Targeted Killings

In the newest Foreign Affairs there is an article examing targeted killings.

Sadly, the link only provides a summary, but I'm in the middle of the full article and it's a good analysis.

The primary examples they cite are Israel's targeted assassintion attempts against Hamas and other Palestinian groups. In one case, Israel dropped a huge bomb on an apartment building, killing a Hamas leader, but also killing his daughter and 16 other children. In another case, Israel hit a "dream team" target of Hamas leaders meeting, but the bomb was too small and no one died.

Obviously, there are up and down sides to a policy of target assassinations. Israel has gotten widespread condemnation from around the world, including the US, for such heavy-handed practices. Arguably, it has helped swell the ranks of terrorist groups, led to revenge attacks against Israeli citizens, and arguably, helped Hamas gain legitimacy as evidenced by the election results.

The upside is that through the policy of targeted assassinations coupled with the construction of the wall, Israel is the first country to demonstrate an ability to cripple terrorist activity militarily. The first time a Hamas leader was assassinated, Hamas responded by sending in 4 suicide bombers to Israel. After killing Shiek Yassin and immediately thereafter, his successor, Hamas was not able to retaliate, and decided to no longer publically announce the new leadership for fear of Israeli attacks.

Last year, Hamas, for the first time, declared a cease-fire against Israel, a policy which has been observed thus far.

Hamas themselves have admitted to the crippling effect of the Israeli policy and it is one of their main security concerns, constantly appealing to the international community to discourage the practice. What seems clear is that while terrorist groups can recruit and refill their ranks, often as a result of aggressive policies by Western nations, it is difficult o make a GOOD terrorist.

So when Israel decides to kill leaders and other good terrorists, it is not so easy for Hamas to train replace them.

It is similar to Al Queda's post 9-11 attempt at sending Richard Reid, a half retarded guy to try to blow up his shoe in the airplane. His case is a marked contrast to Mohammed Atta, an A-student with great leadership skills, a guy who ran the 9-11 mission.

My question, with respect to Israel's policy is two-fold. If the policy was working - why did they stop? The cease-fire is ostensibly a good thing, but could Israel have continued with the assassinations and dealt Hamas death blow? Could they have eliminated the military effectiveness of the organization? Hamas, by every indication, is not compromising. They would only sign on to a cease-fire if they had little to no ammunition left. Are they simply rebuilding and training for more future attacks and did Israel miss a major opportunity?

Also, did the cease-fire pave the way to the Hamas victory in elections? Did it enable them to concentrate their resources towards winning the election versus fighting Israel? Or did the policies in the first place lead towards the election victories?

Interesing questions.