The New York Times this morning ran a predictably slanted discussion of Israel's execution yesterday of Sheik Ahmed Yassin under the title, "Wave of Anger Rolls Across Arab World". No surprise there- a wave of anger rolls across the Arab world whenever Israel asserts its right of soveriegnty and security.
The Times wrote about regional leaders "... criticizing Israel for ratcheting up the violence at a time when the first tentative steps toward peace were being taken in almost four years." Never mind that the last set of tentative steps toward peace (following the Dayton Accords) were shattered by an intifada that was engineered by Yassin and his fellow bigots. The Times prefers the delusion that Yassin would reverse course on a lifetime of bigotry and support peace and coexistence with Israel.
The Times also wrote that "...the heads of important Islamic institutions in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere deplored the Israeli slaying of one of their own, and gave their approval for acts of revenge. None failed to point out that Sheik Yassin was a crippled man confined to a wheelchair who was killed just as he finished the dawn prayers." The Times did not add that ALL failed to point out that Yassin was a mass murderer responsible for planning and exhorting the death and injury of countless Israeli civilians.
In fact, the whole of the Times article betrays both anti-Israel bias and gross ignorance of Middle East affairs. For example, the Times writes, "... no Arab leader is likely to have shared any great affinity with the sheik's extremist Hamas movement..." No explanation is forthcoming from the Times as to why the Arab leaders it claims have no affinity with Hamas, have in fact funded Hamas through the years. The closing paragraph of the article quotes Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, Iraq's "most important Shiite cleric" as chastising Israel and calling for "...Arab and Islamic unity and "liberation of the usurped land."" One wishes the Times would take a moment to compare Sistani's statement with the Hamas Charter, note that both call for the destruction of Israel on behalf of Islam, and then dare report that no Arab leaders have an affinity with Hamas.
Finally, the Times writes, "Analysts suggested that by killing Sheik Yassin, Israel risks pushing Hamas into becoming an even more radical organization and diminishing what is already weak support for any peace negotiations." Hamas exists to destroy Israel. With this in mind, one wonders what the so-called analysts have in mind when they predict increased radicalism- perhaps an amendment to the Hamas Charter demanding the destruction of Israel, not once but twice.
Posted by publius at March 23, 2004 06:41 PMI agree with the points you've made and of course it's unsurprising that the New York Times is taking a liberal view of this incident. However, I'd also make the argument that Israel's assassination of Yassin was not the wisest course of action. I completely agree that Yassin, as the spiritual leader of Hamas, was a mass murderer, responsible for the deaths of many. I also agree that it's hard to imagine the assassination of Yassin engendering a more radical anti-Israel policy than that already espoused by Hamas and its ilk. However, it's evident that it is the MANNER in which this assassination was conducted that has fueled the intense anger and hatred of Palestinians, in a way that is only likely to lead to an increase in suicide bombings. You're right that future bombings will not be any more "radical" in nature, but they may well be more frequent and/or more deadly. History has shown that perceptions often influence events much more than do the actual facts. In this case, the fact is that Yassin was a murderer. But the Arab world has perceived his assassination as another example of anti-Muslim and heavy-handed Israeli tactics. Note that Arab commentators consistently point to the manner of the assassination as being most infuriating - in public, in a wheelchair, returning from morning prayers. Granted, his assassination in any manner was unavoidably going to produce a certain amount of outrage. However, even if you agree with Israel's policy of conducting such assassinations, you have to admit that this assassination could have engendered lesser amounts of fury and outrage if conducted in a different manner. Israel, like all governments, must not only be cognizant of the policies it pursues, but also of the manner in which it pursues them. (P.S. - it's spelled sovereignty. :))
Posted by: Gabrielle at March 29, 2004 05:26 PMThank you for your comments.
Reasonable people can disagree about the wisdom of Israel’s decision to kill Sheik Ahmad Yassin. I remain convinced that the act was one of national self defense and that Israel is well within its rights to strike in similar fashion at other so-called leaders of Palestinian nationalism- including Yasir Arafat.
As to the manner in which Israel went about executing Yassin, the New York Post (www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/21903.htm) reported on March 27, that Israel had looked for three days for an appropriate moment- appropriate in this case meaning with minimal civilian danger. Compare Israel’s efforts to avoid or minimize civilian casualties in this operation, with the normal operating methods of Hamas, which seek to maximize civilian casualties. If anything, Israel was considerate of Yassin’s religion in allowing him to complete his morning prayers before dispatching him to his otherworldly fate.
Finally, you raise the subject of Arab perceptions. Yassin’s death under any circumstances involving Israel would have resulted in the same protests throughout the Arab world. In recent articles, I have read that he looked forward to what in Islam passes for “martyrdom” and very much wanted his death to result in widespread anti-Israel sentiment. It is not unimportant that such protests against Israel and America are the only tolerated outlet for social unrest in the Arab world (think George Orwell, “1984”, and the “two minute hate”).
I apologize for misspelling “sovereignty.” I also regret having compared Yassin to “human excrement," a comparison that was unkind.
Posted by: Soldier at March 30, 2004 03:45 PMAll good points. But I still have my doubts. On another note, I question why the Israelis thought it was a good idea to release him from prison to begin with. I technically know why they did it (Yassin was exchanged for 2 Mossad agents who'd failed in the assassination of another Hamas leader); but if Israel considered Yassin a mass murderer and a highly influential terrorist, you would think that they'd never have considered releasing him in the first place!
Posted by: Gabrielle at March 30, 2004 06:06 PM