How come Israel is not killing the leader of Hamas?

He would only be replaced by another man with the same ideology. Killing him might actually strengthen Hamas by providing its followers with a martyr.

 

I watched a REALLY great special on Frontline the other night about the peace process durring Clinton's presidency. Both sides in the conflict were unreal. I mean, there were times when where one of them sat at the table was enough to end negotiations or where one side would pack their bags and PRETEND to leave just to force the issue. Just pathetic.

The thing that was really interesting is that the security people and the actual negotiators (not the politicians), were (and, in some cases, still are) very very close. They hugged and cried with one another. They became friends. They truly wanted things to work out between them and they cared for each other.

It was, as is often the case, the politicians that ruined things. On the Israeli side, they were forced to satisfy the religious right who represented only a minority of the Israeli people. On the Palestinian side, they were forced to satisfy the religious exremists who also represented only a minority of the Palestinians. The everyday people involved wanted out of the cycle of violence but the politicians and the extremists didn't - plain and simple.

That's what made watching it so depressing and sad. They were so close to actually having peace. They had people from both sides, hugging, kissing and praising each other. But, as usual, a suicide bomber or a forced settlement would destroy the peace process. Really, really sad.

 

I don't buy into the martyr crap they keep spewing, it seems that they all think that dying will make them a martyr.

I think you underestimate the impact it would have. If Palestinians killed the Pope, you can bet Catholics around the world would be *pissed* and take action. Killing this guy would have little effect on the actual Hamas organization -- he's just the spiritual / religious leader, not the military leader -- while you would enrage the entire population. Unfortunately, nothing good comes out of killing him, I don't think.

 

Quick hello... I'm writing this from the PX at Ft Sill and am still in AIT (training), and I only have a couple of minutes, but...

It would be pointless to take this guy out unless the rest of the Hamas leadership was taken out as well. Which is, of course, exactly what the Israelis should do. Building a fence is all fine and dandy, but as long as guys like this are running around telling teenagers that it is their religious duty to commit murder-suicide in order to drive the Jews into the sea, the cycle of violence will never stop.

But to merely hit this guy without assaulting all of the Hamas leadership as well would only fan Palestinian anger - and leave their military capabilities intact. If the Israelis were going to do it, then they'd have to make a full sweep and pretty much just wipe Hamas out in one move. Which they could do, if we would let them...

One more month of this training, and then I'll be back. Until then...

 

Why kill the leader of Hamas, when there are 10 more like him ready to assume his position?

It is better to discredit that leader by proving to his people that he fighting an unwinnable battle. Instead of creating a martyr, the Israelis should show the Palestinian's leaders as men who created nothing but pain and destruction for the Arab people.

Arafat and the fellow leaders of the Palestinian terror factions are more useful as living failures than dead heroes.

 

I wonder, is it any surprise to anyone that things have really begun to spiral downward now that it is Sharon vs. Arafat. I mean, these two guys HATE each other. This isn't some dislike. This is pure hatred.

Sharon is responsible for the very placement of settlements in Gaza. He was kicked out of the Israeli government because he was found to be responsible for one big ass massacre.

On the other hand, Arafat came to power because of his legendary battles with Sharon when Sharon was a general. He fostered the hatred within Palestinians and pushed the very concept of terrorism on a poor and suffering people.

These two guys have made their careers off of the other's craziness. It's no wonder the whole thing is coming unglued. This is like the capper of the whole mother-lode of hatred between the two groups over the past 50 years.

 

Sharon was not directly responsible for the Sabra massacre. The Israeli government found him "indirectly responsible", because he should have known what might happen if the Israeli Army allowed the Christian Militia to enter the Palestinian refugee camps. This is a fine distinction I know, but an important one.

 

Has anyone ever killed a pope?

 

I don't know. Has a Pope ever sent men on suicide missions to butcher teenage girls at a disco??

 

At a disco? No. Kill teenage girls? Most definitely. Have you ever heard of the crusades?

 

Has the Pope ever sent thousands of men on a lootling spree in the middle east under the guise of a religious "Crusade"...uhhh yes.

 

Puuuuuuuuleeeeeeeeezzzeeee.

This guy is comparing the leader of Hamas to a religious leader. Hamas is not a religious organization. Hamas is a group of religious men using violence to achieve a political goal.

Let's not justify the sickening violence of the Hamas child murderers by looking for a moral equivalent in the Christian world. A thousand years ago, all civilizations killed children on purpose with reckless abandon. Most civilizations evolved past the point of endorsing these barbaric tactics. Unfortunately, the Palestinians have not.

 

I see it as the Palistians are just getting back thier land and the Crusades were 10x's worse since they killed for greed.

 

Really? I see the targeting of children to demoralize your enemy as INDEFENSIBLE.

 

I know, Colonists killing little native-americans was okay, and Israel killing two year olds and killing 60+year olds is okay.

 

First off, I don't know which history classes you took, but there were plenty of civilizations that didn't kill children on purpose with reckless abandon. You are either incredibly overstating your case or you just don't know history.

Besides, that does not justify the action and it is a valid comparison. Both were violent actions justified by religion. It may not seem as bad because of the passage of time, but the crusades were responsible for the deaths of thousands.

Even worse, those involved tortured hundreds of people demanding they renounce their own religion and accept Jesus as their personal Savior.

Maybe it happened hundreds of years ago and maybe some societies have evolved but that doesn't justify what happened and it cannot be dismissed out of hand.