismail Haniyeh, a close associate of Yassin, had tears in his eyes as he confirmed Yassin's death and pledged revenge.

"This is the moment Sheik Yassin dreamed about," Haniyeh said. "Sheik Yassin lived and died and offered his life to Palestine. Sheik Yassin was a hero and a fighter and the leader of a nation, and (he) is in heaven now."

Yassin founded Hamas at the start of the first Palestinian intefadeh, or uprising, in 1987. It is an offshoot of the Islamic fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood, which is based in Egypt.

The Bush administration, as well as Israel, lists Hamas as a terrorist group.

Yassin was held in Israeli prisons for several years before being released in 1994.

Yassin lived in a modest house in the rundown Sabra neighborhood in Gaza City. Israel, which blamed him for inspiring Hamas bombers and attackers who killed hundreds of Israelis, tried unsuccessfully to kill him in a September missile strike that injured 16 people.

Past Israeli governments were reluctant to target Yassin, fearing a firestorm of revenge attacks.
###

[mburbank]

I'm sure the Palestinians will react calmly to this. There's nothing like assasinating a fanatical religous leader to bring people to their senses. It's like slapping a hysterical person. They thank you for it.

[Brandon]

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/world/0403/gallery.yassin.killed/gal.yassin.cu.ap.jpg
Yeah, I heard the Israelis just killed him at Isengard, since there just wasn't enough time for the "Scouring of the Shire" scene.

[AChimp]

:lol

[Zhukov]

No right minded person would think that killing this man would mean an end to attacks on Israeli civillians.

Either Ariel Sharon and his assassin buddies are insane, they want more attacks to happen, or they don't care about life.

I am inclined to think it is all three.

Israeli helicopters fired three missiles at the wheelchair-bound Yassin
I'm laughing, but I am still sad.

[mburbank]

I don't mean to say that I think this guy was not a terrible and in fact evil person (I think people who justify slaughter in the name of God can be called Evil without exageration.) I do think rocket attacks from the air decends to the level of terrorism in that iit practically guarantees bystanders will be maimed and killed. Palestinian terrorsim aims for anonymous civillians and is reprehensible. Israeli assasination aims at speciffic targets, but basically says it's tough luck for anyone else who happens to be nearby.

I only mean that assasinating him will probably entrench violence and bring more, not less bloodshed. It functions as crude justice at best, simple vendetta, and I doubt strongly that it deters or even interferes with future terrorism.

[CastroMotorOil]

Goddammit i hate Sharon, I'd like to think its both sides fault in the whole Israeli, palestinian thing, and it is, but Sharon just keeps upping the fucking ante, and increasing the level of violence.

The palestinains still share a ton of the blame, but i hope to god they assassinate Sharon, because whats fucking next, suitcase nukes to palestinian neighborhoods?

[Zhukov]

Assassiating Sharon will have the same effect as Assassinating Yassin. You can't fix a problem without recognising the cause, and Sharon ain't it. If it weren't Sharon ordering bulldozers to decimate houses, it would be somebdy else. Just as it will be with Hamas.

State terrorism creates individual terrorism, individual terrorism gives the state an excuse for terrorism.

The palestinains still share a ton of the blame
The Palestinians terrorists share the blame for suicide bombs and Israeli deaths, they do not share the blame for creating the problem in he first place.

Would Israeli attacks and exploitation of Palistine end if the suicide bombng ended? What do people think?

[mburbank]

I think attacks wouldn't because there's no gain if it's not percieved as a security measure.

As for exploitation, it depends on what you mean. I certainly don't think the Israeli right wing would be inclined to start supporting rights for palestinians beyond what they now have.

BUT. think in the absence of violence of violence, unilaterally, on either side, world pressure to move toward a two stte solution would be much harder to ignore. I also believe there are people on both sides for who the bloodshed has gone too far. The absence of violence on either side would give them leverage and room to work.

The Israelis have given one motivated terrorist the ability to thwart the peace process. The Palestinians have given the Israelis a tctical excuse to do so by actively supporting terrorism. The entrenched leadership of both sides have no motivation to seriously move toward peace.

[CastroMotorOil]

I did not mean the palestinians as a whole share the blame for CREATING the problem, i meant that they contribute plenty to the cycle of violence that exists in Isreal.

As for assassinating Sharon, I can't help but think that almsot ANYONE would be a better candidate, somehow I don't remember Rabin causing this much of a problem there, granted things were different then, but then Isreal was moving towards peace, now, whenever a suicide attacks takes place, its like Sharon has to respond 3 fold.

[Brandon]

Good riddance to bad rubbish, I say.

Honestly, I think Israel has the right approach to dealing with organizations like Hamas. They recognized a long time ago that you can never appease terrorists, so you have to eliminate them. The Palestinians do not want peace and they will never compromise. Arafat, after all, walked away from offers of land from the Israeli government.

As for the idea that this will create more bloodshed..

Well what more could possibly be done at this point? It's not like things were peachy before they blew Saruman the White to bits.

[mburbank]

No, but unless Israel wants to commit to to full bodied genocide or ethnic cleansing, then something has to be done to attempt to break the cycle of violence. Removing terrorists one by one along with six or seven people in a one block radius each time isn't going to do that, and it creates more terrorists.

While things weren't peachy before this assasination, I can think of an assasination before which things were quite a bit better. Rabin's.

In addition, while I think a violent religous fanatic is a very dangerous thing, I think the image of a paralyzed preacher lieing in a pool of blood amidst the wreckage of his wheelchair outside the Mosque where he just attended services could prove to be more dangerous. Images of violent martyrdom often have lifespans that dwarf the immagination. Ask Jesus.

[Brandon]

And just why is it Israel's obligation to "break the cycle of violence"? Israel and its attackers are not moral equals; Israel is a modern state that recognizes individual liberty, and it has every right to exist and defend itself. It uses military force in self-defense. If more terrorists spring up, Israel should eliminate them too. And if more show up after that? Yep, wipe them out as well.

This is a matter of principle. The burden is on the Palestinians to abandon terrorism, not for the Israelis to appease them.

[mburbank]

"And just why is it Israel's obligation to "break the cycle of violence"?


Because the Palestinians won't. Because Israel is a civilzed nation. Because the Israeli's are the haves and the Palestinians are th have nots. Because Israel was founded to be a light unto the world. Because we believe we are the children of God. Because a people who have endured the suffering we have should do everything in their power to keep from inlficting suffering. Because matters of principle often ned only when no one is left alive. Because a great rabbi once advised that we turn the other cheek, and that loving our friend and neighbor was easy but the lord asked we love our enemy as well. Because God didn't give Jonah an option. Because when self defense is non descrimantory it ceases to be self defense. Because there are worse things even than death and to become that which you despise is one of them.

[Phil the anorak]

Hands up those that think Israel's a safer place tonight?


Stupid decision made by an absolute moral decrepit in my opinion.
Sharon has done more for terrorist recruitment than to make Israel a safer place

[Brandon]

Because the Palestinians won't. Because Israel is a civilzed nation. Because the Israeli's are the haves and the Palestinians are th have nots. Because Israel was founded to be a light unto the world. Because we believe we are the children of God. Because a people who have endured the suffering we have should do everything in their power to keep from inlficting suffering. Because matters of principle often ned only when no one is left alive. Because a great rabbi once advised that we turn the other cheek, and that loving our friend and neighbor was easy but the lord asked we love our enemy as well. Because God didn't give Jonah an option. Because when self defense is non descrimantory it ceases to be self defense. Because there are worse things even than death and to become that which you despise is one of them.
I'm still not seeing how that lays the responsibility for negotiating peace in the laps of the victims rather than the terrorists.

Max, don't you find the idea of appeasing terrorists the slightest bit deplorable?

[Ronnie Raygun]

If you live by the sword, you die by the sword.

It goes along with the territory.

Yassin knew that and he chose that way of life, the Jews didn't choose it for him.

[thebiggameover]

If you live by the sword, you die by the sword.

It goes along with the territory.

Yassin knew that and he chose that way of life, the Jews didn't choose it for him.

I'm going to agree with you this time. but this time only...

[Zhukov]

AB, surely you do not think of the Israeli government as victims? The victims of this latest attack, and all others, are the Palestinian and Israeli working people.

Peace lies in the laps of the victims, as the Israeli and Palestinian states are incapable of breaking he cycle because their methods always lead in the opposite direction. Israel will never abandon it's state terrorism, it is against it's own interests.

Sharon wishes to use the reaction of the Palestinian terrorists to step up repression against the Palestinian people as a whole. It also serves nicely to justify the wall they are building which cuts right through whole Palestinian communities.

The Palestinian people will continue to live in a prison house, without jobs, without decent water etc, while the Israeli people have their minds concentrated on the fear of being bombed at any moment.

The Palestinians do not want peace and they will never compromise
Are you talking about Palestinian people, terrorists, or their "leaders"?

They recognized a long time ago that you can never appease terrorists, so you have to eliminate them
Eliminating terrorists creates many more terrorists. If you kill a terrorist, you create a terrorist in his brother, father, son, uncle, cousin, friend etc. This goes for everyone you kill, collateral damage included. Nearly everyone realises this, but it still seems it needs to be repeated. If you "shoot down" those terrorists, you create more. What a stupid way of combating terrorism, of course, "wars on terror" and the like never have the intention of ending terrorism, the people that spout that kind of crap use the reaction for their own gains. Likewise, state terrorism is the best recruiting agent for individual terrorism.

Israel is a modern state that recognizes individual liberty,
Except for Palestinians.

The burden is on the Palestinians to abandon terrorism
You have already said that they are unwilling to compromise, so you must want the killing to go on forever.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

If you live by the sword, you die by the sword.

It goes along with the territory.

Yassin knew that and he chose that way of life, the Jews didn't choose it for him.

Funny, a guy from Hamas said something similar today, while a dozen or so volunteered to be suicide bombers in Israel.....

[Brandon]

AB, surely you do not think of the Israeli government as victims? The victims of this latest attack, and all others, are the Palestinian and Israeli working people.
Obviously civilians suffer the most from this violence, but yes, I believe the Israeli state is, in essence, a victim since it has been under attack since its founding for doing absolutely nothing wrong.

Peace lies in the laps of the victims, as the Israeli and Palestinian states are incapable of breaking he cycle because their methods always lead in the opposite direction. Israel will never abandon it's state terrorism, it is against it's own interests.
Oh please, you can hardly call what Israel does "state terrorism."

Sharon wishes to use the reaction of the Palestinian terrorists to step up repression against the Palestinian people as a whole. It also serves nicely to justify the wall they are building which cuts right through whole Palestinian communities.

The Palestinian people will continue to live in a prison house, without jobs, without decent water etc, while the Israeli people have their minds concentrated on the fear of being bombed at any moment.
Well, the best thing the Palestinian leaders can do to get their people out of said "prison house" is to abandon violent action. Israel is under no obligation to listen to the Palestinian "plight" until the Palestinian leaders stop sponsoring terrorism.

The Palestinians do not want peace and they will never compromise
Are you talking about Palestinian people, terrorists, or their "leaders"?
Palestinian leaders and terrorists.

They recognized a long time ago that you can never appease terrorists, so you have to eliminate them
Eliminating terrorists creates many more terrorists. If you kill a terrorist, you create a terrorist in his brother, father, son, uncle, cousin, friend etc. This goes for everyone you kill, collateral damage included. Nearly everyone realises this, but it still seems it needs to be repeated. If you "shoot down" those terrorists, you create more. What a stupid way of combating terrorism, of course, "wars on terror" and the like never have the intention of ending terrorism, the people that spout that kind of crap use the reaction for their own gains. Likewise, state terrorism is the best recruiting agent for individual terrorism.
Well, the alternative is appeasement, Zhukov. Do you think governments, in good conscience, should negotiate with terrorists?

Israel is a modern state that recognizes individual liberty,
Except for Palestinians.
The Palestinians have declared themselves a separate people; the enemy of the Israeli government. Besides, if leaders like Arafat had their way, the Palestinians would be under oppressive, Islamic, theocratic rule, so don't feed me this crap that they're freedom fighters.

