Israel Kills Rantisi, New Hamas Leader.

[Az]

NO, I don;t. BUt of course, I am not the one trying to implement a half plan on the ground. Israel can't claim to have left Gaza and still control access. Of course, whomever was going to gain political control of Gaza should take those over-too bad Sharon didn;t say anything about that part....

If political control will be agreed with someone on the other side, I think that we should give the right to control the passages. But this is a big 'if'.

If the leaders begin to hide their identity, and it becomes harder for Israel to keep spies and informants in Gaza, what makes you think Israel will have the ability to do anything about it?

a) why do you think it will be harder to keep spies and informants in Gaza? We can literally see all of Gaza through telescopes, and drones. And Hamas won't go completely undercover. They can't. There is a reason why they weren't undercover before. They're public figures, a large organization. Currently, Hamas is a mess, so I don't think Israel should fear a takeover by them in Gaza. The crucial point is to make whoever is there to grow some balls, and stick to their long forgotten commitment to fight the *******s. It's quite funny that noone will, it's for their own good, for crying out loud.

[GePap]

The crucial point is to make whoever is there to grow some balls, and stick to their long forgotten commitment to fight the *******s. It's quite funny that noone will, it's for their own good, for crying out loud.

And right now, why should they? Less misery but still misery? For example, what Happens to the Gaza economy? Gaza is one of the most densely populated places on earth and cut off from the rest of the world, or severely restricted from the rest of the world (which Israel will invariable keep it), it isn;t much more than a giant slum overall. So what is to be gained? What Palestinian moderate politician wants to take ownership of that?

As for Hamas not eing able to be secretive- well, given that it is Israel that has declared that you can;t possibly be sucha thing as simply the political head of Hamas because otherwise you are marked for death (I am not arguing about the guys killed, only the ability to claim such a position), I can see how most Pals. in Gaza would recognize the need for local leaders to be secretive, while they still have public leaders in Damascus.

[Az]

And right now, why should they? Less misery but still misery? For example, what Happens to the Gaza economy? Gaza is one of the most densely populated places on earth and cut off from the rest of the world, or severely restricted from the rest of the world (which Israel will invariable keep it), it isn;t much more than a giant slum overall. So what is to be gained? What Palestinian moderate politician wants to take ownership of that?

Yeah, that's it, noone wants to take over Gaza.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Sandman
They're too well protected, apparently. Israel can move about the Palestinian areas with impunity, and seems to have little difficulty occupying specific places. The Palestinians can't seem to defend these places, but when it comes to defending individuals they present an insurmountable challenge.

We do arrest individuals.

We probably arrest around 10-20 people per day.

But it is impossible to go after the big fish, unless you are willing to have a huge combat.

You saw on the news how much a crowd sorrounded Rantisi's car, one minute after he was bombed.

No special forces group or tank could fight that, unless we plan on killing all 10,000 demonstrators.

[pchang]

Well perhaps you should. If you kill them all the problem goes away.

[notyoueither]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1082290004718_28/?hub=World

As tens of thousands crowded the funeral of Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi on Sunday, the militant group secretly appointed a new Gaza Strip chief.

Hamas refused to reveal his identity, however, fearing Israel will assassinate him as it has done to two others in its leadership during the course of the past month.

Despite Hamas' efforts, Israel's Army Radio is reporting the new leader is Rantisi's second in command, Mahmoud Zahar.

I wonder if Mr. Zahar will enjoy being the bullseye.

[Az]

Well, saying the leader's identity is hidden is stupid, anyway. What are they going to do next? In favour of whom will they rally support? without the supposed hero, it's very hard to do so.

[notyoueither]

from the same article

For his part, Sharon said that he plans to keep targeting Hamas leaders.

"This policy of making an effort on the one hand to advance a political process and on the other hand to hit the terror organizations and their leaders will continue," the Israeli Prime Minister told his cabinet at their weekly meeting Sunday.

Hamas is responsible for most of the 112 suicide bombings that have killed 465 people on the Israeli side since fighting broke out in September 2000.

Palestinian medical officials estimate Israel has killed more than 150 militants in targeted raids.

Do you know if that means they will keep going regardless of bombings?

[Az]

It depends. Could be so. But I think that now, with the head in Gaza badly bruised, more attention would be given to cleaning out the stables in the west bank. they don't need helos for that.

[Sirotnikov]

But the Israel situation matters not just to you or the Palestinians, it has global consequences - particularly it increases support for lunatics like OBL who point to it as an example of Western perfidy. I don't think that there is a solution that is going to fit everyone's bill; all we can hope for is the least worst situation.

1. It increases support for lunatics, because lunatics are free to spread their lies and propoganda. Stop airing their tapes, stop the sale of bootleg radical islam videos, start jamming al-jazeera.

2. the solution shouldn't fit everyone's bill. First and foremost it should fit the parties in question. and according to my interests, they better fit Israel, than palsetine.

In my view two people are largely responsible for the violence: Ariel Sharon and Bush. Sharon deliberately provoked the current round of violence by taking that walk on the Temple Mount and since then he has pretty much pursued a policy of wrecking any peace settlement. Bush has been completely stupid about the whole thing. I didn't like Clinton, but everyone has to admit that the situation was much better when he was involved.

1. Sharon has, like any person, a full right to visit the temple mount. It's a democratic country. This was not the first time he was there. This won't be the last time. Arafat, was on the mount several times as well. Yassin probably too.

