More on Yassin

See if you can spot the non sequitur in this unhinged editorialising by the Middle East correspondent of the Church Times, the newspaper of the Church of England:

The assassination of the Hamas leader, who was disabled, has intensified Arab anger over what is perceived as Israel’s arrogance — and its uncritical support from the United States.

If I were a murderous bigot in a wheelchair, I’d be pretty offended at the insinuation that I was any less culpable for my acts of terror merely because I was physically incapable of carrying them out other than through an intermediary.

Mind you, the Church Times is a model of sagacity compared with one of its clerical interlocutors:

Palestinians feel so helpless,” said Canon Naim Ateek, Canon of St George’s Cathedral, Jerusalem. “It seems there is no power in the world that can stop Israel. The Israelis assassinate people without taking them to court or proving that they are terrorists. They get away with it because they keep waving the red flag of terrorism.”

Assassinating people without taking them to court or proving that they're terrorists? I certainly hope so. Hamas’s 1988 Covenant posits an international Jewish conspiracy to take over the world and denies that the Jews have any historical connection, let alone legitimate claim, to the land of Israel. In service of that crazed ideology, the organisation indoctrinates young people to explode bombs concealed under their clothing in order to remove Jews not only from the Holy Land but from this world altogether. Hamas has killed literally hundreds of Jews in terrorist attacks since the launch of the current Intifada.

I have been no closer to this subject than to read about it in the newspapers – accounts that are far more harrowing than the sanitised images of the after-effects on the television news. Among so many acts of barbarism, two in particular stick in my mind. Hamas’s bombing of, respectively, a Jerusalem discotheque in June 2001, in which 20 teenagers died, and a Tel Aviv pizza restaurant two months later (15 dead, including very young children) were beyond conventional categories of wickedness, for they targeted – targeted – those without the slightest connection to the political complexities of the conflict.

In the circumstances, the notion that Israel should have issued a subpoena on Hamas’s leader is worse than futile: it’s frivolous. What if he didn’t turn up to the hearing? Targeting a known terrorist leader (whom the Palestinian Authority, in violation of its own treaty obligations, refused to apprehend), while avoiding civilian casualties, strikes me as a morally unexceptionable act. Whether it was strategically prudent is another matter, on which there is a legitimate argument to be had. On that point I’ll say this.

The best case against Israel’s actions was made by Anne Applebaum, an outstanding commentator on international affairs (and author of one of the finest historical works, or indeed books of any kind, I have ever read), in the Washington Post last week:

At this point, it isn't clear whether the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will ever be sublimated into politics... But a "two-state solution" might emerge, either through the (now unlikely) path of negotiation, or a (far more likely) unilateral Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and the West Bank. Assuming that Palestine becomes a viable state at all, democratic competition might be possible there. Hamas, the Palestinian movement that is part charity, part terrorist organization, might be converted into a political party -- like the [El Salvadorian] FMLN or the IRA.

I use the word "might" with strong emphasis here, because at the moment none of this seems remotely possible. Still, the hope that it will be possible is, in the end, the only criterion by which to judge last weekend's assassination of Sheik Ahmed Yassin, the Hamas leader, as well as Israel's threat to kill more Hamas leaders: Do these actions make Hamas's transformation more likely? Or do they push that possibility even further into the distant future? I haven't yet seen evidence that leads to any conclusion but the latter.

This is a thoughtful argument far removed from most European politicians’ spurious assumptions of moral equivalence between the parties and journalists’ habitual resort to obfuscatory cliché (that ‘cycle of violence’ again). It also has the merit of recognising that the things we value in politics are incommensurable: justice is a virtue, but then so are other things (such as security) that might conflict with justice, and it’s not obvious how one should give a rank ordering to those values.

Where I believe Mrs Applebaum’s argument is mistaken, however, is in what she omits rather than what she says. In order for conflict to be ‘sublimated’ into politics, it is crucial that terrorist movements become convinced that their objectives are unattainable, and that they must therefore settle as best they can before they are extirpated altogether. There are some terrorist movements that will never take part in a political settlement – Mrs Applebaum rightly cites al-Qaeda in this context – and that therefore must be literally fought against to the death. There are others that conceivably might be diverted from acts of urban terror into distinctly murky but still less destructive forms of agitation. But – and this is the essential point – all terrorist movements must nonetheless be fought against as if they are of the first type, for only then will we be able to make a reliable judgement on the relative likelihood of different groups’ abandoning political violence.