The burden is on the Palestinians to abandon terrorism
You have already said that they are unwilling to compromise, so you must want the killing to go on forever.
No, I don't want the killing to go on forever. However, if a lack of peace is a side effect of Israel's refusal to be bullied by fools and fanatics, then I guess that's the way things are going to have to be.

[Ronnie Raygun]

"Funny, a guy from Hamas said something similar today, while a dozen or so volunteered to be suicide bombers in Israel....." - Kevin

Yes. And who would know this more than a suicide bomber?

Nobody.

I guess I'm just a Jew loving son of a bitch.

[derrida]

Capitalism will always have its discontents. It is too radical and powerful a force for it to exist without resistance. I think that in the next few years we will come to accept terrorism as another "inevitability" of modern life as we have crime, poverty, and alienation.

[Zhukov]

EDIT: Totaly agree with derrida, resistance is more extreme in Palestine because the Capitalist government is using more extreme ways of ruling them.

Oh please, you can hardly call what Israel does "state terrorism."
Why not? Surely the bulldozers, assassination and wall building can be considered forms of terrorism? I am sure that if Osama shot rockets at people from a helicopter, it would be terrorism.

Well, the best thing the Palestinian leaders can do to get their people out of said "prison house" is to abandon violent action

Don’t you realise that it is not Palestinian leaders that dish out the violence, it is ordinary Palestinian youth who are disenchanted with Israeli oppression, and rightly so.

"This is a crazy and very dangerous act. It opens the door wide to chaos. Yassin is known for his moderation and he was controlling Hamas and therefore this is a dangerous, cowardly act", says Prime Minister Ahmad Quraya.

Sheik Yassin is dead, but violent action will still continue. PM Quraya says he was a moderate, but bloody attacks still occured. Could this be because Palestinian militants realise that no matter what Arafat or some spiritual leader says abouy ending the fight , Israel will continue to oppress.

Well, the alternative is appeasement, Zhukov. Do you think governments, in good conscience, should negotiate with terrorists?
The only alternative is unity between the workers of Israel and Palestine. The strategy for victory is one that combines a democratic leadership of the resistance, (I am a believer in Intifada I, not Intifada II.) genuine armed struggle, a political outlook that appeals to ordinary Israeli workers to fight against their own capitalists, and an internationalist appeal to the Arab workers and youth to rise and overthrow their own governments. That is the only alternative.

Appeasement is never, ever, going to be put forward by the Israeli govt.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

The only alternative is unity between the workers of Israel and Palestine. The strategy for victory is one that combines a democratic leadership of the resistance, (I am a believer in Intifada I, not Intifada II.) genuine armed struggle, a political outlook that appeals to ordinary Israeli workers to fight against their own capitalists, and an internationalist appeal to the Arab workers and youth to rise and overthrow their own governments. That is the only alternative.

I'm not so sure this is a very relevant argument. Israel is a nation that was essentially founded and built by socialist worker types, the Histadrut (sic). Israel is a VERY liberal and progressive country. They are far ahead of us in many ways.

This issue with the Arabs runs a lot deeper than merely class conflict, impoverished proletariat, etc.

I guess I'm just a Jew loving son of a bitch.

You should put a pipe in that strawman's mouth.....

[Zhukov]

It is relevant to everyone, no matter how progressive the people are. Especialy when Sharon is using Palestinian reaction to cut back the gains made by the Israeli workers.

Revolution is not best suited to backwards and right wing countries, quite the opposite.

They are far ahead of us in many ways.
Since the USA has the most reactionary government and working class in the world, I would say that alot of countries are way ahead in terms of 'liberalism'.

[Abcdxxxx]

Burbank : "Israel wants to commit to to full bodied genocide or ethnic cleansing"

Can you prove any violence against Palestinians is ethnically motivated or that Israel has sponsored killings based on religious or racial hatred rather then security. It's not.

Burbank: "Because the Israeli's are the haves and the Palestinians are th have nots."

The perception amongst Israelis and their supporters is that this conflict is between Israel against the entire Arab world NOT just the Palestinians. Who declared war on Israel at it's inception? Hint - It wasn't the Palestinians. If Israel declared a full on war against Palestinians who would they be fighting against? The ENTIRE Arab world. The Palestinians are pawns, and the reals "haves" are their own people. This is why every negotiation with the Palestinians involves bargaining the issue of Israel's recognition by the Arab world.


Zhukov: "The victims of this latest attack, and all others, are the Palestinian and Israeli working people. "

Israel and Zionism was initially founded on Socialist, and Communist principles within a Democratic context. The Israeli working people are responsible for their own security, and this mission you're critical of. As for the Palestinian working class, I can only hope less of them will be blackmailed into blowing themselves up as part of Yassin's Or Rantisi's or Arafat's genocidal dreams.

Zhukov : "Israel will never abandon it's state terrorism, it is against it's own interests. "

What interests are those? Stop hinting and say what you really believe.

Zhukov: " It also serves nicely to justify the wall they are building which cuts right through whole Palestinian communities. "

These communities were never connected in the first place. You're speaking of land that was either A) never inhabited or B) was owned by three different nations. Whatever issues you're speaking of already existed BEFORE any walls. There have never been proper roads connecting these villages...because they were NEVER connected in the first place.

Zhukov: "The Palestinian people will continue to live in a prison house, without jobs, without decent water etc,"

A) unlike Jews, the Palestinians have 21 other countries in the middle east to live in. 70% have chosen Jordanian citizenship. Any "Prison House" is the fault of the Palestinians own autonomous leadership, and the Arab nations who rule their own people with dictatorships and oppression. B) They had jobs inside Israel before the Intifada. Many Arabs hold jobs within Israel, and really why is it Israel's responsibility to employ a nation that claims it's ready for soveriegnty? C) Water? You're going to blame Israel for a water crisis that effects the ENTIRE area? Jews suffer from the same water rationing crisis as Arabs.

Some thoughts:

- Genocide breaches international law, and the leaders of Hamas are responsible for the murder and wounding of thousands of Isrealis, and Americans. Yassin is responsible for the child abuse, and deaths of countless more Palestinians.

- Hamas already escalated the level of attacks when they sent two teenage boys into Ashdod with the intent of releasing a poison cloud over Central Israel.

- This was in preparation of Israel handing over Gaza.

[Brandon]

Oh please, you can hardly call what Israel does "state terrorism."
Why not? Surely the bulldozers, assassination and wall building can be considered forms of terrorism? I am sure that if Osama shot rockets at people from a helicopter, it would be terrorism.
Apples and oranges; the above measures were done in the interest of responding to threats and maintaining some measure of national security. Also remember that, with the exception of assasinating dangerous terrorist leaders like Yassin, the methods you describe are essentially nonviolent.

Well, the best thing the Palestinian leaders can do to get their people out of said "prison house" is to abandon violent action

Don’t you realise that it is not Palestinian leaders that dish out the violence, it is ordinary Palestinian youth who are disenchanted with Israeli oppression, and rightly so.

"This is a crazy and very dangerous act. It opens the door wide to chaos. Yassin is known for his moderation and he was controlling Hamas and therefore this is a dangerous, cowardly act", says Prime Minister Ahmad Quraya.

Sheik Yassin is dead, but violent action will still continue. PM Quraya says he was a moderate, but bloody attacks still occured. Could this be because Palestinian militants realise that no matter what Arafat or some spiritual leader says abouy ending the fight , Israel will continue to oppress.
Just because the Palestinians perceive the Israelis as oppressors doesn't mean they are. Keep in mind that since the founding of Israel, the Israelis have had to fight five or so wars, all in self-defense. They have never been the "aggressors." Oh, and Yassin was no "moderate."

Well, the alternative is appeasement, Zhukov. Do you think governments, in good conscience, should negotiate with terrorists?
The only alternative is unity between the workers of Israel and Palestine. The strategy for victory is one that combines a democratic leadership of the resistance, (I am a believer in Intifada I, not Intifada II.) genuine armed struggle, a political outlook that appeals to ordinary Israeli workers to fight against their own capitalists, and an internationalist appeal to the Arab workers and youth to rise and overthrow their own governments. That is the only alternative.

Appeasement is never, ever, going to be put forward by the Israeli govt.
I should have known you'd attempt to frame this in terms of Marxism.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

A) unlike Jews, the Palestinians have 21 other countries in the middle east to live in. 70% have chosen Jordanian citizenship. Any "Prison House" is the fault of the Palestinians own autonomous leadership, and the Arab nations who rule their own people with dictatorships and oppression. B) They had jobs inside Israel before the Intifada. Many Arabs hold jobs within Israel, and really why is it Israel's responsibility to employ a nation that claims it's ready for soveriegnty? C) Water? You're going to blame Israel for a water crisis that effects the ENTIRE area? Jews suffer from the same water rationing crisis as Arabs.

Since ABC and I clearly know where each other stand and disagree on this matter, I only want to chime in and agree with him on this point. I am of the opinion that check points and curfews that prevent Palestinians from going to work can only be counter-productive, for both Palestinians who need the work, as well as Israelis who could use the labor. I think both sides have prompted these problems. However, Arabs living WITHIN the Israeli border, regardless of the hardships they may face, still have the highest living standards out of any in the Middle East. The health services, educational services, and civic opportunities that are provide to them in Israel are superior to that of ANY other Arab nation. I think it's erronious to argue that the "Jews" are out to oppress the "Arabs." I for one am all in favor of scrutinizing Israel where they deserve it, but we should remain consistent here. How can we go on rants about "terrorist states" when many of the "Palestinian nationals" are merely people crossing the border from Lebanon and Syria...? And speaking of terrorist states, since we have a PLO, where's the LLO....? Where is the Arab indignation over Syria's treatment of its people? Where is the pan-Arab indignation over occupied Lebanon??? You're right Zukov, some people need to start rising up, but Israel isn't necessarily the only (or even the worst) target.

Some thoughts:

- Genocide breaches international law, and the leaders of Hamas are responsible for the murder and wounding of thousands of Isrealis, and Americans. Yassin is responsible for the child abuse, and deaths of countless more Palestinians.

- Hamas already escalated the level of attacks when they sent two teenage boys into Ashdod with the intent of releasing a poison cloud over Central Israel.

- This was in preparation of Israel handing over Gaza.

Everything you say here is true ABC, however, is this really in the best interest of Israel, or anybody...? How many more civilians will die b/c of this? How many apathetic to moderate leaning Palestinians will now become radicalized by this??? How does taking out the figure head of an umbrella organization, with all of its webs and splinters, make the Israeli people (and for that matter the Palestinian people) any safer....?

[Abcdxxxx]

Everything you say here is true ABC, however, is this really in the best interest of Israel, or anybody...? How many more civilians will die b/c of this? How many apathetic to moderate leaning Palestinians will now become radicalized by this??? How does taking out the figure head of an umbrella organization, with all of its webs and splinters, make the Israeli people (and for that matter the Palestinian people) any safer....?

Well it's like fighting the mafia. There's also the perogative that appeasment is a sign of weakness, viewed as success in the eyes of extremist Arabs that promotes their tactics. Handing over Gaza while Hamas was intact (and feuding with Arafat in Ramallah) would have been a disaster. This shows that nobody is untouchable. Look. there's a huge difference between the first Intifada, and the second...what happened in between? Peace negotiations with the PLO. It fueld the fire, it caused even more people to resort to violence. What positive has it done? It's no secret Israel has lost the popularity contest here. It doesn't matter if Sharon walks on the Temple Mount, or Israel blows up half of Gaza looking for Yassin, Israel's self defense or demonstration of strength isn't going to be popular. Still, why play to these "apathetic palestinians" when these are the same moderates who allowed Hamas to gain a chokehold on their society? How much more escalated can you get?

[mburbank]

Abcdxx; you quote me entirely out of context. I suggest that Israel, if it will not work toward peace despite the fact that they are of course not obliged to do so, despite the fact that they are an injured party, despite their pain and fear, is the erradication or removal of the Palestinians from the lands they currently live in. You can concider this racially motivated or not. I don't think it is, per se. I argue that Israels current approach works to make more Palestinaian terrorists, not less, more people who need to be killed or imprisoned, not less, and eventually leads to the erradication or forcible removal of these people.

