26 thoughts on “IDF Assassinates Hamas West Bank Leader – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. Richard-
    Where do you think the intelligence that the IDF uses to track down these guys? From the Palestinian Authority, largely. I was told this recently by a fellow who was doing military service in Judea/Samaria. So you had better blame PA people for wanting to get rid of him.
    Regarding “targeted killings”-how come it is okay for HAMAS to target Jewish civilians but the IDF is not allowed to go after the people who plan and organize these killings?

    1. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if Fatah security people eagerly collaborated in the murder of a Hamas leader in the W. Bank. But they didn’t pull the trigger, the IDF did.

      how come it is okay for HAMAS to target Jewish civilians but the IDF is not allowed

      Are YOU saying it’s OK for Hamas to target Jewish civilians?? Because I sure didn’t say that nor did anyone else here as far as I recall. If you ever again mischaracterize arguments made by me or any other commenter in this blog or comment threads you won’t make another comment here.

      As to why assassinating an unarmed man in his bed is a problem & why Israel shouldn’t do it: first, the Israeli Supreme COurt has specifically outlawed this practice (though you can see how carefully the IDF respects such legal mumbo-jumbo–as far as they’re concerned). Second, Israel is a STATE and not a terror organization. At least that’s what it claims anyway.

      1. If I recall correctly, the Supreme Court hasn’t outlawed assassinations but rather outlined when it is (or it isn’t) acceptable to do so.

        I’m don’t think is “state terrorism” either. Terrorist tactics usually target civilians, involve massive casualties and are meant to instill fear. The assassinated person wasn’t a civilian, he’s the only victim and it’s hardly a surprise for anyone so I’m not sure about the fear.

        1. Yes, it outlawed assassination when there is a way of apprehending the suspect without killing him as there clearly was in this case & many others.

          Terrorist tactics usually target civilians

          It is terrorism to murder an unarmed man sleeping in his bedroom. A complete violation of international law which makes the commander & trigger man liable for transfer to the Hague someday.

          1. It looks like Israel put a “price tag” on the recent killing of the settlers in Hebron, with the collusion of the Palestinian Authority.

            Two wrongs don’t make a right, especially when a “state” such as israel wants to emphasize morality and the need to “defend itself.” If the dead man was involved in the shooting in Hebron, there are courts of law to deal with that. It’s just as easy to arrest a man asleep in his bed as to shoot him in cold blood. “We determined that he might have a weapon” was the Army’s justification for it. Apparently, the possibility that a sleeping man might be armed was realistic enough to them to murder the guy in his sleep.

          2. According to the rumor on the street, the Man killed was the second in command of the terror unit that killed the settelers in hebreon, inteligance showed that the same unit was about to carry another attack on yom kippur, hence he was classified as a ticking bomb, and his kiiling allowed.
            i don’t know if that’s the truth, thats the word on the street.

          3. The operative phrase is “you don’t know if that’s the truth.” You don’t provide any proof that what you say has any validity. So thanks for nothing. Your words aren’t even worth the virtual paper they’re not written on. The IDF, which has lied through its teeth on this fr. the beginning didn’t even make this claim. If there was even a scintilla of truth in what you claim the IDF would surely have stated things as you have to justify their killing.

          4. Respectfully, Richard, why do you preface “murder” with “terrorism”? Terrorism places a political dimension on a homicide, which leads to all kinds of self-serving justifying/explanatory semantics (see below). Killing a sleeping person is MURDER, plain and simple. The man who pulled the trigger is a MURDERER. If he was ordered to do so by a commander, the commander is also a MURDERER. If this mission was official and the result intended from the get-go, then Israel has adopted murder as a national standard of behavior.
            This kind of homicide should not be cast as justifiable – politically or otherwise – by any civilized standard.

          5. Aren’t we quibbling? I don’t care how you describe it: murder, terror, whatever. It’s all the same to me. I think we all get the idea of what this act was. I hope they all end up in the Hague. And if the dead man had organized the killing of the settlers, I would’ve hoped he would’ve ended up there as well. But Israel has done everyone the favor of using its own form of “justice” by killing him in cold blood w/o trial. One of the few “civilized” nations which allows a man with a gun to replace a court & law. So much for the rule of law.

        2. “The assassinated person wasn’t a civilian”
          How was a not a civilian? He most certainly was a non-combatant in the sense of international law.
          Whether he was a civilian *criminal* would be a topic for a court to handle.

    2. They have their methods of acquiring intelligence and cooperation that predates the current Palestinian “leadership”.

      Have you seen much kvetching about a lack of cooperation in security matters between Israel and the Palestinian law enforcement types? Of course not. All in all, the overlords seem pleased with developments in that regard.

      Fatah is to Palestine what the Phalange were (?) to Lebanon.


      1. Actually, fatah is to Palestine what Vichy was to france or Quisling was to Norway, but with less support. I doubt even the Vichy French would have tried to block an equivalent of the Goldstone Report. What else would anyone need to know about Fatah?

