We are gathered here today in memory of a great man. A man we all admired, a leader and humanitarian, a hero not only to his own people, but to all downtrodden people everywhere. Wherever there is fear and oppression, wherever the World Jew pulls the puppet strings of tyranny, wherever the Crusaders burn the sacred writings of the Prophet, we cry today for Sheikh Yassin, brother, husband, father, grandfather, and in a sense a father to us all. He was taken from us at the far too young age of 67, in a cruel and unprovoked rocket attack by the Jewish war machine. We are all diminished by his loss.

Sheikh Yassin was a proud man, a man of principles. But he also had a caring heart, a quiet dignity and a wonderful sense of humor. I remember how he used to laugh when he read newspaper reports of successful martyr operations against those wicked places of demonic worship the Jews call "restaurants", "cafes" and "discotheques", and the demonic means of transportation they use to get there. He would come across a particularly wonderful detail - the maiming of a Jew child, the eradication of an entire Jew family, an expression of bottomless grief by a berieved Jew relative - and he would laugh that characteristic high-pitched laugh of his, like a bird song on a spring morning. It came from the heart, that laugh, and we would all be warmed by it.

We have received condolences and statements of condemnation from all corners of the world after today's atrocity. I would like to share some of them with you, if I may. The Foreign Minister of Norway, Jan Petersen, tells us that Yassin's role in the Palestinian resistance movement "clearly does not justify such an attack". And President Jacques Chirac of France condemns the attack as "contrary to international law". How very true this is, and how warming to hear it, even from infidels, in this time of grief. And how ironic it is that Sheikh Yassin, who pleaded and fought for the establishment of international law and human rights in Palestine, should himself fall victim to a violation of those same principles.

Petersen and Chirac are not alone. All across Europe, leaders express deep disappointment with the attack that killed our friend. Even Jack Straw, the Zionist puppet of Great Britain is critical! Our own president, Yassir Arafat, has declared three days of national mourning for our "hero-martyr". The whole world is united in rage against the demon Jewish nation and its wicked deeds! Let not this rage sit idle, let it not pass into apathy. Let us turn it into something useful and glorious - let a hundred nations contribute ten thousands martyrs to our cause. We shall greet them, and arm them, and send them out to blow up Jews in the name of Sheikh Yassin. And let us do it soon, before they finish that damned wall of theirs.

Hey Bjørn. Has Comrade Medvedsilnyn taken over your blog completely today? ;)

Yes. This was fantastic. Now I think the foundations for peace are truly provided for.
Oh, how much more peaceful and prosporous the future all of a sudden seems!!!

Good to see some thourgouh analysis of this great event Bjørn. You were at your best there. I'm awaiting the sequel: A dramatic epic of "crippled terrorist vs attack chopper."

It's time for celebrations!! Pass me some Champagne will you? There's plenty of it probably... Since there's not too many others around the world celebrating (for some strange reason??)
Nietsche: If you fight too many dragons, you may become a dragon yourself.

Why do you think Zimans death was a good thing?
This will only bring more violence.

Hello Bjørn...
what do you really mean, is this a good thing?
And Anders, if you must quote Nietzsche: please write his name correctly.

NIETZSCHE:
Under peaceful conditions the military man attacks himself.

Jan: Someone else, not Medvedsilnyn. I don't have a name for him, but I wouldn't be surprised if he shows up as a guest blogger in the People's Blog.

Paul & OG: I'm not sure if it was wise to kill Yassin. But it was not _wrong_. Yassin was evil, morally no different from bin Laden or al-Zawahiri. Someone had to kill or imprison him, sooner or later. It should have been Arafat, but from the three days of mourning thing I gather he rather liked Yassin.

"I'm not sure if it was wise to kill Yassin."

What wasn't wise was waiting 3 years to kill Yassin. He should have been killed after the first bus bombing that hamas took credit for.

The cancer of jihadism always needs to be attacked with extreme prejudice.