Brandon, I think the argument that all action against Terrorists other than violence and death equals appeasement is highly flawed argument. It commits people either to an endless cycle of violence of violence or the assumption that a 'war' on terrorsim can be won.

I believe violence is corrupting. I believe Israeli soldiers driving bolldozers and firing missiles from helicopters may kill their targets, but they damage themselves as well, and every day the bloodshed goes on is another day it gets harder to tell the sides apart. This is American soldiers committed atrocities in Vietnam, because violence damages those who use it, no matter their purpose.

Terrorism can be fought by persuing criminals and imprisoning them. It can be fought economically. And most of all it can be fought by making sure a generation grows up with hope for a better future. Hopeless, humiliated children grow up to be dangerous adults. An enemy who doesn't care if he lives or dies cannot loose. There are fanatical ideoligies all over the world that preach this approach, and they will always have followers, but the rich countries of the world (and yes, Abcdxx, of course I include other Arab nations, if you think I'm a fan of the Arab worlds extremeist approach to religion or politics you've read me utterly wrong.) have responsability not to feed the suffering that fills the coffers and armies of these fanatics.
Why does it fall to us? Because we can never kill them all.

Blood feuds only end three ways. Everyone dead on one side, everyone dead on both sides, or when one side ends the cycle of retalliation. I don't see that as appeasement, and I'm not suggesting abandoning the fight against terrorist anymore than I'd tell the police not to arrest murderers.

But if the police blew murders to bits and took bystanders with them, I'd think it was counterproductive. And if my child was unfortunate enough to die in the execution of even mass murderer, I wouldn't call it justice. If I'd been hurt enough, I might even take up arms against the police myself for know other reason than despair and vengance.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

So much for cutting off snake heads, and all other clever analogies....

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/23/international/middleeast/23CND-MIDE.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&position=

March 23, 2004
Hamas Names Hard-line Figure as New Leader in Gaza
By GREG MYRE

ERUSALEM, March 23 — Hamas named one of its most outspoken and hard-line figures, Abdel Aziz Rantisi, as the new leader of the Islamic movement in the Gaza Strip today following the killing of the group's founder, Sheik Ahmed Yassin, on Monday.

Also, senior Israeli security officials said top Hamas leaders would continue to be targets for attack as part of an ongoing campaign against Palestinians linked to violence against Israel.

"Everyone is in our sights," said Tzachi Hanegbi, Israel's minister of internal security. "There is no immunity for anyone."

Dr. Rantisi, a pediatrician in his mid-50's, was chosen in the wake of Israel's helicopter missile strike that killed Sheik Yassin early Monday in Gaza City.

Dr. Rantisi does not have the stature of Sheik Yassin, who established the group in 1987. However, Mr. Rantisi is the most visible and fiery Hamas spokesman, well known from the frequent interviews he gives.

With Dr. Rantisi leading Hamas in its Gaza stronghold, the group is expected to push hard to carry out bombings and other attacks.

However, Khaled Mashaal, a Hamas leader based in Syria, remains the head of the group's political bureau, the main decision-making body, news agencies reported.

Dr. Rantisi has been a senior figure in Hamas for years, and was wounded in an Israeli helicopter attack last June.

In a group defined by its extreme positions, Dr. Rantisi is known as the Hamas leader who issues the most vitriolic statements. He opposes any form of compromise with Israel.

After Sheik Yassin's death, Dr. Rantisi declared an "open war" with Israel.

"Inside Palestine, there will be no security for the Zionists and Jews," he said Monday.

Dr. Rantisi spent years imprisoned in Israel. And the Palestinian Authority, which he frequently criticizes, jailed him for about two years in the late 1990's.

He is one of several senior members in the group's political bureau.

Israel, however, says it does not distinguish between the "political" and "military" wings of Hamas.

Israeli officials say that Sheik Yassin, Dr. Rantisi and other senior figures have guided the group's suicide bombing campaign even if they have not planned the details of specific attacks.

The killing brought Israel a deluge of international criticism and Palestinian groups called for a new wave of attacks.

Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei traveled from the West Bank to Gaza to take part in a memorial service for Mr. Yassin today. Hamas is a political rival of the Fatah movement, headed by the Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat and Mr. Qurei, but the parties have set aside their differences, at least temporarily.

"It is such an ugly crime committed by this government of murders, it is the Israeli government that assassinated this symbol of resistance," Mr. Qurei said. "We are witnessing today, here in his memorial, the unity of the Palestinian people."

Israel, meanwhile, said it would press on with its current offensive in Gaza, which began a week ago in response to a double suicide bombing by the Palestinians that killed 10 Israelis.

"If we will continue, in a determined way, with our strikes against Hamas and other terror groups, with the means I outlined, including action against those leaders, we will bring more security to Israeli citizens," said Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz.

Israeli security officials acknowledged that Sheik Yassin's killing could energize the Palestinian factions. But they say that Hamas and other groups are already attempting to carry out as many attacks as possible.

Despite fears to stepped-up violence, the region was relatively quiet today.

The most serious incident was in the central Gaza Strip, where Palestinian militants fired a rocket at an Israeli armored vehicle near the Jewish settlement of Netzarim, the military said.

The militants also lobbed mortar at the settlement, but there were no injuries in either incident.

In Israel, police tightened security and there was a marked decline in the number of people taking buses and visiting crowded public places.

In Jerusalem, police vehicles and officers were present at bus stops on busy routes, and the police set up additional checkpoints at main entrances into the city.
###

[Ronnie Raygun]

JEWS! JEWS! JEWS!

GOOOOOOOO!

JEWS!

[Brandon]

Brandon, I think the argument that all action against Terrorists other than violence and death equals appeasement is highly flawed argument. It commits people either to an endless cycle of violence of violence or the assumption that a 'war' on terrorsim can be won.
Ok, fair enough; my argument did seem a little like I was opposed to anything other than killing any and all terrorists outright, but I was merely saying that I don't have any moral outrage toward the Israeli government for killing Yassin. My point, basically, is that the approach to terrorism should always be one of strict law enforcement and/or military action and never appeasement or negotiation.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

JEWS! JEWS! JEWS!

GOOOOOOOO!

JEWS!

Speaking of the Jews, what is it exactly that happens to the Jews in the Bible when God comes back and all....? I mean, I've wondered why Christian zealots and anti-semites like Pat Robertson have jumped to the aid of Israel, but maybe you, Ronnie, can explain it to us.......?

[Brandon]

JEWS! JEWS! JEWS!

GOOOOOOOO!

JEWS!

Speaking of the Jews, what is it exactly that happens to the Jews in the Bible when God comes back and all....? I mean, I've wondered why Christian zealots and anti-semites like Pat Robertson have jumped to the aid of Israel, but maybe you, Ronnie, can explain it to us.......?
Maybe you could explain why the hard left has jumped to the aid of extremist Islamic theocrats.

[Ronnie Raygun]

He can't.

[Zhukov]

Maybe you could explain why the hard left has jumped to the aid of extremist Islamic theocrats.
Am I the 'hard Left'? Or am I the far, ultra, or extreme Left?

Yassin was no "moderate."
Compared to the blokes under him, I think this guy should have been considered a pacifist.

"Hamas Names Hard-line Figure as New Leader in Gaza"

Also, remember that Yassin was a "spiritual" leader, ie, he didn’t plan military attacks or set specific targets. This doesn’t mean he is a nice guy.

Keep in mind that since the founding of Israel, the Israelis have had to fight five or so wars, all in self-defence. They have never been the "aggressors."
This really has nothing to do with what anybody has said. Israel has never been an aggressor in a war, I agree with you 110%. You have to look at why those wars were started if you want to try to make it relevant.

Apples and oranges; the above measures were done in the interest of responding to threats and maintaining some measure of national security. Also remember that, with the exception of assassinating dangerous terrorist leaders like Yassin, the methods you describe are essentially non-violent.Not that it matters. Blowing up buildings can be considered non-violent as long as it is to destroy the building and not to slay infidels. The interest of responding to threat and maintaining some measure of national security??? Hands up those that think Israel's a safer place tonight?
Seriously AB, Israel uses methods which cause terror in Palestinians, in my eyes, this is terrorism. They are not maintaining security, they are ensuring future attacks.


Israel and Zionism was initially founded on Socialist, and Communist principles within a Democratic context.
Are you talking about Moses Hess, who was an associate in his youth of Marx and Engels?

I don't consider Herzl or Jabotinsky to have socialist or communist principles, (these are the only guys I know) so you will have to walk me through what you mean.

What I mean when I say the Israeli working people are victims is that they are now dreading the terror attacks that are destined to follow an assassination. I think many Israelis will stay at home istead of going to cafes, or will keep their children out of school just to be safe.

What I mean when I say the Palestinians are victims is this: As for the Palestinian working class, I can only hope less of them will be blackmailed into blowing themselves up as part of Yassin's Or Rantisi's or Arafat's genocidal dreams. and also they are going to get any remaining houses destroyed, people arrested, "collateral damage" whatever. In other words, the cycle will continue with both Israeli and Palestinian people feeling the pressure.

[Abcdxxxx]

Abcdxx; you quote me entirely out of context. I suggest that Israel......despite their pain and fear, is the erradication or removal of the Palestinians from the lands they currently live in. You can concider this racially motivated or not. I don't think it is, per se. I argue that Israels current approach works to make more Palestinaian terrorists, not less,......


No, I took you perfectly in context if you're claiming Israel is trying to erradicate, or even remove Palestinians. There is no plan, or dream of erradication. Again, Israel percieves Palestinians as being the same as the rest of the Arabic population. They wish to coexist. There is no "blood feud" just like there is no holy war. There are no Israeli school children singing songs about killing Arabs, no ten point plans to push them into the sea, and no charters that speak of it. So what are you talking about? Israel is talking about giving them Gaza, so how is it that your percieving this as removing them?

[Abcdxxxx]

Yassin was no "moderate."
Compared to the blokes under him, I think this guy should have been considered a pacifist.

"Hamas Names Hard-line Figure as New Leader in Gaza"

Also, remember that Yassin was a "spiritual" leader, ie, he didn’t plan military attacks or set specific targets. This doesn’t mean he is a nice guy.

Okay cut the double talk. Yassin was targeted because he took a hands on involvement in recruiting and planning suicide bombings. One can not mastermind a plan for the destruction of an entire race, act on these plans, and then be called a moderate for it.

Rantisi didn't pop up out of the blue as a result of this assasination, he was always the number two guy. When people talk of hitting Yassin, it was always in the same breath as taking out Rantisi. These are people who refuse to coexist, and refuse to negotiate short of killing every Jew, regardless of Israel's existance. What's moderate about that?



I don't consider Herzl or Jabotinsky to have socialist or communist principles, (these are the only guys I know) so you will have to walk me through what you mean.

I think Kevin already re-articulated my point. Zionism isn't an organization built around a single idealogy or the politics of any one figurehead. It's leanings were as lefty as they come. I know my own family attended Zionist meetings in Iraq run by the Communist party, and left a very comfortable lifestyle to go live in tents, and work on farms.


What I mean when I say the Palestinians are victims is this: ..... they are going to get any remaining houses destroyed, people arrested, "collateral damage" whatever. In other words, the cycle will continue with both Israeli and Palestinian people feeling the pressure.

Are you arguing that Palestinians have some moral high ground where they shouldn't be punished for crimes? It's not like Israel is going out and blowing up some random Palestinian home. You're confusing self defense, or even "retribution" with blood killings.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Maybe you could explain why the hard left has jumped to the aid of extremist Islamic theocrats.

:wah

I'm not debating you on the history of Israel right now, one that in my opinion you have an incredibly simplistic perspective on.

Furthermore, my stance on the matter is hardly supportive of any "theocratic islamics" or whatever.

He can't.

Answer my fucking question.