        1. The comparison with France under Vichy is perfect, and the Palestinians living here often define Fatah, or rather the PA as ‘vichyste’.

          1. Boy, you guys are a bunch of ingrates. It was FATAH that carried out the terror attacks in the 1970’s and 1980’s that put Arafat and the PLO on the map leading to the Oslo accords. UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 don’t even mention the Palestinians. Now, Palestinian statehood the worldwide “progressive” cause no. 1. What would you have done differently?

          2. # Bar_Kochba132)
            That’s exacly why the comparison with France under Vichy is so on spot. Phillipe Pétain was a hero from WWI who sold his soul to the Germans some 20-25 years later. Don’t you see any ressemblance to the PA ? Well, I guess the PA is doing just what you want them to, and thus you’re not able to see the treason.

        1. You mean “conquered” like Jaffa, Beer Sheva, Akko, Ashdod, Ashqelon, Lod, Ramla, West Jerusalem, etc. All conquered in 1948. But I don’t hear anyone refer to them as such.

          1. No I mean “conquered” as in Shtachim Kvushim, the mainstream Israel term for the Occupied Territories. Most Israelis refer to them using this Hebrew phrase. All except you & yr settler friends.

      1. Mary, aren’t those territories called “Judea” and “Samaria (i.e. in “The Good Samaritan”) in the Christian Bible? Where is it called “The West Bank” in that book?

        1. Keep up the snark & again yr shelf life will be short. Who cares what the Bible calls these regions? I’m interested in today, solving the conflict, not in historical fantasies such as you & yr friends suffer. Nor does the Bible govern Israeli political life or the I-P conflict. Only people like you would try to force Israeli life into the straightjacket represented by the Bible. Even the rabbis of the Talmud acknowledged that Jewish attitudes & halacha had to change & adapt over time to changed social & political circumstances.

  2. If they IDF conducts its own investigation of the incident, they can “prove” whatever they want, can’t they? It’s not as if they have not done THAT thousands of times before.

  3. Who would have taken seriously if in a killing of a Kurd leader by Saddam’s army the explanation by Saddam’s spoke person would have been: “The Kurd leader was running suspiciously toward our glorious warriors, refusing to heed the soldiers’ request to stop. The unit, feeling threatened, opened fire, killing the suspected, the incident was being investigated.”

    The Israeli soldiers are not even using the excuse soldiers and police have for centuries used around the world in those more or less clear assassinations/murders: The suspect/prisoner tried to escape, so we had to shoot. In the suitable Israeli “we are (always) the victims” style the prisoner tried to attack the massively armed larmy unit alone with his bare hands. Come-on not even the most naive pro-Israel fanatic in earnest believes that explanation provided by IDF.

    The Israeli explanations in these their endless stream of murders, assassinations and “mistakes” begin to be so stupid that even the worst dictatorships had/have difficulties to be on the Israeli “level”.

    When during the Gaza operation a clinic for women and children run by the Finnish church was bombed to pieces by Israel, Finland got an explanation after 6 months “investigations”. The explanation was that Hamas had a weapon cache in the building and IDF did not know that there was a clinic in the building. Not despite that there was a big red cross painted on the roof of the building for a long time. The doctor leading the clinic said that there were no Hamas weapons or fighters. Do Israeli military really believe that their explanation nowadays are taken more serious than those of Saddam, Idi Amin etc?

    1. No, they do not believe anyone believes them. They do not care what the mud people think. In a way this is good as I personally know many people who got involved in this issue after becoming annoyed at having such thugs lecture anyone on morality.Their mendacity and narcissism, their swaggering victim-hood, works against their ugly interests. Hard to swallow nonetheless.

  4. And so the cycle continues.

    One death yesterday; One more today; another tomorrow. And tomorrow. And tomorrow.
    ‘What, will the line stretch out to the crack of doom?’ Macbeth. Act 4. scene 1

    It probably will if nothing is done about it. But what exactly can be done?

    One way might be to hold a loaded pistol at the head of each and every Israeli and Palestinian in the land, accompanied by this constant intonation. “Choose your next move carefully, my friend; it may very well prove to be your last.”

    A somewhat impractical suggestion, of course, but one not entirely devoid of all possibility.


    Our options where this matter is concerned are limited. Either we can complain about the situation and continue to decry all those negative aspects associated with it, of which there are more than many.
    Or we can do something that rectifies it or stabilises it sufficiently to draw down some form of resolution and redress.
    Or we can do both.

    What we cannot do is nothing. But whatever we do, it has to be done both effectively and soon. Otherwise the cycle continues to perpetuate itself, eventually becoming so complete, so strong that all attempts to break it must surely come to nought. Then only the ‘zero’ option would remain, an admission of our inability to prevail over circumstances very much of our own making. In short, a council of despair that diminishes us and confirms how poor has been our performance in this dark period of human history.

    If that really is the best we can do, if we fail to exorcise our demons, then this legacy, in its passage through so many generations, must come to haunt our children as much as it has haunted us.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *