There is a peculiar element to the political thinking of Israeli right wing leaders like Sharon and their media mouthpieces like Leslie Susser: no matter how bloody and heinous Israel’s actions they can all be defended (in a twisted Orwellian way) as advancing peace. In other words, if I kill a a top leader of my enemy, then I make him more willing to embrace me and the peace process. Makes sense, right? So here’s how Leslie Susser presents the argument in After Cease-Fire Talks Stall, Israelis Kill a Hamas Leader on the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) website:
In an ironic twist of fate, the lethal post-Aqaba wave of terror might finally get the road map on the road.
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon maintains that Israel´s decision to target Hamas leaders like Abdel Aziz Rantissi yielded two dividends: It forced Palestinian terrorist groups to consider a temporary cease-fire with Israel more seriously, and it pushed Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas closer to taking immediate responsibility for security in some of the Palestinian areas.
Now, if you followed that–the Rantisi assassination attempt made Hamas more serious about negotiating a cease fire. Despite the fact that the next day a Hamas bomber blew up an Israeli bus killing 17; despite the fact that Hamas immediately announced it was calling off talks for a cease fire with the PA. To top it off, today’s New York Times headline says: After Cease-Fire Talks Stall, Israelis Kill a Hamas Leader
To read Susser’s article go to: Did air strikes help the road map?´Cease-fire now seems more likely
Lest you think the worst of Sharon’s motives in trying to kill Rantisi, Susser sets your cynical mind at rest: “Palestinians and some members of the Israeli opposition maintain that Sharon, in trying to kill Rantissi, Hamas´ No. 2, deliberately was trying to scuttle a peace plan he ultimately distrusts. Sharon sees things very differently”
Any reputable journalist would, at this point in their article run some kind of quotation from Sharon or one of his advisors to support this unsustained characterization. Not Susser. Not a shred of evidence to support this supposed characterization of Sharon’s thinking. How do we know that Susser’s surmises reflect Sharon’s real beliefs if he won’t provide any material to support them? At best, this is bad editorial oversight at the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, which published the story; at worst, it reflects Susser’s delusional thinking about how to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.