[Zhukov]

Okay cut the double talk. Yassin was targeted because he took a hands on involvement in recruiting and planning suicide bombings. One can not mastermind a plan for the destruction of an entire race, act on these plans, and then be called a moderate for it.
Hands on?? The man was a quadriplegic… He may have recruited many with his words, but I don’t believe he was a planner. (nothing to do towards being quad btw.)

Rantisi didn't pop up out of the blue as a result of this assassination, he was always the number two guy. When people talk of hitting Yassin, it was always in the same breath as taking out Rantisi. These are people who refuse to coexist, and refuse to negotiate short of killing every Jew, regardless of Israel's existence. What's moderate about that?
I’m not calling him a moderate compared to any… sane… person. I, and others, are calling him the moderate compared to his inner circle buddies. You state yourself that he and Rantisi were inseparable, well, Yassin was the more moderate of the two. People have called that Nazi guy that flew to Britain a ‘Nazi Moderate’. Yassin was a ‘Hamas Moderate’, it sounds like an oxymoron… This is a really stupid point for either of us to be arguing.

Nonetheless, The framed pictures of Yassin that are waved by Palestinians are being replaced by those of Rantisi, this may not have an impact on Hamas right away, like you said Y and R were a duo. Yassin did have a lot of respect outside of Palestine, not just inside. Now that respect is going to go towards the more violent Rantisi. More Palestinian youths are going to idolise the ‘less moderate’ way. Lebanese and other ME groups are going to see an influx of members.

Zionism isn't an organization built around a single idealogy or the politics of any one figurehead. It's leanings were as lefty as they come.
The basic ideal that I thought Zionism stemmed from was that anti-Semitism could only be eliminated by the creation of a Jewish state. You are going to have to tell me otherwise, I really don’t know.

I know my own family attended Zionist meetings in Iraq run by the Communist party, and left a very comfortable lifestyle to go live in tents, and work on farms.
That’s what you get for getting involved with communists. I hope you don’t mind me asking for more information on this? What year/s particularly?

Are you arguing that Palestinians have some moral high ground where they shouldn't be punished for crimes? No.

Israel has the death penalty does it? I always thought they didn’t.

It's not like Israel is going out and blowing up some random Palestinian home. That’s highly debatable, collective punishment has been recorded I think. But I don’t want to get into it.

You're confusing self defense, or even "retribution" with blood killings.
Palestinian resistance is as much a form of self defence as the IDF. More so, I believe, as the IDF is used to create terrorists to maintain the stranglehold the Israeli state has on it’s people. Retribution also features highly. Palestinian “leaders” may spout death to all Jews and other rubbish, but what drives the Palestinian youth to want to kill is revenge.

[mburbank]

"No, I took you perfectly in context if you're claiming Israel is trying to erradicate, or even remove Palestinians."
-Abcdzxptht

You really, really need to go back and read what I wrote and stop having such a huge knee jerk reaction. I've explained it twice, I'll go for three.

1.) My contention is that Israel's current mode of response creates terrorists. That's certainly debatable, but it's hardly unsupportable.

2.) Israel, following it's current doctrine will need to hunt down and kill these terrorists, and using the methods they currently use will create more knew terrorists, who they will then need to hunt down and kill, creating more knew terrorists.

3.) It is my contention that this is illogical BECAUSE I assume that Isreal DOES NOT want to Commit to the utter eradication or forcible removal of the Palestinians from the land they6 now occupy. Unless Israel WANTS to do something I believe they DO NOT WANT to do, they need to abandon policy which leads inexorably in the direction of DOING THE THING THEY DO NOT WANT TO DO, ie. annialating or forcibly removing the Palestinaians, spomething I think most Isrealis ARE NOIT ACTIVELY IN FAVOR OF.

[Brandon]

1.) My contention is that Israel's current mode of response creates terrorists. That's certainly debatable, but it's hardly unsupportable.
Just dying of curiosity, what method would you suggest Israel take in dealing with Palestinian terrorism?

Because it's pretty obvious attempts at peaceful solutions didn't do jack shit.

[Abcdxxxx]

Zukhov: To even theorize that Yassin was a pacifist is insane. He WAS Hamas. Yassin was a convicted criminal released in 1997 as part of a prisoner trade. He approved and financed every killing, and acted as a combatant. The death penalty would be judicial, while a target killing of a combatant is debatable within the context of the Geneva Conventions.

Obviusly . the IDF exists like all national armies, to defend it's borders, it's purpose is not to "create terrorists" or "strangle it's people". At it's core the IDF is already a peoples army.

Hamas teaches sing alongs to four year olds, who aren't old enough to even comprehend the concept of "revenge" on their own, about killing Jews. Not Israelis, Jews.

Socialist Zionism was founded in formal terms by Nachman Syrkin in 1899, when it became clear that the Socialist Revolution wasn't going to solve the needs of the Jewish Diaspora. Nobody agreed on specifics, so there were several Socialist Zionist parties, and some of them were actually Marxists. Most of Israel's Settlements movements grew out of the Socialist party, which also gave way to the aptly named Labor political party, where every Prime Minister up till 1977 came out of. David Ben-Gurion, Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, Moshe Sharett, Levi Eshkol, Golda Meir, Moshe Dayan, Abba Eban, Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres and Ehud Barak all represented the Labor party.

Burbank: It helps when you include the words "Does not", thanks. Oh wait, then you back pedal and say Israel is on track for this erradication/removal thing anyway.

[mburbank]

I'd suggest a multi-pronged approach. First, with the co-operation of the united states, massive aid to the Palestinians. Help with irrigation, land reform, sanitation, food aid, education. I know the US does some of this, but the more the better. Any ground level assistance to alleviate suffering. I'd stop new settlements being built and I'd pull back the ones already up. I'd stop the use of collective punishment. Bulldozing houses, even though it may often be very useeful in depriving insurgents of cover, is a sure perscription for making people hate you. This also goes for firing heavy duty artillery are single targets. It's almost impossible to do this without killing a bunch of people standing nearby. I would end assasination because no matter how guilty the person is, how much they deserve to die and how many lives their death might save (something you can't know) it isn't justice. It's the military acting as judge, jury and executioner. If you want to draw a visible distinction between the good guys and the bad guys, you can't do it this way.

I would step up aggressive police actions with highly public, highly open trials, full rights provided, full access to evidence, totally transparent and monitored by multiple international legal experts.

A lot of soldiers would die this way. A lot of innocent people would probably die, becuase justice is slow. But a lot of people are already dieing, and what I'm suggesting might possibly move toward peace. It would certainly reduce the motivation for future terrorists and combat the idea that Israelis have no right to live. It would strengthen ties with allies. Unless you believe that all the Palestinains are completely insane murderers beyond any hope of redemption, and if you do believe that then I see no reason to pussyfoot around and Israel should declare outright war with the entire people.

I think as a Jew and a Westerner that Israel should do this with or without Palestinian cooperation, with or without an end to terrorsim. First, because a small group of people can commit terrorist acts and if you say all terrorism must cease before any negotiation you have given all the power of decision to the terrorists. THAT to me is appeasement. Terrorists don't want peace, they want violence and bloodshed and misery, not just for your people but for their own. The misery of their peers is their most potent recruitment tool. Second, because it is the right thing to do, the humane, civilized thing to do. I don't think you can fight Barbarians by becoming barbaric.

Look at the way people commit to war. They accept suffering and loss and terror and destruction. They say, that's the way war is, terrible things happen in war. Why is war worth that kind of risk and peace is not? Why will we commit the vast bulk of our treasure to war, why is the pinacle of technology weaponry? What if we put our resources and our energy and our hearts into attaining peace? What if we were as willing to die for peace as we are to die for war?

Concidering the current state of human technology and ingenuity, I think that as a species if we do not commit to peace with the same full measure that we all go to war, we will certainly wipe ourselves out. This may be inevitable. But I'd rather die working to stop that from happening.

Seriously. The palestinian/Israeli conflict is a microcosm for the world, and a lot of people from political scientists to born again rapture groupies think this conflict has the potential to eventually drag the whole world in. What do you think the chances of a winner emerging from that one are? I think any risk, any wound absorbed, any burden carried would be worth the price if some sort of peace could be forged there.

I think if the Palestinians laid down their arms, sat down in the streets and stopped eating they'd win the day as surely as Ghandi did. I wish they would, I wish they could see how much they had to gain. That kind of a cultural seea change would take an Ilsamic Ghandi, and someone would almost certainly kill him, but it's not impossible.

Why does it have to be the Israelis who give, who absorb the suffering? I have no idea. But I think it would be a mitzvah to try as hard as possible.

[Abcdxxxx]

Burbank, Israel has at various points tried every one of your suggestions. There are already many programs in place doing the very things you're talking about with little positive results. I would assume you're aware of this, but maybe you're not. I can elaborate on specifics if needed.

I don't think most people are aware of just how much aid Palestinians recieve, and from who, or where it's being appropriated to.

In regards to assasinations, so far Israel's targets have all been found guilty in a Democratic judicial court, and were wanted fugitives that in some cases were let free from prison.

Do you personally believe that Gandi and the Palestinians have the same goals?

[Brandon]

Burbank, Israel has at various points tried every one of your suggestions. There are already many programs in place doing the very things you're talking about with little positive results.
Yep. Israel has shown more than good faith in attempting to bring about peaceful solutions to the problem, so I can hardly blame them for taking the "just kick the crap out of them" approach.

[mburbank]

Abcdxxtrgtrgdtete; I would like to know about the current sate of these programs. I'm educable. Point me to the sources. While you're at it, point me aslo to the democratic proceedings that found these people guilty (and by the way before your knee jerks, I have no doubt they are) and what recognized democratic process authorized their public execution.

My guess is that the height of economic aid programs coresponds with terrorist recruitment going down. Directly prior to his assension, Shamir deliberatly set out to provoke a violent response. I think that response was barbaric, [pointless and totally, tragically predictable. That doesn't mean Shamir didn't seek it out and manipulate it.

Here's a suggestion I forgot to include that Israel adamantly refuses. International monitors. The line between Israel and the Palestinians should be crawling with blue helmets there should be video and audio recorders every few feet.


"Do you personally believe that Gandi and the Palestinians have the same goals?"

Hammas doesn't, but I'm sure some Palestinians don't. Instead of tactically ensuring the numbers of Palestinainas who wants the utter anialation of Israel grow, why not work as actively as possible with those who would recognize Israel? Instead we give all the power of deciion to terrorists, which is exactly what they want.

For those of you who find the "Kick the shit out of them" response favorable, or even just acceptable, where do you see this going? You may think my 'roadmap' is naive or unworkable, but I have an opinion. What's yours?

All I hear is "They have a right to defend themselves!" I agree. "They already tried!" does that mean they should give up? "Why does it have to be them?" It doesn't. But I'm a Jewish westerner and while I my be somewhat uneducated on the situation, I sure as hell have a better understanding of Israel nd the US than I do the Muslim world, of which I have no understanding at all. I think waiting for them to do their share (ie for other Arabs to take in the Palestinians, which by the way is not what many Palestinians want any more than you'd like to be relocated to another country against your will) seems hopeless.

But hell, if that's your roadmap, great. How could the US encourage this? Or is your solution "We've done all we can, it's up to them and if they don't do something it just goes on like this."

Where does that end? I'd say the BEST case scenario that can come out of tht would be the forced removal of the Palestinians. That's the very Best you could hope for, and it's not likely. And there are WAY worse outcomes.

I think peace between the Muslim and Western worlds is pretty much out of the question until Isreal and the Palestinaians stop killing each other.

I'll start a new thread.

[Abcdxxxx]

Burbank - you're starting to sound like you don't have much of an understanding of Israel at all....which I have a hard time believing with the amount of time you spend online debating the topic...but maybe it goes in one ear and out the other.

why don't you pick a specific point, and i'll elaborate on the programs being implemented..... otherwise you're asking for more information then you really want. in turn i'd like it if you could respond with how these programs have improved the situation for anyone involved.

in the meantime, israel has a democratic judicial system capable of holding fair trials and getting convictions based on evidential material. in the case of people like yassin, it's not hard. they openly flaunt their crimes because they believe they're entitled to it.

