When It’s Necessary and Desirable to Assassinate Terrorists (Guest Voice)
When It’s Necessary and Desirable to Assassinate Terrorists
by Barry Rubin
There has been a huge international controversy about the assassination of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, a leading Hamas terrorist, in Dubai on January 19. I have no idea who did it but have some points to make on the subject.
1. Generally speaking, media coverage almost never (in Europe) or only minimally (in the United States) talks about what Mabhouh actually did to merit his end. The New York Times had the following paragraph at the very end of its story:
“Mr. Mabhouh had a role in the 1989 abduction and killing of two Israeli soldiers, and was also involved in smuggling weapons into Gaza, Israel and Hamas have said. Israel officials say the weapons came from Iran.”
It would seem that there would be more discussion of the deeds of such people so they are not portrayed, at least implicitly, as innocent victims. Readers could weigh the assassination against their crimes, which would otherwise go unhindered and unpunished. Mabhouh was probably in Dubai arranging more arms’ shipments from Iran so that Hamas could go to war again, causing deaths on both sides. He was a real war criminal, in contrast to the bogus ones fabricated by the terrorist-sponsoring dictatorships which seem to have so much influence on the “human rights” agenda.
2. As long as Western states do nothing to help bring Hamas or Hizballah terrorists to justice, and since Israel has no way of getting these people before a court, it has no option other than the extra-judicial one. Remember that an Israeli cabinet minister is more likely to face prosecution in the United Kingdom nowadays than a terrorist who has murdered Israeli civilians.
Some European countries–France and Italy have admitted as much regarding past deals–have secret agreements with terrorist groups to allow them to operate freely as long as they don’t do attacks within the country. Other terrorists–like the Palestinians who hijacked the Achille Lauro cruise ship and murdered an American citizen or one of the Libyan masterminds of the Lockerbie plane bombing that killed scores of passengers, mainly Americans–have been released from prison without completing their terms.
This point of international culpability in letting certain terrorists escape or function isn’t brought up, explained, or seriously discussed: What do you do if specific people are attacking you and there’s no other option to stopping them? If the United States could assassinate Usama bin Ladin or other top al-Qaida terrorists whom it could not capture shouldn’t it do so? Of course it should.
3. There is a cliché when talking about counter-terrorism to the effect that getting a specific individual doesn’t matter as there is always someone to replace him. But in terrorism, as in other aspects of life, there are more effective and less effective individuals. Since Israel eliminated Hamas’s master bombmaker-who not only made bombs but trained others–in 1995, less capable people replacing him in that line of work have managed to blow themselves up a lot.
The terrorist Imad Mugniya, who someone killed in Damascus, was a unique individual since he had personally worked with the Palestinians, Hizballah, Syria, and Iran. Given his energy, ability, and connections he was not really replaceable.
Mabhouh was in a similar position, the top Hamas arms’ procurer who enjoyed the trust of the Iranians and who knew how to get lots of rockets and other equipment quickly and consistently.
These are not people who merely carried out a specific attack but those who make possible the staging of dozens of attacks.
Of course, terrorism doesn’t go away-expecting that it will do so is a Western act of wishful thinking-but the point is to reduce the number and effectiveness of attacks, and thus the number of casualties.
There are other advantages to eliminating key terrorist operatives. Often it can spark factional conflicts which make terrorist groups spend more time on internal battles. It also sparks mistrust among terrorist partners. If Mugniya can be assassinated in the neighborhood of Damascus that is the most secure place in all of Syria, can Iran and Hizballah trust Syria? Where did the leak occur? Who is infiltrated by the enemy?
Indeed, though outsiders may understate this reality, there is more than a seed of suspicion planted. Perhaps Iran or Syria or Fatah or some other faction in Hizballah killed Mugniya? Perhaps Fatah or Iran or some other faction of Hamas killed Mabhouh.
