Foxy,

It would appear that you implicitly approve of what Hamas does, as I see no criticism of their atrocities.

You also say "Assassination is not the answer. The killings are not
effective in reducing anything." Actually that is not true, if the Hamas command have to spend vast resources in protecting their commanders, and their ability to communicate with their foot soldiers is disrupted, their effectiveness is drastically reduced.

If Hamas (or even Fatah) showed even the slightest ability to negotiate in good faith, the palestinians would not be in the situation they are now.

Even when Palestine included half of Jerusalem, the west bank and Golan heights, bombs were continually exploding in Israel.

What does Israel need to do for peace? Cease to exist?

As the forum from the expected general topic on political assassination turned out to be discussion on the particular assassination or even discussion anti-Semitism vs anti-Islamism, I would like that opinion ‘against both’ to have its own proud space.
There are some people that do not wish to be involved to the war where both parties acting for their own gain without considering large majority of “others”. Either party win they would turn their power and criticism against Christians and those without certain faith. Personally in this situation one would prefer to wait before making any alliance between those above or listen to one who does not make fool of you too often

Fascinating posts - even the ones I don't agree with.

I found Foxy's the most rational, particularly:

<<< You can't expect justice - when you yourself don't comply. >>>

The best leaders lead by example. With that in mind neither Israel or Palestine qualify as leading anywhere except into further destruction.

Another quote (apologies, apparently that is how my mind is working this afternoon)

"You can bomb the world into pieces, but you can't bomb it into peace." - Michael Franti

And some of us think we are more highly evolved than Neanderthals.

Bollocks.

GrahamY: "There has been a tradition amongst first world countries that you don't assassinate leaders of your enemy countries, although if they are killed in the course of war that is another matter."

I don't get it. You answered your own question. If I lived on the Israeli side of the border and had idiots lobbing rockets at me most days, I would consider myself at war with them. If I lived on the Palestinian side of the border and had to suffer regular incursions of a foreign army I would consider myself at war too. Thus the Israelis and Palestinian are in a very real sense, at war. As in, at each other throats, killing each other on a monthly basis. It is a much more visceral war than say the US in Afghanistan.

As for assassinating commanders and generals, this is standard practice. The US assassinated Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto in WW II for instance.

The news that Israeli was titillating but not surprising and thus made the headlines for only a short while. Apparently the realisation the Israel government's secret regularly steals passports from Australian overseas, and uses them in its espionage operations was far more surprising to most. Obvious in hindsight perhaps, but nonetheless the thought of a foreign OECD government going around stealing passports for unsuspecting travellers is downright jarring. It is is unsurprising it will take quite a few newspapers inches to explore and digest the implications.

Shadow,
Your pro Israel stance has blinded you to the topic subject.
As I demonstrated with my example Lebanon V Israeli PM , your argument is emotional and subjective.

Both foxy and I made the same/similar objective points, extra judicial murder in a third country is Legally (and therefore morally) wrong. As Mossad/Israel is the presumed/assumed perpetrator the natural determination is that *their* action is wrong. As are their actions of involving other parties by means of forged passports

In no way does the specificity of the topic i.e. "Assassination as a tool of (state) foreign policy" imply that the general principal is any different for the Palestinians/Arabs or martians.

The individual murdered for political reasons is irrelevant.
At worst his status is the same as a Mafia Don. A leader of violent criminals. The 'war' label is simply political propaganda. Particularly if Israel denies they are entitled to prisoner of war status etc.

I repeat it is a conflict of Israel's making ...We don't need/want it here or have involvement implied.
Tip If Israel doesn't want to be seen as a rogue nation and question their national sovereignty, don't subvert or ignore other's. Unless at war with them.

The end doesn't justify the means.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Antony Loewenstein on his book,
"My Israel Question," tell us that:

"...numerous Hamas spokespeople have
suggested settlement with Israel is a
possibility, based on 1967 borders.
Israel has rejected this, preferring to
act unilaterally. After all, Israel likes
to be able to chant the "no partner" mantra.
Leading Zionist groups in the USA and Australia
have supported the international isolation of
Hamas, even as its head of its political bueau,
Khalid Mish'al, has said that his party does not
fight Jews "because (they) belong to a certain
faith or culture...Our problem is with those who...
imposed themselves on us by force."

Israel does not have the right to act unilaterally.
It's been calling the shots since 1967, and clearly believes
that the USA and her allies will support whatever it does.

It's time that the international community placed a higher
value on the humanity of the Palestinians, and did not allow
Israel to wreck havoc and destroy the prospects for a
peaceful solution.

If you're interested in obtaining a better picture -
I recommend that you read Loewenstein's book.