I know this is not the sort of thing an internet commentator is ever supposed to admit. I much prefer my normal stance of furious sarcasticty, but sometimes the world is a bit too confusing even for me. I'm speaking of the recent assassination of Sheik Ahmed Yassin by the Israeli Government.
On the one hand, it's hard to imagine that this will have positive reprecussions. As Dennis Ross at the New York Times suggests, "For the short term, Sheik Yassin's killing on Monday in Gaza is almost certain to foster retaliation by those eager to have Israelis suffer pain as well. Already yesterday, the Israeli military said it foiled a rocket attack on Israel by militants in southern Lebanon, killing two of the militants in an air strike."
On the other hand I'm not immune to the argument that Yassin was a bad man and needed to go. It's a bit inconsistant to argue that Israel should be willing to negotiate with a man who's basic position is that Israel should not exist. Hammas is a terrorist organization; if we reserve the right to kill Usama Bin Ladin, can we deny Isreal the right to kill terrorists that pick on them?
The Utilitarian argument is perhaps the most persuasive. Yes, Israel had a right to do what it did; but assuming Israels goal is peace (and I believe it is), was it the smart thing to do?
No comments:
Post a Comment