June 08, 2006
In other assassination news....
Israel has killed Hamas' security chief, Jamal Abu Samhadana. Abu Sanhadana, who headed the Popular Resistance Committees in Gaza, was responsible for several terrorist attacks--especially Qassam missile attacks on southern Israeli cities. But he was also director-general of the Hamas government's interior ministry: PA President Abu Mazen vehemently objected to his appointment (as did Israel, who had Abu Sanhadana on its most wanted list), and his governmental authority was unclear for that reason.
I have no moral objection to Israel's targeted killings: it is simply unproblematic morally to fire at the leadership and soldiers of someone who says that they are at war with you. Moreover, I think that the targeted killings have often been effective in driving Hamas and Islamic Jihad underground and disrupting their command network. They were at partially instrumental in Hamas' reduction in terrorist attack against Israeli civilians
But I wonder whether this particular move was politically wise. Hamas was politically in a box: ineffective and increasingly unpopular in government, unable to get out, and finding it very difficult to deliver on its promises. This might unravel the political dynamic. It won't necessarily do so: the Palestinian public has not shown itself to be enamored of figures like Abu Samhadana, whose actions invite Israeli retaliations in Gaza. That's especially true after the Israeli pullout: "we finally got rid of them, and now you are practically inviting them back?" Perhaps getting Abu Samhadana was operationally so important that it didn't matter. But this could really roil things.
According to what I read, the Israeli's claim the target was someone or something else. So who knows.
I do notice that the Israeli's seem to be having a lot of success killing Hamas and Islamic Jihad leadership recently. I've wondered whether Fatah isn't tipping them off as to where these guys are...
Posted by: larry birnbaum at June 9, 2006 06:57 AMThat's an excellent point; it hadn't occurred to me, but it's plausible, and it would certainly explain things.
Posted by: Jonathan Zasloff at June 9, 2006 08:19 AMThanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