By the way, although it doesn’t seem to make the headlines so much, other countries including the United States (certainly in Somalia and Yemen) have taken out specific terrorists. Doing so more would be a good idea, if the cases are carefully selected and in the absence of any option to grab them from some state providing safe haven.
Proposition One: if you truly understand that the terrorist groups are going to try to kill you no matter what you do, it removes the fear of making them angry.
Proposition Two: If you know the world is going to criticize you no matter what you do, it removes the fear of making them angry.
That’s Israel’s situation. It is also the situation of a lot of other countries which admittedly face a lower level of risk but also don’t realize the first proposition. At the same time, though, they have far fewer problems with the second.
But what’s at issue here is not revenge for past attacks but the prevention of future ones, a very careful and well-informed thinking through of what actions would weaken terrorist adversaries and save the lives of the civilians they are aiming to kill.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), with Walter Laqueur (Viking-Penguin); the paperback edition of The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan); A Chronological History of Terrorism, with Judy Colp Rubin, (Sharpe); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books, go to http://www.gloria-center.org.
Guest Voice posts do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of TMV or its many writers.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
37 Responses to “When It’s Necessary and Desirable to Assassinate Terrorists (Guest Voice)”
In other words, the ends justify the means and you're happy the guy is dead.
Ask the Iraqi and Afghan civilians that question.
This is a rather frightening post. Doesn't assassinating someone, anyone, make the assassin a terrorist? Or put another way, you want to take out terrorists by becoming a terrorist. Whenever you get to the point that you can justify assassinating others you lend credence to those who do the same. I mean, this has worked out so well in the Middle East now for what, 2,000+ years? I'm sure your enemies are looking for ways to go after the 26 or so suspects who had a hand in taking this guy out. And when they do, they will find ways of justifying their actions, and based on everything you laid out in this post, you would almost have to agree with them.
Israel is great with the HELLFIREs. Missile away!
Israel set a gold standard some years ago (around 2003-4). Yassin? Toast. Yassin's son, takes over for Yassin? Toast!
Bravo, jchem. I really cannot add anything to this, so I won't even try.
While I agree that there seems to be a very, very, limited justification for some (a very few) assassinations, it is a slippery slope. Since O is now in this business, I hope he is selective and gets good “legal opinions” from his version of Yoo.
Isn't making blog comments great?……..you can post criticisms (and add bravos) without ever stepping out and putting your own solution out for criticism.
I don't know what to do CO, but advocating assassination? On its face this just sounds absurd. This Hamas guy was assassinated by some characters for being “a documented bad guy”. What do you suppose Hamas does now? Don't you think that they now view these 26 characters as “documented bad guys”? According to the logic expressed in the original post Hamas should have every right now to go on an assassination party to go after their version of the documented bad guys.
So I'll ask you your own question; what's your solution?
If your “bad guy” targets Americans, you put out an arrest warrant, when he crosses into an US Allied country, the locals arrest him and we extradite him to the US where the “Bad Guy” gets a fair and speedy trial…
If on the other hand, the “bad guy” is not targeting Americans, not our problem… Let the targeted country deal with the problem…
We are not the world cops…
“What do you suppose Hamas does now?”
What should the Mafia do now? What should gang-bangers and others hit by the authorities do now?
Stop being criminals, that's what.
For the sake of keeping the discussion focused to the particular context, let's buy into the notion that it was Israel. Therefore, given the context that with years and years of lobbing bombs at each other, a pretty good indication you have a defacto war going on, you see a defacto enemy combatant walking around. You shoot him.
In that context, my mind is not blown. Change the context and yes, I may well have a different view.
So next month, when some Israeli military officer, or government employee attached to some Embassy in South America gets blown to smithereens by some Hamas operative, you'll also be saying: Nasty Little War, tough cookies…
Hamas is not a criminal group, it's a resistance organization…
“you'll also be saying: Nasty Little War, tough cookies…”
Yes………I figured out 38 years ago, when I shot at them, they shot back at me…….and one of those nasty little buggers even dared hit me……..my follow-through has been abbreviated ever since.