2. Quotes of senior fatah members, lead to the conclusion that the Intifada was at least partially planned, and there is no doubt it was ignited by Palestinian TV propoganda, which made this specific visit a trigger. It was the TV that "armed" the trigger, if you wish.

3. Bush, has not been responsible for this. Clinton has. The fault lies in the Oslo negociations themselves, which as we see were based on false presumptions on both sides. The pals were sure they are going to get full 67' borders and right of return. They were wrong. Furthermore, Arafat apparently still sees the Oslo agreements as part of the palestinian "steps plan", in which it is described that any "temporary" state solution on a part of Palestine, would be used as a tool to destroy Israel. Only this explains why he refused 96% of the territories. He needed "right of return" for the next step.

There's a third solution. Withdraw completely from the occupied territories or do a land swap deal where required. Some minor compromise on the right of return will be required on the part of the Palestinians. Despite what people claim, they've never really been offered this.

The Pals can attempt to rewrite history as much as they want. They have been offered 100% Gaza strip, and 96% west bank, plus land swaps. They were offered east jerusalem and the temple mount.

You are welcome to read Prince Bader's account of how Arafat lied to him and tried to downplay what he was offered.

As far as the right of return - Israel was never against compensations. However, Israel shall never, ever, ever, admit a single palestinian refugee back into Israel, or even give him such choise. If everyone, like the pals claim, would choose compensations, then we give them that.

And Israel also shall never take responsability for the Arab flight from Palestine, because it's their own initiative. True, Israel used it to its gain. It is still not at fault.

If you want to bring me Benny Morris, I welcome you to read Efraim Karsh.

but it is in the interests of most Palestinians to have their own state and the terror won't last (because it requires a significant degree of domestic support).

False.
Islamic Jihad has 0 domestic root. It's has no political movement or well-doing network.

Or Hizbullah, that now has no support to commit terrorist attacks, since Israel is out of Lebanon. It still commits terrorist attacks every once in a while. And now it sends its arms into the territories.

the whole thing was a stupid idea.

I would argue about this for hours, and attempt to prove that the locals aren't so locals. The majority of palestinians who sat in the areas allocated to Israel in 1947, were new immigrants to Israel, from syria, jordan and egypt. Most of them arrived in late 19th century.

And this completely ignores the fact that the current Israeli government is led by a fanatic.

This is again a very stereotypical view. It is lead by a pragmatic who closely watches his steps, using advice from the US and the Intelligence community.

The Israeli left supports the Sharon plan. The idea of seporation was originated by Labor MPs. The Israeli left also support assassination of para-military leaders.

That's simply not the case in the Middle East.

Yes it is.
Syria tried to export it's pseuodo fascist govt. on Jordan and Lebanon. Iran tried to export it's islamo-fascist govt on Iraq. Iraq tried to export it's fascist govt on Iran, Quwait and more.

They may elect people we don't like, or enact domestic policies that we don't like, but stiff **** - that's democracy.

Interesting - when was the last time there were fair presidential elections in an Arab country. never? probably.

Iran is the closest thing to a democracy, but it's president is irrelevant because everything is controlled by Hamn'hai.

You can see how well it is working in Iraq. Or how well it worked in Vietnam.

It will work in Iraq, if Iran and Syria stop meddling there, and if we give it time. Several years at least.

It won't work unless the interest of the meddling power is the same as the interest of most of the population.

Ah, so Vietnam was also an oil target?

Grow up. Yes, US can use oil now. No, this wasn't an oil war. Saddam was willing to sell the US oil for peanuts and it refused.

Bush has a real ideology. You may not like it - but it's there.

Most Arabs don't like the idea of their homelands being occupied to keep the oil flowing, or with corrupt elites being propped up by those who want to keep the oil flowing.

Guess what? Most Arabs have no way of telling you what they like or not. They are not even used to this. They are dictated by their rulers who are willing to put their population in extreme discomfort if only to pop the oil price up. It rarely sprinkles to the people.

Most Arabs was doctored news, whether by the state, or by Al-Jazeera.

[Ted Striker]

Al-Jazeera

Oerdin mentioned how the Al Jazeera crew would mysteriously show up right after an IED went off. Like we are talking seconds after it happened.

I believe they are banned in Iraq.

[Tripledoc]

Sirotnikov. When you call Palistinians 'Pals' it sounds an awful lot like calling Japanese 'Japs' or 'Nips', and it is racist, so please refrain.

[Sirotnikov]

Trip I only do so because it's much shorter, and I tend to use that word alot so it gets annoying. You can trust me I don't mean to call them in a demeaning fashion.

You are welcome to call me Siro or Sir. Or call Israelis Isra's or what ever.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kucinich
So you judge their decision by the competence and/or luck of their troops?

I judge the outcome.

Had they blown up a building full of civilians in the process, it would have been a big , because it would have been a slaughter of civilians for very little use. Since the dead of Rantisi (and 3 guards) comes at the cost of some injured, it is not too bad, although I would have preferred it without any colateral damage.

By the same token, the relatively bloodless fall of Baghdad deserved a . Had Baghdad been firebombed Dresden-like, it would have been a very big

[Az]

Siro, I would like you to stop calling the Palestinians 'pals'. They're not your pals, so stop lying.