[Zhukov]

Zukhov: To even theorize that Yassin was a pacifist is insane.
Abcdex, get a grip. "Compared to a Tyranosaurus rex, the elephant is a mouse!" Do you get it?
He WAS Hamas
Killing him ended Hamas. :rolleyes Hamas is a collection of angry youth, not old preachers.
...and acted as a combatant...
Yeah, the PLO Wheelchair assault team.

Obviusly . the IDF exists like all national armies, to defend it's borders, it's purpose is not to "create terrorists" or "strangle it's people".
Like all capitalist armies, the IDF acts to defend the Israeli ruling class. It does this by creating a terrorist threat to legitimise the killing of personal freedoms.
At it's core the IDF is already a peoples army.
Just because they conscript every one they can get their hands on doesn't make it a "peoples army".
Hamas teaches sing alongs to four year olds, who aren't old enough to even comprehend the concept of "revenge" on their own, about killing Jews. Not Israelis, Jews.
"Palestinian “leaders” may spout death to all Jews and other rubbish..." beat you to it. Try another.
there were several Socialist Zionist parties, and some of them were actually Marxists.
Mate, if you believe that "the Socialist Revolution wasn't going to solve the needs of the Jewish Diaspora", you are no Marxist. The socialists and labour Zionist parties mirrored 'normal' Zionists, except that they used the workers movement to prevent the use of Arab labor, even for exploitation. Their objective was still usurpation.
ALOT of people have called themseves "Socialist" parties to gain favour. National Socialists anyone? PASOK in Greece? PSOE in Spain? To name some mentioned recently in headlines. Names mean nothing.
If you are going to say : "Israel and Zionism was initially founded on Socialist, and Communist principles..." Then you are going to have to show me those Socialist and Communist principles, because I still think 'the basic ideal that Zionism stemmed from was that anti-Semitism could only be eliminated by the creation of a Jewish state.' While Socialists would sympathise with the Jews at the time, I hardly see it as a "Socialist principle". Especialy when the old Zionist saying of “A land without a people for a people without a land” is so god damned ignorant.
Most of Israel's Settlements movements grew out of the Socialist party, which also gave way to the aptly named Labor political party, where every Prime Minister up till 1977 came out of. David Ben-Gurion, Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, Moshe Sharett, Levi Eshkol, Golda Meir, Moshe Dayan, Abba Eban, Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres and Ehud Barak all represented the Labor party.
Labor in Britain and Labor in Australia were both founded on Socalist principles. I can accept that labour and parties in Israel sprang from Socialist principles. But I can't see the same thing in Zionism unless you show me. I am asking for specific informaton here.

The intent of Zionism was to replace the indigenous population with a new settler community, the labor and socialist Zionists embraced the same idea.

Your whole Zionism=Socialist principles idea is really pointlss to the rest of the discussion, so if no specific information pops up, I'll just leave it.

[Abcdxxxx]

Don't lecture me on the legitemacy of Socialist Zionism when five minutes ago you had never heard of it. Right, "they're not real marxists". Do some research on how it applies to the subject "specifically" before you just debate on terminology alone. Why are you arguing a point based on your on desire to disbelieve it? Don't ask me for an education, go do the research yourself and come back when you're qualified to discuss it. Look up what Socialist principles have been integrated into Israel... or go ask some Arab Bedouin women how they were getting free medical care in 1968. I never said Zionism = Socialism, you moron, I said that amongst the many types of Zionists, there were Socialists, and that these Socialists had the biggest influence on what became Israel, and the programs in place. I know it flips your frail little world around and threatens some counterculture identity you've built up in your head, but Israel was started by a lot of lefty Jews.

Zuk - "Like all capitalist armies, the IDF acts to defend the Israeli ruling class. It does this by creating a terrorist threat to legitimise the killing of personal freedoms. "

Is that what you call defendig the farming communes under the Golan Heights that are subject to daily missile fire? I guess in your eyes every terrorist threat is just a fictional tool for oppression, and armies exist solely to clamp down on personal freedoms....that makes you sound pretty dumb.


Zuk "The intent of Zionism was to replace the indigenous population with a new settler community, the labor and socialist Zionists embraced the same idea. "

Then why didn't they pick a more denseley populated area, with more greenery, and prettier buildings?

[Zhukov]

Don't lecture me on the legitemacy of Socialist Zionism when five minutes ago you had never heard of it.
No, five minutes ago I was saying that I didn't know how: "Zionism was initially founded on Socialist, and Communist principles..."
I still don't know, Zionism to me was initially founded on nationalistic principles, but I don't care anymore, because you are obviously not willing to explain yourself. Very Vince of you.

Also, I didn't mention the Legitamacy of 'Socialist Zionism', I was lecturing on 'Socialist Zionist' parties, the "Socialist" in their name is used for the same reason it is used in "National Socialist". (Don't even think of saying that I am calling them Nazis.)


I take it you agree with me that the main principle of Zionism is the creation of a Jewish state? You haven't said otherwise.
Is that what you call defendig the farming communes under the Golan Heights that are subject to daily missile fire? I guess in your eyes every terrorist threat is just a fictional tool for oppression, and armies exist solely to clamp down on personal freedoms....that makes you sound pretty dumb.
I don't believe that. The army is like the police, they have other jobs.
Don't ask me for an education, go do the research yourself...
Right, right. Sorry, you're not Lexus/Nexus.
Look up what Socialist principles have been integrated into Israel
First of all, I am not asking about Israel, I am asking you about Zionism. Second of all, "Integrated into" is not the same same as "founded on".
I never said Zionism = Socialism, you moron,
I never said you did, moron
I said that amongst the many types of Zionists, there were Socialists,
You originaly said: "Israel and Zionism was initially founded on Socialist, and Communist principles..." .......................
Right, "they're not real marxists"
Yeah, see, one condition of being a Marxist is to realise that Socialist Revolution leads to the emancipation of mankind. If you think that forcing Arabs out of Palestine does this, then you are not a Marxist. The blokes you mentioned may be some kind of utopian communists, but not Marxists.
Then why didn't they pick a more denseley populated area, with more greenery, and prettier buildings?
Because god says that the land of Palestine was for the Jews. Because any land with pretty buildings and dense population is bound to be tougher to purge of people than the sparsely populated Palestine. "A land without a people for a people without a land" Because from the very beginning the Zionists pretended that the country was empty and waiting for the dispersed Jews to return to their ancient home. In essence this was the same attitude of all the colonialists who claimed the doctrine of "discovery" over "empty" lands. The Zionists had for the Palestinians the same solution the Europeans had for the Indians who they saw as a savage obstacle. Because while Herzl believed that the concentration of Jews into a "Jewish centre" need not necessary be Palestine, Haim Weitzman managed to secure the "Balfour Declaration" not from Kaiser Wilhelm, Sultan Abdul or the Pope, but from the British. I'm sure you know the rest.

[Abcdxxxx]

Israel and Zionism was initially founded on Socialist, and Communist principles within a Democratic context.

I don't consider Herzl or Jabotinsky to have socialist or communist principles, (these are the only guys I know) so you will have to walk me through what you mean.


If all you know of Zionism is Herzl and Jabotinsky, then you don't know much about Zionism. My statement above still stands despite your misunderstandings, and narrow minded limitations to comprehend it. It's even more ridiculous for you to attempt to claim they were just borrowing the Socialism title because it doesn't fit within your simplistic understanding of the terminology.

Ber Borochov had Marxist ideals. Po'alei-Tzion was their founding labor party and was the Zionist wing of worldwide revolutionary Marxism. David Ben Gurion even used Marxist phrasing at first, to argue that the true owners of land were the workers, and not the political or legal authority. If you can't differentiate between Hitler's youth camps, and a Kibbutz, then you're lost. Constructivism, the integration of building Socialism into institutions adopted the classic Marxist theme of a universal class. These Socialized programs continue today. If they didn't come from Socialists, then where did they come from?

[mburbank]

Why won't you post in my roadmap thread?

[Abcdxxxx]

Because I think the biggest step towards peace will come once we stop calling it a "road map".

Also, I've posted my idea of how to handle it at least twice when challenged, and it went un-noticed. Something along the lines of returning land to the last soveriegn nations to hold it before Israel, Egypt, and Jordan, because they have established treaties and non-violent mediations. Then they're not being "oppressed" by Israel anymore, and they can establish some form of trade beyond being refugees, and fighting against Jews. At that point they can apply for soveriegnty like any upstart nation, and establish a national anthem, a national food, an olympic team, whatever. Jews within these territories should be tranfered to Israel, or be given citizenship with full rights into Egypt, and eventually a Palestine if created. A little more complex then that, but it's the jist of my solution.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

This Guardian piece actually outlines a fairly solid argument in favor of Yassin's assassination. I like the idea of running out Hamas in order to empower those In Palestine who really want their own state. However, I feel it sets a dangerous precedent to say "well hey, Hamas will crumble because we have show them that top officials are fair game in this war." Hmmm, that couldn't come back to bite them in the ass, huh?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1179211,00.html

Sharon sees Hamas as too weak now to threaten plan

Militants' failure to attack rapidly after death of sheikh is sign of reduced capacity, PM told

Chris McGreal in Jerusalem
Saturday March 27, 2004
The Guardian

Israel's intelligence and military chiefs have told Ariel Sharon that Hamas is on the retreat in the wake of the assassination of its founder and spiritual leader, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. They have said that the organisation no longer poses a major obstacle to the prime minister's plans to carve out a Palestinian state on his terms.
Intelligence officials have concluded that Hamas's failure to carry out its threat of bloody vengeance, nearly a week after the sheikh's assassination by a guided missile as he was wheeled from morning prayers, is evidence of its greatly reduced military capacity. They still expect an attack to come, but say Hamas is clearly having great difficulty launching it.

The thinking behind Israel's strategy, which drew international condemnation, has become clearer. Sheikh Yassin could have been killed at any time in the past three years, and the timing suggests motives beyond the prime minister's claim to have removed an arch-terrorist.

Israeli political analysts believe that the removal of such a towering figure, who was second only to Yasser Arafat in standing among Palestinians, diminishes Hamas as a political force and the prospects of it taking control of Gaza if Mr Sharon follows through on his pledge to withdraw Jewish settlers.

The decision to kill the Hamas leader appears to have been prompted by a number of considerations. With Hamas claiming that the Israelis are retreating from Gaza in defeat, Mr Sharon was determined that the pullout should not be seen as weakness under fire. He was also keen to placate the rightwing of his government, which is strongly opposed to removing the settlers from the Gaza Strip, by offering it Sheikh Yassin's head.

But there were also longer-term considerations voiced by the army chief of staff, Lieutenant General Moshe Ya'alon, who said that wiping out the Hamas leadership was designed to prevent the organisation seizing power in the Gaza Strip after an Israeli pullout and turning it into "Hamas-land".

Officials say that is an important part of Mr Sharon's plan for unilateral disengagement. "The government is not prepared to pull back from Gaza or parts of the West Bank and see them handed over to Hamas or any of the groups like it," said one senior official. "The plan for unilateral disengagement requires a strengthened Palestinian Authority and everything being thrown at Hamas by us is designed to help that, as well as to deal with the immediate issue of stopping terrorism."

Israel's finance minister and former prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, said the assassination might provoke a bloody response, but would bring long-term gains. "There could be harsh responses by Hamas ... in the short term. But in the long term Hamas will be constrained, because its leaders will know that they face the threat of assassination."

But some Israeli intelligence officials see it the other way around - that there are short-term gains, but the longer term may see a revival in Hamas's fortunes. The Shin Bet says that the army's unrelenting pursuit of high- and mid-level Hamas commanders has greatly weakened the organisation's ability to launch attacks. But there has never been a shortage of foot soldiers, intelligence officials say, and Sheikh Yassin's death may prompt a new flood of volunteers for suicide missions, or to join the street fighters in Gaza.