“Hamas is not a criminal group, it's a resistance organization…”
And Obama's the rightmost Dem in Washington. You've been outdoing the Easter Bunny quips, Don.
I said that Obama was the furthest right candidate in the Democratic Primaries, not that he was the rightmost Dem in DC… I can put my foot in my mouth without any help…
As far as Hamas goes, Hamas means zeal. It is an acronym for Harakat al-Muqawima al-Islamiyya, Islamic Resistance Movement. Hamas thinks of it self as Resistance movement, and many people agree with them…
Last time I checked, prior to 1948, there was no Israel and none of the Palestinians were ever asked if they wanted on to created on their land, prior to 1968 Gaza (The world's largest open air prison) and the West Bank were not part of Israel… More stolen land…
Argentina, Israel and the United States have all said they suspect the bombing was carried out by Middle East guerrillas backed by Iran. …”
Argentina's Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires was the sight of the first explosion, a car bomb, on March 17, 1992. The bomb killed 29, and injured over 250. …”
Nov 9, 2006 … News: Argentine judge issues international arrest warrant for former Iranian president over 1994 bombing”
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad tapping Ahmad Vahidi for the post is “an affront to Argentine justice and the victims of the terrorist attack” on the Jewish community center, the Foreign Ministry said in a statement.”
The 1992 bombing of the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires – in which 29 people died – has also never been solved.
Complete investigation, put out warrant arrest, request international community to arrest suspect, extradite to Argentina for fair & speedy trial…
Complete investigation, put out warrant arrest, request international community to arrest suspect, extradite to Argentina for fair & speedy trial…”
Sorry, Don, they did all that. This was 1992 and 1994. You just punted and picked the wrong door. Don't apply for any WH or State Department jobs.
One doesn't hear any outrage from the left when terrorist commit autocracies against innocent people. Why do we hear so much outrage from the left when a known terrorist get killed. It could lead one to believe that the left is pro terrorist. Mahmoud al-Mabhouh put the target on his own back when he started to engage in terrorist activities. Israel has the right to protect itself against their enemies this guy fits that bill.
Well, they could always do what we do, bomb them with drones if they don't mind a 30% collateral damage rate…
One in three killed by US drones in Pakistan is a civilian, report claims
I am sure that the locals don't mind, after all they were only in their own country minding their business…
I am sure that none of the relatives of the Civilians would consider loading a car full of explosives and parking it in a hotel known to be frequented by Americans… I know that if one of those civilians was my 9 0r 11 year old kid, I'd be refreshing my thirty year old USMC training, getting up to date on the finer points of explosives…
Not that we should brag: LUIS POSADA CARRILES – THE DECLASSIFIED RECORD – CIA and FBI Documents Detail Career in International Terrorism; Connection to U.S.
Not that we are standing on any moral high ground ourself, apparently when our terrorist kill their civilians and manage to get to the States, we're not all that eager to extradite them to the country in which they committed their crime…
One doesn't hear any outrage from the right when US Drones kill civilians minding their business in their own country. It could lead one to believe that the right is pro-murder, particularly the murder of defenseless brown people.
Now that was easy…
“This is a rather frightening post. Doesn't assassinating someone, anyone, make the assassin a terrorist? Or put another way, you want to take out terrorists by becoming a terrorist.”
What is the difference between Terrorism and regular warfare? The answer is largely the target or perhaps victim of the attack and the intent of the attack. If the target is innocent people with the intent to cause the population great fear or terror then the attack could be considered a terrorist attack. If the attack is focused on a military target with the intent to gain a military advantage then the attack could be considered an act of warfare. Mahmoud Abdel Rauf al-Mabhouh was a senior Hamas military commander. I believe that Hamas still has a declared war against Israel. Therefore killing a military officer like Mahmoud should be considered an act of war and not an act of terrorism.
Easy too throw the race card and not defend your position. Have fun. Talk to Obama about the Predator drone attacks.