The Europeans shouldn't be too outraged. In the not too distant future they will be ruthlessly attacking jihadists. But of course that won't be the same. When the Europeans kill jihadists it will conform with "international law".

I think Israel made a calculated risk assassment, and that they probably got it right. Ok, I am an optimist.

I actually wrote my thesis on sect leader succession (weird, I know). Hamas is a sect (among other things). Sects have highly charismatic founders. Founders attract men to the subordinate leadership positions who are good followers, not good leaders. The chosen successor (if there is one) almost never succeeds in obtaining the critical following. In the vast majority of cases, the sect is broken up and disappears through the following power struggle.

However, in those cases where the sect survives the death of the founder, the follower will almost always be a powerful politician, ruthless and effective. If Hamas should succeed in uniting around such a successor after a brief power struggle, then the terrorist group could end up even more dangerous.

In that case, I guess the IDF will have to trust its hellfire missiles again.

Paul, US, and OG of Norway . . .

Check out An Unsealed Room blog if you really want to get an Israeli point of view. Don't be stupid.

Bjørn: "I'm not sure if it was wise to kill Yassin. But it was not _wrong_."

Absolutely, could not agree more. Why are european leaders CONDEMNING this attack - an OK response would be; "Hey, we all agree this was axxhole - but we are concerned that such an attack on a palestine and islamic symbol could hasten the cycle of violence and we do not need anything that will sharpen the edges right now"..

In stead they CONDEMN this attack! That`s just lunacy - would they CONDEMN the killing of Usama Bin Laden? There is of course a difference between the two - and that is the number of victims they are responsible for.

Shame on you Jan P.

Buh-bye, Saruman! It's only fitting that he should go out in a blast of high explosives, since he sent so many murderers out to die in the same way. Hope he enjoys his 72 raisins.

Paul, US, and OG Norway . . .

I apologize for calling you stupid. That's not a good way to argue anything, and my conscience has been bothering me. Both of you need to do more reading. I get so much information from littlegreenfootballs, which leads to many many links.

The problem with taking the moral high ground or using platitudes to argue points is that anyone can do so. It's much more work to check out what is really going on, but I urge you to do so. Obviously you are interested, or you wouldn't be reading Bjorn Staerk's blog.

I told to you look at An Unsealed Room because the writer gives a fairly simple explanation of Israeli views. Sheik Yassin was not just a poor old man in a wheelchair. Other blogs give more sophisticated versions of the strategy behind the strike against Yassin.

Here's how I understand the problem: Israel does not want to kill a lot of Palestinians because it is a humane society, one of the most humane in the world. (You don't believe me? Check it out.)
The EU wants the terrorists to stay away from Europe so they give them danegeld. They are willing to sacrifice Israel because they don't care about it. (Combination realpolitik and antisemitism) Israel wants to withdraw from Gaza, which it doesn't claim.

However, when Israel withdrew from Lebanon, the terrorists used that as a rallying cry to say, "Look, the Israelis are weak; that's why they are withdrawing." So this time the Israelis are sending a different message: "We will leave you to rule yourselves (as we did after Oslo and before the 2nd intifada). But Yassin and Rantisi (soon to be dead) want to keep terrorism going. So we'll attack your leaders until you agree to have a real truce, not a hudna."

If you don't know what a "hudna" is, check it out. You might also check belmontclub.blogspot for a slightly different look at the Israeli strategy.

Anyway, the point is: don't just moan and grown about "more violence" and all the other useless talk. Find out what's actually going on.

I meant "moan and GROAN." Sheesh. To think I was a spelling champ. :(

This quotation is from EE, a poster on the Eurabian thread of March 22 in littlegreenfootballs.

"Eurabia wants to buy off the terrorists. The coin that they are most willing to use is Israel's ability to defend itself. It doesn't cost the Eurabians anything if they surrender Israel's right to defend itself.

That's why Eurabia has pretty much opposed Israel's right to build a defensive fence to protect its children against the Islamikazi terrorists. They are willing to surrender Israel's right to use passive defense.