What Hamas lacks now are the expert bomb makers and planners who have been picked off in West Bank cities in the past months. The Shin Bet says that the higher proportion of attacks run jointly by Hamas and Islamic Jihad or the Al-Aqsa martyrs brigades is evidence of each organisation's diminishing capacity to launch operations on its own. However, the Israeli military says there is evidence of a new generation of Hamas bomb-makers in Nablus.

Barry Rubin, director of Jerusalem's centre for global research in international affairs, said that the loss of Sheikh Yassin was a severe blow to Hamas because he drew support from far beyond the confines of the organisation. He said the blow to Hamas was compounded by the choice of Abdel-Aziz-al-Rantissi as its new leader. "Rantissi is not a strong figure, he's not a unifying figure. I don't think his authority is going to be accepted. He certainly doesn't have any religious stature. Hamas is factionalised with differing views on whether to work with the Palestinian Authority or not," he said.

"Israel certainly doesn't want to go into a situation where Hamas is strong and united and has a charismatic leader who is going to take over a large share of power. Hamas is not broken, but it is greatly weakened and its forward movement is stopped. It's a major setback for them and their ability to act strategically."

But Ghazi Hamed, editor of the Hamas newspaper, Al-Resala, says the Israelis misunderstand support for Hamas. "Support for Hamas is built on several things, but one of them is the weakness of the Palestinian Authority and the belief of many Palestinians that not only can it not defend them from the Israelis, but that it collaborates with the Israelis," he said. "Sharon's plans will weaken, not strengthen, the Palestinian Authority - and that will strengthen Hamas."
###

[mburbank]

Abdcthdte; I appreciatte you re-outlining your basic idea, and I think it's a fairly good one, actually. I'm not sure exactly how you'd move in that direction and who has the authority to return the occupied lands. Can Israel do that, assuming the other countries could be leveraged to co-operate?

Would this need to take place in the absolute absence of violence? I ask not because I'm pro terrorist, just to be clear here, but becuase I think one of Israels great policy failures is that they are looking for a complete cessation of violence prior to negotiation. As I've sid, thsi places control of the future on any motivated individual to make a pipe bomb.

Are there any plans like this currently supported by anyone?

I don't mean any of this as sarcastic or provocative. I'm interested in anything that might tunr out to be something besides this hellish stalemate and attrition.

[Abcdxxxx]

Well I can't say anything I'm talking about is an original thought on my part. There has been talk of a Sharon plan that was along these lines, and his current move for a full seperation is along the same lines. Ultimately, Egypt and Jordan do not want the Palestinians either, and both countries expelled the PA in the past.

Violence has been indoctrinated into Palestinian society, and frankly, I don't see it going away soon, but dealing with Egypt allows for more effective diplomacy, and would be slightly more effectual then the PA who sponsors that same violence. Israel's response would also be slightly more limited (though Jordan's solution to dealing with their Arafat problem was inviting Israel to bomb). See with this provocation level, war is inevitable, but neither Egypt nor Jordan want to go to war because of the Pals. If they're going to war, it's to finish what they started in '48. So it's likely they would rejoice in being given the spotlight in reigning in Islamic Jihad, etc. that threaten their governments as well. The only problem is, while Egypt cries that these groups must be stopped, they provide them with the weaponry and sponsorship to keep them going.

The Palestinains are claiming land is broken up by Israel that was never connected to begin with. Legally there is more precedance to return Gaza to Egypt, then to a people who never had soveriegn control over it. Nobody claimed these areas between 1948 and 1967 because they were intended to act as a buffer between nations. When Israel attempted to build there (housing meant for Palestinians actually) the UN stopped it. Meanwhile the fighting itself never really stopped and it became clear Israel needed it for strategic reasons. So right before the Yom Kippur war in 1973 you have a clumb of IDF troops watching the Egyptian border for activity, and eventually the theory was "why stand here, let's put some structures up, and once we build it will be irreversable". So legally, if you're going to call for a return of land, it MUST be to the last recognized entity to own it, not the moral landlords or whatever champions of the Palestinian cause might think. The truth is that there was less violence, and a more peacefull living standard for Palestinians and Jews BEFORE any of the Rabin/Arafat talks, before Israel negotiated at all, and before the Palestinians had autonomous land. These experiments didn't work, the PA didn't act in good faith, and truth be told, NOBODY not even the Palestinians really want Gaza.

[mburbank]

Well, I'm passionate enough I suppose I have to rad up.

I certainly agree it would be both more appropriate and more efficient to have Egypt being the occupying nation, and then they could figure out what the hell to do, and it wouldn't be an Islamic/Jewish conflict any longer.

But I doubt Egypt wants any part of that.

[Abcdxxxx]

Well now you're hitting on something else. Before there was a Jewish-Palestinian conflict, there was a Jewish-Arab conflict, and really it never went away. The other side of this is that Egypt and the others didn't take in the Palistinians as is customary with population transfers, in accordance with international law. They left them at the borders to stew, and used them as pawns. It's also interesting that there was no Palistinian solidarity movement until the Popular Liberation Front (Egyptians like Arafat) became the Palestinian Liberation Organization and coopted whatever claims actual Palesinian Arabs had to the land. Peace with the Palestinians means little without the support of the Arab League that refused a two state partition in the first place. Educated supporters of Israel see this as Israel against the Arab world as a whole, and view Israel as the minority.

[Zhukov]

If all you know of Zionism is Herzl and Jabotinsky, then you don't know much about Zionism.
I admit that you probably know more history than I, but the above are the only NAMES I know. However, you mentioned Ber Borochov, and the memories flood back. I recall that he met with Lenin, and during the Russian civil war the Borochov Regiment participated in the struggles of the Red Army.

So that is four names I can drop. If you include Hess.
Ber Borochov had Marxist ideals. Po'alei-Tzion was their founding labor party and was the Zionist wing of worldwide revolutionary Marxism. David Ben Gurion even used Marxist phrasing at first, to argue that the true owners of land were the workers, and not the political or legal authority.
You are not looking at the larger picture, the true owners of the land are all workers, not just Jewish. So Gurion was only socialist, marxist, communist etc within his Zionist, nationalist, and isolated outlook. Hence, not Marxists etc.

Contrary to the Jewish socialists, active in the non-Jewish workers' parties or the Bund, the "lefty" Zionists (including The Workers of Zion) despaired over working class solidarity and found a solution by deserting the class struggle. They took up the reformist dogma of the two stage revolution in order to be Zionists ans still claim to be socialists. So, yes I will admit that the Zionist Socialists were "socialists", but I use the term as loosley as I do with the Stalinists, based on their two stage theory. (Nothing to do wih gulags Abcde!!!)

Two stage theory for the Stalinists is based on Stalins 'Socalism in One Counrty' "theory", which basicaly means they would build Russian socialism first and then worldwid socialism (a lie, of course). The Zionist first stage is the building the Jewish sate. Please note that I am not relating Socialist Zionists to Stalinists apart from their love of two stage revolutions.

Borochov met Lenin and asked him what he thought of his theory. Lenin told him that it must be very difficult to sit between two chairs. What Lenin meant by this is Borochovs theoretical schemes are really a rationalization and an attempt to harmonize socialism and nationalism. (Nothing to do with Nazis Abcd!!!!) When in fact the two are not compatible. Sorry about my simplistic uderstanding of the terminology, but they aren't.

Borochov was also the author of "Class and Nation", of which I have only encountered quotes from. But the title kind of gives it away, right? He correctly pointed out the problem of the relationship of the masses to the productive sectors of the economy. Unfortunatey for all involved, he only theorised this as a "Jewish problem". Wht is involved here is a much larger question: the need of the workers of the oppressed nations to be part of the general working class movement.

While all this is terribly interesting (Abcdx, you have indeed caused me to go and look things up) Socialist Zionist parties still did not 'invent' Zionism.

Zionism was born as the expression of the crisis and inabilty of the Jewish middle class to be integrated with the East European ruling class and at the same time rejecting the working class solution for the oppression of the Jews. The early Zionists took the anti-semitism of the rising bourgeoise in their chosen countries and combated it with their own Jewish nationalism. The Zionists took from the anti-semites the argument of the incombatibiliy of the Jews and the Gentiles, hence the desire to create massive migration of Jews to their own Jewish state.

So, Zioism was not formed on Socialist or Communist ideas, it was created on a nationalist base. No matter how many "lefty Jews" or socialist theoriticians were drawn to it. All nationalists serve the same rotten order that continue to exist while the masses suffer terribly. The Zionists are as bad as all other nationalists.

[Abcdxxxx]

Okay Zukhov, I told you to come back once you were qualified to discuss it...spending an hour on google checking up on antisemetic rhetoric to protect whatever Socialist wet dream you have doesn't cut it. I don't have time to answer in full.... but I'll say this much, a good portion of Israel was founded by card carrying members of the Communist party, with roots linking them to the very beginnings of the movement. While the current wave of Socialist dopes like yourself might like to distance themselves, or discredit how legit a left leaning Zionist was , in order to feel like you're still down with the "oppressed" and "downtrodden", there is no difference between Socialist Zionism, or Zionist Socialism. In fact, you didn't even know it existed until It was pointed out to you on this board. You can't decide if you want to claim they weren't good Socialists, or that they weren't Socialists at all. Meanwhile, it's suspect of you to Argue their integrity when you've already demonstrated an inability to comprehend how something like Marxist theory could every apply to Jews, or those with Nationalistic tendencies. Let's remember that slighting Jews for being "nationalistic" is the original basis for antisemetism itself. How does Socialist poster boy Fidel Castro fair under such scrutiny? Or h'bout we get real here, because Karl Marx himself wasn't much of a Marxist if you weigh him against his realized ideals. Since you're simple minded, I'll spell it out... their key involvement and inspiration from working within the Socialist movement itself was enough of a basis to have influence on the creation of a Jewish State.

A Kibbutz where Israeli citizens live off land provided by the State, while sharing the duties of raising each others children comes from real Socialist ideals, and might very well be the best example of these theories in practice today.

"Socialist Zionist parties still did not 'invent' Zionism. "

Zionism's initial foundations were based on the influences of Socialist principles. Moses Hess was a founding father of Revolutionary Socialism in Germany, he was one of the firsts, if not the first, to promote Marx, and he penned the book that would go on to inspire the Zionist movement.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

To reinforce ABC's point on this, I'd suggest that Zukov, you go and read the platform of the far-right platforms in the United States during the first half of the 20th Century. Look at the platform of the Christian Nationalist Party of 1948, who equate Communism, Zionism, and internationalism all as being a part of the same "jewish cabal." It isn't merely a coincidence that their platform rhetoric is particularly harsh in 1948.

[ziggytrix]

national and racial identities are a plague upon humanity. :(

[Abcdxxxx]

Some more fun facts about Socialism and Zionism to keep folks like Zuhkov up at night.....


Israel's biggest military supporter was Socialist France (under Guy Mollet). They built Israel's nuclear reactor, and provided arms for every war fought up to '67 (and the Czechoslovakian Socialist/ Anarchist blackmarket provided the majority of weapons for the Indepedence war).

40% of Israel's economy is State owned, with another 20% run by cooperatives affiliated with the Israeli trade union organization, Histadrut. By all rights, Israel should be seen as a model of Democratic Social development.

Jews in the US formed a quarter to a third of the membership of the Socialist Labor Party. the Socialist Party, and the Communist Party. In 1966, at the SDS radicalist convention, 46% who declared themselves as having a religious background were Jewish (according to "Jews and the Left" by Arthur Liebman), and Jewish immigrants from Russia and Eastern Europe have been the mainstay of the left in America since the 1880's. The role Trostky and the Jews played was more then 25% of the membership of all Revolutionary parties in Russia during this period. Of the political prisoners deported to Siberia after the defeat of the Revolution in 1905, 37% were Jewish. Israel was financed in large part from the private donations of liberal Jews in the US.

It was the pogroms in Russia and Poland that led to Socialist agricultural settlements for Russian Jews in 1870, with the first proper Aliyah in 1882.

Even a right wing Zionist like Jabotinsky had origins in the Marxist movement.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

(and the Czechoslovakian Socialist/ Anarchist blackmarket provided the majority of weapons for the Indepedence war).