I'm not going to argue about terrorism vs war; what's the point? My point is rather simple: If you want to advocate for assassination then don't cry about it when your enemy starts assassinating people on your side.
I believe Don answered this already:
Or when Hamas decides to take revenge on these assassins, you can just shrug your shoulders and say it was an act of war. From where you're coming from I have to ask, wouldn't it have been a whole lot easier and a whole lot cheaper had we just assassinated Saddam Hussein? Why don't we just assassinate everybody we don't like; perhaps you're in favor of taking out Ahmadinejad, Castro, and Chavez. If not, why not?
You just punted and picked the wrong door.X2″
I'm glad I didn't ask YOU to tell me what color the sky is cause this blog can't hold that many paragraphs.
It could lead one to believe that the right is pro-murder”
Gee, is Obama now on the right?
Or when Hamas decides to take revenge on these assassins”
And, they would if they could. And since, this is military, there is some kind of revenge logic (unfortunately, it is like the Hatfields and the McCoys) and most military people understand this. However, the problem is that often their “revenge” is satisfied by blowing up civilians- a soft target. As, I posted above, the two Argentinian terrorist attacks.
I don't think killing a terrorist is an assassination. Yes it is a nasty little war but killing this guy won't stop:
“some Israeli military officer, or government employee attached to some Embassy in South America gets blown to smithereens by some Hamas operative”.
Killing Ahmadinejad, Castro, or Chavez would be an assassination because they are all offical leaders of sovereign nations.
Save the cookies tough or not for the terrorists you seem to like so much.
Save the cookies tough or not for the terrorists you seem to like so much.
What a delightful line. Perhaps someday the “terrorist” will be you or someone you know or care about. If that should happen, you will know not to hope for any help, because all of us will know that if the government tells us you're a terrorist, you must be one.
Autocracies? Might you perhaps have meant atrocities?
Yes I meant atrocities. Sorry.
Perhaps someday the “terrorist” will be you or someone you know or care about.
That is a little off the deep end. I thought the “you can't trust the government speech” belonged to the Tea Baggers.
No one from the left has come forward to challenge my earlier comment:
“One doesn't hear any outrage from the left when terrorist commit autocracies against innocent people.”
Therefore I can only conclude that the lefts argument and moral indignation about innocent victims is mostly ideology not true compassion.
Myself I loathe the idea that innocents are dying on either side. And I am so glad that I am not the one who has to make the decision to launch a predator attack. I am not an Obama supporter, at least on domestic issues. But I can't help admire him on his positions on Afghanistan and Terrorism. He has gone against his left wing base and done what his informed advisers have recommended. I can only pray that God will give him the strength and courage to do the right thing. It a tough decision, not “cookie”, to decide whether it would be better to kill a known terrorist and risk killing innocents in the process. The president has to consider whether the action will save more lives in the future by taking out the Terrorist.
I thought the “you can't trust the government speech” belonged to the Tea Baggers.
Actually, I thought it belonged to conservatives. I thought that was the essence of conservative philosophy, that the government does not have your best interests in mind and will abuse its power if allowed to.
I thought, in fact, that distrust of government power and thinking it important not to accept that something is true just because the government tells you it is was something that Jefferson and Madison and all those guys thought, as well.
So the OP asked
to which I answered
and you seem to have conveniently ignored. And the fact remains, you are advocating for assassination, just so long as we are the ones doing it.
Spoken like a true believer. I make an argument against assassinating others and to you, that means I like terrorists. Put the talking points away and clean off your partisan glasses when you want to have a discussion. If I represent your version of the left, then you clearly aren't paying attention.
I'll repeat myself, I don't think Killing A Terrorist is an assassination. If we don't agree on that so be it but I believe that your argument is invalid because I don't accept your first premise. Also I don't accept your self proclaimed authority on assassination.
You may be right I just thought the term tea bagger and conservative were thrown around somewhat interchangeably on this blog lately.