And that's why Eurabia has pretty much opposed Israel's right to take the war to the enemy by swatting down the Pali terrorists' bin Laden-- Islamikazi leader Shiekh Yassin. They are willing to surrender Israel's right to use active defense.

And Eurabia will continue to oppose any exercise of Israel's right to defend itself, whether by active defense or by passive defense.

The age of spineless Europe is here, with the Euros willing to offer sympathy and support for the worst terrorists-- when it comes to Israel's defense.

In this case, at this point in time it is merely scolding Israel for defending itself. But it may get worse, as the Euros get hit with more terrorism, and they try harder to suck up to the terrorists by surrendering more of Israel's right to defend itself. By offering the terrorists Israel's security, that is not capitulation as much as it is collaboration. Vichy Europe."

I'm not the only American who thinks Europe is rapidly going to hell in a handbasket. (A little colloquialism to amuse you while I offend you)

I find it quite interesting that Israel chose this moment, 10 days after Madrid, to conduct this operation. Basically they knew that Europe was in no mood to pick fights with Israel, given their present confusion.

And, they are confused. One the one hand, there is a desire for strong action, but in what form? The respective electorates in each country are getting jittery, and the leaders know they are pretty much powerless, thought they try to appear strong and resolute. A terrorism summit is announced with great fanfare, a coordinating czar is chosen, but this doesn't really add much more to what's been going on already within security apparatuses.

In the end, the protests from European leaders are not as bad as they could have been before Madrid. The EU could have taken a strong stand for supporting Arafat, for example, and warned Israel about great repercussions. As it stands now, the only thing they do is complain about "international" laws and such... It just seems to me that Israel blindsided them, and Euro leaders are too confused to really take any drastic action. Perhaps they'll have to convene another summit again... and yet, if they alienate Israel, maybe Israel will target Arafat next... and then Europe has to deal with the blowback... oh! Too much to deal with!

Those Israelis are pretty smart cookies. This was the perfect time to get rid of that guy.

As I posted the above, I realized another motive for the Israelis. The Al Qaeda terrorist threat is very much in the minds of the European public right now. By blowing away Yassin, Israel was able to subliminally tap into the frustration, anger and fear of the European public, and direct it by proxy to this act, thereby giving some sectors of the public certain satisfaction.

At the same time Israel shows Europe what should be done to terrorists, - a lesson we know Israel would like Europe to take to heart. This time around, Israel will actually find a somewhat of a receptive audience.

It won't convince everyone in Europe, but it will be received better now than before the Madrid bombings.

Beorn: I was kinda afraid that I wouldn't like yesterdays posting when you told me about it yesterday.. when reading it today.. damn .. it's good.

The only place I've read equally good obituaries is in The Economist, who have a tendency to be really, really good at it. Their obit for Uday and Q. Hussein was in almost the same style.

Totoro, Chicago US.

I'm sure that you know more about Israel and their problems than most people.But when I ask:
"What do you really mean, is this a good thing?" (is this an argument?or a moral high ground?)
Bjørn doesn't know if it's a good thing,that's what I understood from hi's answer. Only time will tell(unless you have a crystal ball) if this is a good thing for the Jewish people in a long-term perspective.

Maybe you should take two steps back and ask yourself:did I miss something when I "fixed" my views?

Israel i'm sure is a humane society,but how are the conditions in Palestine?

Now you can tare my comments appart and put me on the "moral high ground" (if you like).

Eurabia (he he) I agree it's scary,they are absolutely a political factor in "Europe".

Forrest Gump had a good defenition on the word *stupid*

A pretty good article on the mood in Israel can be found here:

http://allisonkaplansommer.blogmosis.com/history/023486.html#023486

ANALYSIS:

Assasination will increase anarchy!

khaled Abu Toameh

http://www.jpost.com

OG, read that link that Leif provided. It will give you a window into what the Israelis are thinking. The Israelis have figured out that if they do nothing, there will be terrorist attacks. If they take the fight to the terrorists, there will be terrorist attacks. At that point, there is no down side to taking action. If the hornets are already swarming out of their nest, it doesn't do any more harm to destroy their nest.