Like Mrs Applebaum, I don’t know whether the Islamist terrorists of Hamas can ever be detached from the Islamist cause of al-Qaeda (though I am deeply sceptical). But the only certain way to find out is to force the choice upon them: “Abandon terror and embrace politics, or we will hit you again and again, not to contain you but to destroy you.” The flaw of commission in Mrs Applebaum’s argument – the only point on which she herself embraces the fallacious pieties of European politicians – is when she refers to a ‘two-state solution’ for Israel and the Palestinians. A territorial accommodation in which a secure Israel co-exists with a sovereign Palestine must one day come about, and I profoundly hope – though very much doubt - it will be within years rather than decades. But that is not a solution to the conflict: it is an outcome of the end of the conflict. To end the conflict requires redressing that imbalance whereby one party desperately wishes to settle and the other is thus emboldened to continue with its war to kill large numbers of civilians and demoralise the rest. Such a policy means accepting that diplomacy has a limit as well as a role. That limit was (rightly) tested and found immovable owing to the intransigence and duplicity of the Palestinian Authority at Camp David and Taba, and the consequent encouragement given to such movements as Hamas.

It’s for this reason that Israel’s current policy of unilaterally withdrawing from Gaza while striking at Hamas is the best hope for peace. A negotiated territorial settlement leading to a two-state accommodation, as envisaged in the [Cliché Alert] Road-Map is highly desirable, but it is not going to happen, or at least not at any time soon. In the meantime, a cold peace is attainable, in which Israel abandons strategically unnecessary and politically indefensible settlements while at the same time making clear to her enemies that she does so from a position of strength and not weakness.

Probably the most obtuse and reflexive of front-rank British politicians remarked after the assassination of Sheikh Yassin:

It is hard to think of a more provocative act than this.

On the contrary, while we cannot foresee the enduring consequences of the assassination, there is a strong case for concluding that Israel thereby struck a blow for peace as well as justice. Nothing in the short term will prevent the efforts of Hamas to bomb more buses and restaurants other than good intelligence, an impermeable security barrier (which is not a ‘wall’, and not a political boundary, as its critics falsely claim), and a determination to crack down without hesitation or clemency on the progenitors of terror.

And that is quite an intelligent long-term strategy too.

UPDATE: Two correspondents have taken issue with my description of the Church Times as the newspaper of the Church of England. They are right to do so: the newspaper is published independently rather than being an official organ of the Church. I ought to have described it instead as the principal Anglican newspaper. Apologies for this careless error. I have discussed the views - of which I am strongly critical - of the Church of England hierarchy on Iraq and Israel here and (on my old Blogger site - scroll down to the entry entitled 'Misreading Israel') here.

Comments

[Matthew]

Although by and large I agree that terrorists groups should be fought as if they are the type that will never take part in a political settlement, regardless of whether they are that type, it's not without its problems. Foremost of which is the consquences of collateral damage, particularly where the terrorist groups are not well defined or well separated from the general public. That is surely why the British always fought the IRA rather softly, as it was considered -- rightly in my view -- that a full-out war, using the techniques of (say) the IDF would have been counterproductive in the long run.

[Alasdair Robinson]

That's right, Matthew. Because we all know how productive it has been to engage politically with the IRA.

[Matthew]

Alisdair,

I really can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not. Surely it has been productive to engage politically with the IRA? There are far fewer deaths and injuries than there were 10 or 20 years ago, Northern Ireland is a far richer and more prosperous place and the Irish and British governments are much closer. On the negative side there is the political arm of a paramilitary organisation making great electoral strides, but hey -- you can't win them all.

Matthew

[Andrew Ian Dodge]

Much as I loath the IRA I feel comparing them to Hamas is rather illigitimate. I think the IRA and Hamas are cut from entirely different cloth. They are both terrorist groupings, but Hamas is far more evil than the IRA ever was.

Ask yourself this question;

If the IRA could have obtained a dirty nuke (or mini one) would they have used it on London? Would Hamas use one on an Israeli city?

[Matthew]

Well yes, but the issue is whether you should fight terrorists without making such distinctions.

[GrimReaper]

The IRA's objective was "to end the British presence in Ireland". It was always aware that this "presence" consisted of a million people; in private, IRA members told each other that "the Prods will have to learn to swim" when the British government stopped defending them. Protestant farmers were driven out of the border areas long before the term "ethnic cleansing" was coined in the Balkans. The great difference between Ireland and the Middle East is that there was no mass support for genocide and ethnic cleansing in Ireland; the more "successful" the IRA was, the more help the security forces got from Irish Catholics.

[Squander Two]

Hmm. The IRA might have used a dirty nuke on London, or might not. I don't think they'd have had any moral qualms, but might have restrained themselves for PR reasons. I don't think the answer to the question is anywhere near as obvious as the context of your question implies, Andrew.