Didn't Stalin essentially endorse the Czech bloc nation's support for Israel??? You'd figure he would've had to have given the green light on it. I've heard that his intentions were to speed up the creation of the Israeli state in order to pull the disgruntled Arab nations into the Soviet bloc.....

[Abcdxxxx]

Well it's no secret that Stalin didn't like Jews. It's true, he did support the Zionest (with contradictory periods where he outlawed it as well) so he must have given Czechoslovakia a green light, since they were just a puppet regime. Apparently he doubted Zionism would work, but saw the potential of an anti-collonialist yet capatilist ally who weaken British Imperialism. Russia commited fully to supporting Zionism around 1939, only to do an about face, and condemn it by 1948, causing a whole new wave of reactionary antisemetism in Russia that forced even more Jews to look towards the Zionist Party for help. By this point the Communist Parties within the Arab League had all but lost hope, and Muslims grew hostile towards the movement. I've never heard that Stalin was supporting Zionism as part of a wider strategy, but it's possible... it's not like his motives were ever to better Jewish people.

[The_Rorschach]

Reporter's Notebook: Dead Man Talking

Monday, March 29, 2004

By Mike Tobin

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - It had been nearly two years since last I interviewed Abdel Aziz Rantissi. His lifestyle has changed dramatically. His standing in the political landscape has changed somewhat. The things he has to say have not changed at all.

On Tuesday, the day after Sheikh Yassin was killed, my assignment was to find Rantissi and/or Mahmoud Al Zahar, another prominent leader in HAMAS. This is easier assigned than done, and my superiors were aware of that. Zahar and Rantissi have both been the targets assassination attempts. On June 10th last year, Rantissi was in a car that was struck by a missile fired from an Israeli gunship. His bodyguard was killed. Rantissi crawled out the window of the vehicle and escaped with minor injuries.

Two years ago I wanted to interview Rantissi, so I went to his house in Gaza City. Now he lives on the move, in secret, and doesn't answer a phone for fear the Israeli Air force can use the telephone signal to track him and kill him. My best bet was to bump into him.

He still appears in public, but only where there is a thick crowd.
Nearly every air strike produces unintended victims, and Israel does not want to be held accountable for firing into a crowd. So, by standing in a sea of Palestinians, the people Rantissi claims to represent become his human shields. He likely would be appearing at the mourning tent erected in the Al Yarmouk soccer stadium in Gaza City for the three days of mourning declared by the Palestinian Authority. After the mourning period, Rantissi would go deep underground. We would get him at the mourning tent, or miss him all together.

Andrew Psarianos, my cameraman, and I were working with Nael Ghabnoun, a local Gazan, when we arrived at the stadium. At first glance we found a sea of mourners being received by relatives of Sheikh Yassin. There were plenty of HAMAS militants, but it appeared I was out of luck in terms of finding the evolving leadership of HAMAS. Suddenly, Nael piped up, "He is here." Rantissi travels on foot these days because, as he knows better than most cars make good targets for missile strikes. That's how he arrived and apparently approached the mourning tent through a back alley.

It would be nice to have the freedom to submit interview requests in a calm, professional manner all the time, but this crowded and disorganized environment mandated an ambush interview. Andrew and I hustled to connect the microphone cables to the camera and came up on Rantissi with tape rolling. He would either talk or we would have a shot of him telling us to stick it. He did something in the middle. He talked, but didn't say anything; certainly not anything very new.

As far as his security he said, "It is Ariel Sharon who should fear for
his security." The dialogue was the same old defiance I had heard from Rantissi before. He would not commit to any designs or desire to fill the void at the head of HAMAS created by Yassin's assassination. The only statement that made my ears perk up was when he tried to capitalize on any anti-Semitism, which may have been created by Mel Gibson's movie "The Passion of the Christ" saying "They killed Jesus."

What struck me, however, was the way the rest of HAMAS seemed to accept him as having already ascended to the leadership position. Rantissi had long been HAMAS' number two in Gaza. Sheikh Yassin was number one, but only in a motivational sense. Yassin was the founder of HAMAS and called "the spiritual leader," but it has been the impression of many that Rantissi did the heavy lifting in terms of running the extremist organization. Here at the tent Rantissi walked in a mobile platoon of faithful who seemed to hang on his every word. The men gathered to face Mecca and pray. Rantissi was put out in front of their ranks. When he stood, the men stood. When he bowed, the men bowed. When Rantissi said "Allah Akbar" (God is great) the men said "Allah Akbar."

I was able to find Mahmoud Zahar and ask him if he would support
Rantissi at the helm of HAMAS. Zahar said he would. That wasn't a political endorsement, but there was no doubt HAMAS was lining up behind Rantissi.

There was a brief moment of tension at the mourning tent when a couple of fixed wing aircraft were spotted flying overhead. The only aircraft that fly over the Gaza strip are Israeli. My best guess was that they were drone aircraft keeping an eye on the HAMAS leadership. Israel was not backing off the promise to assassinate the leaders of HAMAS and Islamic Jihad. Military sources have been quoted in a number of publications saying things like "We'll hit them at every opportunity." I believe those drones were watching to see if one of them would walk out into the open and create such an opportunity.

Later that evening HAMAS would make the announcement official. Rantissi is the leader in the Gaza strip. The chief of the organization responsible for the deaths of 377 Israeli civilians, calling for an "open war" on Jews, he had just moved to the top of Israel's hit list.

Late at night I was back at the Gaza media center deep in the throes of wrestling Rantissi's interview into a series of live reports. Aside from Rantissi's reluctance to give a straight answer to a question, his English is terrible. Granted, it's better than my Arabic and when you're interviewing him in the long form, you understand what he is talking about, but between his metaphors and bad sentences, salvaging a sound bite fromthis guy was proving to be quite a challenge. When you do ambush interviews like that you get one crack at them and then you're done, most of the time anyway.

Abed el Salaam Abu Askar runs the Gaza Media Center. He is one of those guys who has the Gaza Strip wired up, and he's a tremendous resource. Abed was able to get a call through to one of Rantissi's bodyguards and was told:

"Expect us in the coming hours."

"When will you be here" he asked.

"When we arrive, we will let you know."

Rantissi and his security detail walked up 14 floors to the office. For some reason, he doesn't like elevators. We had a couple of chairs set up for an interview in one of the rooms from which I had been doing my live reports.
Rantissi's security detail immediately vetoed that location because it was next to a window. He was afraid Israeli aircraft could target him through a window. In fact, at one point he made Abed close a door, two rooms away,because he spotted a window. It seems like paranoid behavior, but it doesn't count as paranoia when they really are out to get you.

Sitting down for the interview I was racking my brain for ways to get Rantissi to say something new. In my experience, he has two techniques:
1) He blames everything from bloodshed to Palestinian corruption on Israel. 2) When you pin him down on a question he says he doesn't understand you.

Here are just a few snippets from the interview:

Tobin: Where will you take the Palestinian People?

Rantissi: No one can decide for the movement, but all of us for the
movement in Gaza.

Tobin: But you're their leader. The People will look to you to take them in a direction.

Rantissi: I take them to the end of their suffering, the end of their tragedy.

Tobin: How can you stop the bloodshed?

Rantissi: I think the international community can do that, if the international community says to the Israelis "stop the aggression."

Tobin: What can YOU do to stop the bloodshed?

Rantissi: No one in the world say to Sharon stop your terror action.

Tobin: How will you prevent anarchy after an Israeli pullout from the Gaza strip?

Rantissi: I don't understand.

Tobin: Do you anticipate that you will be killed while you hold this job?

Rantissi: It doesn't make any difference to die for the sake of my goals.

Tobin: Yes or no?

Rantissi: Never mind.

I was thinking this guy risked his life to come here and talk to me and he won't say anything. If I had a hammer, I would bang myself in the head with it. At least that way we'd have Rantissi on tape saying "What the hell are you doing?" and that would be new. Through a series of follow up questions, bordering on rudeness, I was able to get him to say his first step as the leader of HAMAS would be to get all the Islamic groups in the Gaza Strip tounify and to respect Yasser Arafat's Fatah party, but not when it came to ending the violence. Abed noticed something new about Rantissi. "This is the first time I have seen him speak softly. In all the years I have seen him, he yells and screams." Maybe Rantissi is now trying to play the role of a leader. Maybe he's just tired. But we had an interview with the most prominent target marked for death by Israel.

The next night, Rantissi was back in a crowd of militants. Normally
contentious, Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, Islamic Jihad and HAMAS were all unified under the same tent. The different militant groups offered their support to Rantissi. Armed HAMAS fighters pledged their loyalty to their new leader, but if the Israeli military makes good on its promise, that pledge is not a long-term commitment.

[Abcdxxxx]

I've said this before but...The interesting thing about the whole Road Map to Peace period is that it elevated Hamas to a point where people were forced to negotiate with them. It stopped mattering if the PA agreed to peace, everyone was waiting on Hamas, and suddenly then had their own spokesperson appearing on TV commenting as if they were a diplomat. What other underground militant group with a genocidal doctrine has someone speaking on Fox News giving a counterpoint opinion?

Rantisi doesn't come off all that bright in the above article.

[Zhukov]

I'l say again, abce, that I am tryng to 'discuss' the formation of Zionism, not Israel. Keep this in mind when reading my posts or posting yours.

Nothing I have said contains anything that defames Jewish people, or supports their oppression. Your sole basis for thinking that I am an anti-semite is my anti-Zionist stance. I have a clear distinction between my opposition to Zionism and my support for the legitimate struggle of the Jews, of all oppressed people, against any form of racism. The only people that seem to think the Jews and Zionism are one and the same are the new wave of Islamic terrorists and the Zionist suporters. Saying that m opinions are anti-semetic is really the lowest you can go, since you haven't found anything that I have said to be anti-semetic. This is because nothing of the sort exists.

In fact, you didn't even know it existed until It was pointed out to you on this board.
No, you assumed I didn't know about Zionist Socialist parties, because you thought that their existance would somehow prove that Zionism was born of Socialist and Communist principles. You convineintly dodged my question on "How can Zionism be based on Socialism and Communism", and instead dropped names and reffered to Zionist Socialist parties. I am a firm believer that Socialist Zionist parties were not responsible for the creation of Zionism. I believe this just as much as I believe that no single person was responsible for Zionism, you aggree with me, but still find the time to drop more names.

What you need to show is what led to the formation of Zionism, and what it's purpose was. You don't have to show Socialist leanings in Israel, or how many "card carrying communists" (Which Communist party??) were part of the creation of Israel, because these things didn't have any input into the creation of Zionism.
I have stated that Zionism came from the nationalistic sentiments of Jews under attack from anti-semites, mainly in Eastern Europe. I have stated that Zionism's purpose was to unite Jews into their own homeland.

You dissagree with me on the first point, you say that Zionism came from Socialist and Communist sentiments. However, I guess that you agree with me on the Zionist purpose.

Since the ceation of a 'Jewish state', or a 'Dutch state' in Sth Africa, or any other kind of state based upon race, religion, or colour can be considered nationalistic, then the aim of the Zionists is a Nationalist one. I again guess that you agree with this, because you jump to the defense of Nationalism.

How can Communism be related at all to Nationalism? It can't be. The break down of borders, equality of race and classless society can only be seen through an internationalist light.

Communism can never be achieved while the workers are not united on the basis of false differences, such as believing ones state is the road to worker freedom.

Nationalists support their own bourgeoise and middle classes, instead of suppoting their own class in other countries. Class collaboration is not a principle of Communism or Socialism, be it in the form seen in Spain during the 1930s by the Stalinists, or in normal everyday Capitalism.

The Zionist aim is to create a 'Jewish state', the creation of a state - Jewish or otherwise - cannot be considered a communist principle. Nevermind the fact that this 'Jewish state' is not even required to be a proletarian dictatorship, (hence, not Socialist) but Communism is another stateless stage of human history. There will be no state in a Communist society, just as there has never been a "Communist state/nation/country", because there never can be. The existance of states, even workers states, negates the existance of Communism. The ruling class creates/inherits the state to supress other classes, be it Proletarian or Bourgeois. Since there are no classes in a clasless society, there is no state.