Frankly, the European record of unstinting support for the Palestinians, and turning a blind eye to how their euros go for Arafat's corruption and to finance terrorist attacks, sickens me. No one who is buddy-buddy with people like Arafat, Yassin, Rantisi, et. al, is in any position to prate about the "moral high ground." And that especially includes people like Jimmeh Carter. We have our own Eurabians here in America as well.

Couldn't agree more, especially with what BarCodeKing says. I keep hearing about the "rage" and "anger" and "hate" that this attack has engendered in the Palestinian "community." They're all "vowing revenge." Israel will become a hell on earth. Yadda yadda yadda.

And this differs from the "rage" and "anger" and "hate" and violence that existed before yesterday... exactly how? Israel isn't facing any more or less hate than it did two days ago... but there's one less Hatemonger Emeritus to stir it up. The terrorists have painted themselves into a corner: at this point, Israel has nothing to gain with the "peace process" and nothing to lose with their missiles and mortars.

I think we're on the brink of open war, and horrible as it may sound, I think that's the only route to peace at this point: one side has to kick the other's ass so hard that "negotiations" come in the form of "unconditional surrender."

So international law forbids killing people during a war?
And the BRITISH foreign minister is saying this????!!!

Too much nuance for me.

--ANALYSIS:

Assasination will increase anarchy!

khaled Abu Toameh--

Only on the splodydope side.

IF they're too busy trying to take power from each other, they won't pay as much attention to others.

---

As to it only makes more terrorists. Terrorists are finite. They can't breed and brainwash them that fast.

Ugly in the short run. Sucks to be US.

Man, when I saw them swarming in the streets, I thought, what a few well-placed car bombs could do.

This terrorist got what he said he wanted all those years ago, I don't see what the brouhaha is all about.

They've told us many, many times, we love life, they love death. But somehow I think it's our death they love, not really their own. Otherwise, the bigwigs would have sent their own children, no?

Agreed with Bjorn -- whether this killing was a good idea or not, there should be no question that the guy was utterly loathsome. The obvious sympathy that so many governments are experssing is honestly disturbing.

Interestingly, what happened to "religion of peace...tiny minority...not representative of real Islam"? There seems be absolutely no pretense this time that Yassin was anything other than a fully accepted Islamic leader.

Someone else, not Medvedsilnyn.

Yassinilnyn?

Was the killing of Sheikh Yassin wrong? I can think of three ways the question of right and wrong could be taken in this case.

(1) Was the action beneficial in a utilitarian measurement of good and bad consequences? That is, will it create a happier middle east? The jury is still out, but for Israel the calculation is probably that HAMAS will be weaker without its leader, and they are probably right. Will the killing escalate the problem? This conflict has been at the top of the escalator for a while now. However, I am not a utilitarian so this approach does not help me resolve the moral question.

(2) Was Yassin a nice chap? The sympathy for Yassin that Bjorn has documented is sickening despite its predictability. Yassin was unrelentingly evil. That HAMAS engaged in public works presents no contradiction for anyone who has conducted a study of Salafism. Does no-one recall that Usama bin Laden's al-Hijra construction company built humanitarian infrastructure projects (such as agricultural projects) in the Sudan before being expelled due to international terrorist activities? Has anyone ever wondered why so many terrorists emerge from "muslim schools"?

Is Europe no longer aware that the roads on which they travel to their holidays were built by Nazi Germany?

(3) The third measure of right or wrong in Yassin's assassination is the one that I'm stuck on. The problem is whether assassination is morally wrong per se. Under what circumstances is it right or wrong, even in the case of the detestable Yassin, to take a human life? For example, is it acceptable for vigilantes to lynch a murderer who avoids sentencing on a legal technicality? Is it wrong for one man to kill another in the heat of passion, but laudable for society to execute that same man cold-bloodedly?

For me, this question resolves itself to whether Yassin was a legitimate military target at a time of war. I tend to think Yassin was a military commander and that indeed Israel is engaged in a defensive war - in this interpretation, Yassin was no different to an officer picked off by sniper fire in WWI.

I find it difficult to understand the moral vacuity of those who express _sympathy_ for Yassin. At the same time, I cannot drink champagne over a corpse. As far as I'm concerned, we bury the bastard without fanfare then get on with living life in a slightly better world - one in which we don't have to inhale the same air as the mass murderer Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.

What al-Qaeda committed as a 'lump sum' in Madrid, Hamas is committing in Israel in installments. There is no difference.

[ On the one hand, there is a desire for strong action, but in what form? ]

Indeed, Spain is showing its bold opposition to terrorism in all its forms by resolutely withdrawing from Iraq.

[ If the hornets are already swarming out of their nest, it doesn't do any more harm to destroy their nest. ]

I agree with this analysis. I read the headlines in Australian papers, which said that HAMAS had declared war. So what word would describe what they are already doing? How exactly will they carry out their promised "escalation"? Start blowing up school buses or cafes? Send children into Israel wrapped in explosives as self-propelled remote control bombs? They are already doing these things. It seems that making big threats that can't be realised is part of the Arab cultural makeup. This may explain why they are so attractive to the middle class left and its "David and Goliath" fantasies.

How can we have anything but contempt for the likes of Zapatero, the anti-war columnists, or Australia's Zapatero-in-waiting Mark Latham, who express the sorrow over the Madrid attacks that we all feel, but then declare that the war in Iraq was a lie because it was not part of the war on terror. Never mind that Iraq paid a bounty on successful suicide terror attacks in Israel and funded an assassination attempt on George Bush Senior. Never mind the regime's revolting treatment of its own people.

The anti-war types were not listening in September 2001. They thought Bush said "A war on Al-Qaeda, insofar as that group attacks people who look like us and have the same religious and political pursuasion." In fact, he said simply "A war on terrorism" - that is, terrorism in all its forms.

[ Hope he enjoys his 72 raisins. ]

ROTFL!

Jan Haugland:

Your thesis on sect leader succession sounds interesting. In my own thesis, I looked at the sources of the groups that preceeded al-Qaeda. Your statements strike a chord. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt was as you describe - a sect under the leadership of Hassan al-Banna, a charismatic leader and a great organiser. British intelligence actually considered assassinating him because they predicted the group would disintegrate. Later, the Egyptian authorities had him killed, and the group did unravel, leading to various different methodological strategies. The splinters of that disintegration are all over the Middle East and the world now - such as Al-Qaeda, HAMAS and the various Islamic Jihad organisations.

Is it possible I could read your thesis? Please e-mail me at pwhce@yahoo.com.au

There is an excellent article in the National Review on why the Europeans believe assassinating Shiek Yassin is illegal under international law.

The killing of Yassin is legal under the 1949 Geneva Conventions. But it is not legal under the 1979 Protocol 1 additional to the Geneva Convention. The Europeans signed the addition. The US and Israel refused to.

Therefore, it was tecnically legal for Israel to kill Yassin but not legal for a European to kill Osama bin Laden unless he was caught in the act and resists arrest. Talk about living in a post-modern dreamworld.

It is an excellent article. Link below:
http://nationalreview.com/comment/casey_rivkin200403250848.asp

Sheikh Yassin was like a rabid dog who simply had to be put down. I am furious at Sharon for not killng him earlier.

You guys are retarded you think blowing yourself and killing jews is respectable and honorable? you must be some dumb mother fuckers coward pieces of shit i hope all you pussies rot in hell oh yeha and allah aint real if he is hes gay

If they blew up Sharon the lard could be scraped of the walls, and feed a Palestinian refugee camps for months.

The corpse of this despicable sandmonkey is a sight I can't have enough of…

Hope a lot will follow.

Trackback URL: /cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/638