Matthew, it's too soon to say whether engaging politically with the IRA has worked well. You mention fewer deaths and injuries. I think we need to offset those against the rise in deaths and injuries that is coming about thanks to allowing Sinn Fein to render the RUC/PSNI useless and the resultant increase in crime. We should also take into account the number of deaths and injuries worldwide caused by having sent a loud and clear message to every terrorist organisation on the planet that terrorism works. Tally that lot up over the next twenty years, and I reckon we'll see a net loss.

[Dave F]

I rather think the intractable nature of Hamas's zealotry is illustrated by reaction to the death of a "spiritual leader" who looked forward to "killing the last Jew". I don't think the IRA actually ever officially indicated a keenness for rubbing out the last Prod.

[Brownie]

Good grief!

If maximising civilian casualties at every turn had ever been the objective of the IRA, you’d have had crude litter-bin bombs exploding in Oxford Street at 3pm every Saturday for 25 years. The fact this didn’t happen may well have more to do with PR (a conscious effort not to alienate domestic and international sympathisers and bankrollers) than the inherent morality of the IRA, but it still didn’t happen and it makes any suggestion that the IRA would have considered using a ‘dirty nuke’ simply risible.

Whilst the sublimation into politics is obviously welcomed, it shouldn’t be forgotten that the Provisional IRA owes it’s very existence to an abject failure of politics, specifically decades of British misrule which saw successive HMGs variously ignore, facilitate and actively support Unionist hegemony in the north, culminating in a late sixties environment which saw hundreds of Catholic families burned from their homes (Bombay Street, anyone?), nationalists denied access to jobs and housing and gerrymandering on a scale that effectively disenfranchised a sizeable minority of the population. Lest we forget, Blacks in the US had been enjoying full civil rights for half a decade by the time Catholics were marching in demand of the same in late-sixties NI.

None of this excuses the murderous campaign of the IRA (which was still, very much for the most part, directed against armed combatants), but cognitive dissonance with respect the circumstances that gave rise to their re-emergence from the shadows serves no constructive purpose whatsoever.

Finally, we are now seven years into an IRA ceasefire having witnessed 3 acts of decommissioning. In the same period, loyalist paramilitaries continue to murder young Catholics for wearing the wrong football shirt (and their protestant friends for daring to fraternise with ‘Taigs’), pipe-bomb with impunity and orchestrate protests which see schoolchildren as young as 6 being showered with urine and faeces. In recent times, the government commissioned Chris Patten to look at policing in the province and then chose to ignore a significant number of his recommendations; many of the government’s obligations under the terms of the GFA go unimplemented; loyalist paramilitaries are yet to decommission a bullet and revelations of British secret service/FRU collusion with loyalist paramilitaries are almost de rigueur.

Meanwhile, HMG continues to permit the Unionists leadership to renege on its obligation to power share with the democratically elected political representatives of the nationalist/republican community, once more effectively disenfranchising legions of the population, yet we’re repeatedly told that the threat to peace process comes from the IRA’s silent and diminishing stockpile of guns.

You couldn’t write this stuff…except for the fact that some people do, obviously.

PS - Dave F is on the money. The IRA campaign was purely political: they simply didn't care if the Royal Engineer in the rifle-scope was a Protestant or Catholic. I take it commentators know something of the origin of the Irish tricolour?

[Matthew]

David,

This list of IRA atrocities doesn't really bear out your view that for the most part IRA attacks were on armed combatants.

In fact when you look at the pub bombings, those in Warrington and Harrods (and others) it's a little hard to differientate them the terrorism you don't like.

[Brownie]

Matthew,

With respect, it is not merely "a view" that the IRA, for the most part, concentrated their attacks on combatants - it's a fact.

Consult "Lost Lives" for up-to-date confirmation or go to the Cain Institute website here:

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/violence/cts/tables.htm

Republican paramilitaries are shown to be responsible for 961 security personnel deaths and 704 civilian deaths. Loyalist paramilitaries on their own have killed more civilians during the troubles that their republican counterparts. In fact, up to 1994, British armed forces and loyalist paramilitaries were responsible for 1022 out 1739 civilian deaths.

I'm certainly not trying to vindicate the IRA's campaign. My point is that decades of misreporting and blatant propagandising by the British press have taken their toll. The IRA were sufficiently 'bad' that we don't need to make shit up.

The real danger comes when we start to make fatuous comparisons between a politically motivated armed group whose objectives – how ever strongly you might oppose them - did not stretch to murdering as many people as possible, with religious zealots whose fascism knows no bounds and with whom rapprochement is simply not possible.