While the current wave of Socialist dopes like yourself might like to distance themselves, or discredit how legit a left leaning Zionist was , in order to feel like you're still down with the "oppressed" and "downtrodden", there is no difference between Socialist Zionism, or Zionist Socialism.

What the hell does this mean? Have I said that there was a difference between the two? I might have been using one or the other at random, so if I gave you the impression that there was a differenec, I apologise. I don't discredit the revolutionary Marxism of Leftist Zionists based on differences in "Zionist Socialist" and "Socialist Zionist", I discredit them based on their support for reactionary two step theories, the likes of which Stalin "theorised". If you want to legitimise the Zionist Socialist movement then you are going to have to defend their two step theory, their support for their own middle and bourgeois classes over the proletarians of neighbouring states, and their support of "trade unions" such as Histadrut.
You can't decide if you want to claim they weren't good Socialists, or that they weren't Socialists at all
The leaders use socialism as an excuse to proport Zionism, the rank and file that believe in Zionism, but also Socialism are misguided utopian Socialists. The main theoritists of early Zonism were misguided as well. I tried to keep it straight forward in earlier posts.
Meanwhile, it's suspect of you to Argue their integrity when you've already demonstrated an inability to comprehend how something like Marxist theory could every apply to Jews, or those with Nationalistic tendencies
Marxist theory applies to Jews, Christians, Hindus, black, white, male, female, everyone. This is what it means to be internationalist. I have never said that Marxist theory does not apply to Jews. You are trying to portray me as anti-semetic. Is this your only defense? I can't comprehend how you would think that "Nationalistic tendencies" belong in Marxist theory, nor have you given me a reason to believe otherwise.

Fidel Castro is hardly a Socialist "poster boy", and he has nothing to do with anything.
slighting Jews for being "nationalistic" is the original basis for antisemetism itself
Jewish nationalism followed anti-semitism, not the other way around. It is the decline of the capitalist world system from the end of the 19th century that has produced the racism of anti-semitism. The abolishment of Serfdom in Russia in the 1860s (or round about) caused Eastern Europe to drift ino continual crisis. The old feudal order was in decay, but there was no expanding capitalism to take its place, as there had been in Western Europe. Eastern captalism was weak, stunted and unable to attain the position once held by feudalism. The influx of peasants into the cities looking for jobs during the decay of feudalism came into conflict with the urban Jews because of the highly competitive labour market. The traditional positions of Jews such a moneylenders, artisans and small merchants were lost to them with the fall of Feudalism. The inability of Eastern Europe to intergrate milions of displaced Jews, the competition for jobs, institutionalised blaming of the Jews for the problems with society, (Which was fine for the non-jews in competition with them) and the worsening conditions of the middle class in Western Europe or the US (wich was blammed on the newly arriving Jews who fled E. Europe) all contributed to the rise of anti-semitsm. Jewish nationalism and Zionism sought to defend against this racism by taking the anti-semites argument that Jew and Gentile can't live together, and aiming to create a Jewish state for all Jews to live in. The creation of a Jewish state their way of combating anti-semitism, to no avail.

Moses Hess' book was "Rome and Jerusalem", which turned out to be a Zionist manifesto where he called for the return of the Jewish people to their "ancestral homeland". I've said earlier that Hess was an assosciate of Marx. However, he then changed his mind, and went from Marxism to Zionism.
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/biography/hess.html
Five minutes on google agrees with me.

"Following the unification of Italy, the rise of nationalism in that country and the emergence of German antisemitism, Hess returned to his Jewish roots."

While your here, check out http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Zionism/zionism.html

"Jews of all persuasions, left and right, religious and secular, joined to form the Zionist movement and worked together toward these goals"

Class colaboration if ever I saw it. Socialists don't put many goals in front of social revolution, least of all the creation of a state based not on class, or even on language, territory, economic life, and psychological make up, but based on a religion!

Here is what Lenin had to say about the national question:

"The awakening of the masses from feudal slumber, their struggle against all national oppression, for the sovereignty of the people and the sovereignty of nations is progressive. Hence, it is the bounded duty of a Marxist to uphold the most resolute and consistent democracy on all points of the national question. The task is mainly a negative one. But the proletariat cannot go beyond this in supporting nationalism, for beyond it begins the 'positive' activity of the bourgeoisie striving to fortify nationalism." (My emphasis.)

Also:

"That is why the proletariat confines itself, so to speak, to the negative demand for recognition of the right to self-determination, without giving any guarantees to any nation, and without undertaking to give anything at the expense of another nation."

Lenin writes of the harmful influence of nationalism in the workers' movement: "The conclusion is that all liberal-bourgeois nationalism causes the greatest corruption among the workers and does immense harm to the cause of freedom and the proletarian class struggle. It is all the more dangerous because the bourgeois (and bourgeois-serf-owning) tendency is hidden by the 'national culture' slogan. In the name of national culture—Great Russian, Polish, Jewish, Ukrainian, and others—the Black Hundreds reactionaries and clericals, and also the bourgeoisie of all nations, do their dirty work. "


BTW: I use "Nationalism" in regards to the Jews for lack of a better word, since Judaism is not a nation.


Regarding your second post:

State ownership does not equal Socialism unless it goes hand in hand with proletarian dictatorship, easy to understand because alot of states have public industry and are, suprisingly, not socialist.

The reality of Histadrut is that they are not a trade union, but an investment wing of large capital. The first company established by Histadrut, Soleh Boneh (sp?), developed ito the largest corporation in Israel, building luxury hotels thoughout Africa and military bases throughout Asia.

Histadrut controlled all health insurance in Israel, until recenty.

Two key companies behind Histadrut were AMPAL (American Israel Corporation - a finance company that directed US capital investment in Irael) and Koor, a majorcompany in the field of constrution and manufacture. These companies were not cotrolled by wrkers, but were privately owned, profit driven enteprises.
Kibbutzim affiliated with Histadrut have their goods produced sold for a profit. The profit ends up in the hands of Histadrut companies. Wage-labour is prominent in Kibbutzim and Histadrut companies.

The French socilaist party are "Democratic Socialists", France was like Sweeden etc - Capitalists. The attempt to nationalize the Suez Canal was a progressive move, and any revolutionary socialist, French or Israeli, would have supported it, instead of invading and bombing the place.

I am not saying Jews don't join socialist parties! I am not saying Jews can't be socialists.Are you trying to portray all Jews as Zionist? Trotsky, Luxemburg, Zinoviev and many other prominent communists and socialists had Jewish heritage. Why are you providing these statements that have nothing to do with Zionism? What is the reason for your inability to post anything regarding the forming of Zionism?

I am asking you about the foundation of Zionism, not how 'socialist' you think Israel is! You are only keeping yourself up, abcde, if you don't provide an answer or argument, this thread will never end.

Your post on Stalin I agree with, it is a perfect example of the opportunist nature of the beuracracy who were willing to lean left when it suited them, and right when it suited them. However, 'Marxism and the National Question' by uncle Joe is still relevant, (he wrote it before the degeneration of the Russian socialist movement) if anybody was interested...

(My post is too long, I think, sorry.)

[The_Rorschach]

Rantisi doesn't come off all that bright in the above article.

Yeah but Bush never comes off all that bright, doesn't make him any less dangerous though :(

Now, if only the propincity for destruction was directly linked to intellegence. . .Hell, we'd have some important people here at the Mock ;)

[Abcdxxxx]

Okay Zukhov you're really dense. I'm not saying you're antisemetic, I'm saying your arguments against the existance and legitmacy of Socialist Zionism recalls some of the same antisemetic rhetoric used against Jews for as long as antisemetism has existed.

Obviously Zionism and Jewishness are two different things, which is why there were even Muslim Zionists, and Christian Zionists. With that said, the word Zionist has become code for "oppotunistic Jew", and when people speak of Zionists, they are most certainly talking about Jews. My problem is with people like yourself demonizing Zionism when you have such a narrow view. It's false to say that "Jewish Nationalism followed Anti-Semetism". Even under Marxist terms, the Jews have always been a nation, and every bit of Judaic teachings speak of creating an inclusive nation of Israel. I'll say it again, The Romans of Ancient times viewed Jews and their adherance to the Torah above their own laws as Nationalistic, and this resulted in the birth of what we now call antisemetism. To be critical of Jewish Nationalism is to be critical of the religion itself. Even under Marxist terms, Judaism is a nation, and confirms the existance of a diaspora.

Who was responsible for Zionism if not the various names and parties I dropped? How did these socialist style programs become a part of daily life in Israel if they had no part in the formation of Zionism or the State of Israel? Zionism was made up of many theories, but the most prevelant were the Socialists, REGARDLESS of their purpose. They could have brough Socialist ideals to cooking school and it would not matter WHY they did it. They still did it. What you're not understanding is there were Socialists within the Zionist party who would agree with some of the things you're saying.... but they ended up leaving the Socialist Labor movement and becoming the Jabotinsky's of the world. They still retained many of their original ideas originated while active Marxists, Socialists, whatevers. Look, really I'm sorry this is too complex for you.

Your information on the Histadrut is false, and full of simplistic and misleading claims. Israel has began to shift away from it's Socialist roots, and embrace a more Capatilist Democracy at the insistance of the US. This is recent, and with controversy.

Zukhov: "Nationalists support their own bourgeoise and middle classes, instead of suppoting their own class in other countries. Class collaboration is not a principle of Communism or Socialism, be it in the form seen in Spain during the 1930s by the Stalinists, or in normal everyday Capitalism."

Right well, Marxist Zionists believed in a reverse pyramid. Socialist Zionists didn't do anything to support the bourgeoise or middle class, and sought out their own land to be classless. Antisemetism played a part in that Jews realized they were being percieved as different, to their disliking, and prevented their inclusion into a universal class. The book that inspired Zionism came from a Socialist while he was a Socialist. There were many versions of Zionism, including the one that intended to make one land for all peoples, so it's shallow of you to believe Zionism discounts any other theories. Zionism wasn't a theory of itself. Is that clear to you? Even your cutting and pasting backs up what I'm saying. One can and has applied Socialist principles to forming Statehood. Where Socialists like yourself look stupid is to "negate" every actual application of Socialism in a practical sense, declaring it as not really Socialism. Under that naivety nothing is Communist, nothing is Socialist, and nothing truly represents these ideals except for some annoying utopian dream derived from dated theories created by the bourgeoise itself, and known racists, for personal gain.
Oh and as for Lenin... even he never succeeded in implimenting the types of social programs found in Israel, so it's all hot air.

(edited for typos)

[Zhukov]

I wont be able to reply to your post for a few days.

One thing stuck out though:

Even under Marxist terms, the Jews have always been a nation

Under Marxist terms, the Jews have not "always been a nation".

In Marxist terms a nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.

None of these above characteristics by istself is sufficient to constitute a nation. If you can show me that world Jewry contains all the above, then I will take back what I said about Jews not being a nation. Until then, not only are Jews not a nation (it sounds absurd, and it is absurd) but they can not have "always been a nation". You try to state that it is "under Marxist terms" that Jews are a nation, but you are incorrect, since these very terms classify that a "nation" is not merely a category of the characteristics already pointed out, but a category that belongs to a definite epoch - the epoch of rising capitalism. The process of eliminating feudalism and developing capitalism is also the process that drags peoples into nations.

[Abcdxxxx]

Okay, so we've established you don't know much about Judaism, I'm still waiting for the full response you promised. Otherwise you're just trying to swirve past a real rebutal. Kinda like when you insist we're talking about the creation of Israel/Zionism and then bring up the States recent capatilistic leanings to disprove the existance of idealogical mingling that happened over 100 years ago. Anyway, now you're not talking about Israel, you're talking about Jews, as a whole, and as a Nation. So watch your step.

[The_Rorschach]

"Obviously Zionism and Jewishness are two different things"

For instance, ABCD is a Zionist, Burbank is a Jew ;)

[Abcdxxxx]

.....through conversion.