[GrimReaper]

"Meanwhile, HMG continues to permit the Unionists leadership to renege on its obligation to power share with the democratically elected political representatives of the nationalist/republican community..."
Have you forgotten that the IRA was caught operating a spy ring in the new power-sharing assembly, or is it just too inconvenient to mention?
The history of the gangster process shows that terrorists don't change and there is no substitue for victory.

[Brownie]

Well I don't necessarily blame you for failing to "mention" the fact that the major charges against the 3 defendants in that case were dropped a couple of months ago, not least because press coverage of this fact was somewhat less than that afforded the original "Stormont Spyring" claim back in 2002.

So having started with a 4 member "spyring", one of the defendants has since had all charges against her dropped, whilst the other three remain on bail charged with lesser offences of possession of documents useful to terrorists, which, if you've read recent anti-terror legislation, you'll know covers a multitude of sins.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/3461929.stm

You may as well mention the IRA raid on Castlereagh while you're at it.

And if you swallow these stories, I have a bridge I’d like to sell you.

Meanwhile, the democratically ratified GFA remains unimplemented.

The history of the gangster process shows that terrorists don't change and there is no substitue for victory.

Where would you like me to start, Grim?

[Matthew]

But David,

You can defend the IRA as much as you want, but at the end of the day if you're a civilian who is blown to bits by a bomb it really doesn't make much difference if it was an IRA off-day or an Al Qaeday normal day.

Shameful.

[Brownie]

Beautifully put, Matthew. There's a job waiting for you on the subbie's desk of any British tabloid.

Which parts of:

"None of this excuses the murderous campaign of the IRA..."

"The IRA were sufficiently 'bad' that we don't need to make sh*t up..."

"I'm certainly not trying to vindicate the IRA's campaign..."

do you not understand?

Why is any attempt to explain the background to the troubles, mention of loyalist violence and Unionist hegemony and reference to 4 decades of misreporting of the facts, seen as vindication of the IRA?

It's really quite pathetic that I should have to state in overt tones that I opposed the armed struggle as if such a belief were somehow incompatible with my earlier comments.

I have personal history that would, I am certain, disabuse you of any notions of ‘support’ for or 'defence' of the IRA.

The logic of your argument is that since the IRA were undoubtedly responsible for some appalling atrocities, we can make up any 'fact' to suit, or display wilful ignorance when confronted by incommodious reality.

Works well on a blog, I guess, but let’s not pretend this has anything to do with genuine attempts to understand the nature of the conflict.

[Matthew]

I would agree, but there's this guy who posts on Harry's Place who discusses Islamic terrorism, or Iraqi politics in these terms.

Similar name to yours.

[Mattthew]

I love your 'concentrated their attacks on combatants' followed by these figures '961 security personnel deaths and 704 civilian deaths'.

That's about 55% to 45%. Weren't very good were they?

[Matthew]

Squander Two,

Your comments on the IRA and a 'dirty bomb' are interesting. However would you not agree that due to the 'peace process' the prospect now is unthinkable, even if it wasn't 10 to 20 years' ago?

Matthew

[Brownie]

Matthew,

Yeah, I know who you mean.

Here's the difference:

IRA - motivated by a desire to remove British troops from the island of Ireland and reverse partition. They certainly did employ terror tactics, as well as engaging armed combatants. In terms of the bombing campaigns both in the north and on the mainland, the modus operandi usually (I stress "usually") extended to pre-detonation warnings - sometimes recklessly inadequate. Historically have demonstrated a willingness for their political wing to engage whilst interrupting military activity. Current ceasefire now into its seventh year.

Al Qaeda - predominantly motivated by religious zealotry. In so far as any of their demands could be characterised as political, they are unappeasable. Weapon of choice is the no warning bomb designed to cause maximum civilian casualties. Evidence that suggests an increasing predilection for WMD. Have shown no susceptibility to political overtures and their agents actively seek martyrdom.

Records now show that the British government was talking to the IRA at the highest levels as far back as Heath. There is a reason for that, but it simply doesn’t apply in the case of those practising Islamofascism.

[Martin]

Ah, Gerald Butt, former Mideast correspondent of the BBC and noted Arabist. Didn't know he was a Christian, but there you go. I'm looking forward to the editorial in the next Church Times condemning the genocidal brutality of Sudan's Islamic regime against the Christians of Darfur: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3595909.stm

They can't dissemble, as it's the UN saying it.

[Duncan Frissell]

Small technical note. The Church Times has never been published by the C of E but has always been privately owned and edited. See

http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/Static/About.asp?bimage=about