PA names Ramallah street after Hamas terror mastermind

[oberliner]

The future Palestinian Authority presidential compound will be built along a street named for an infamous Hamas arch-terrorist, Channel 10 reported on Wednesday.

The Ramallah street was named for notorious Hamas suicide bomb mastermind Yihyeh Ayyash, also known as the "engineer," who was the architect of multiple attacks, including a 1994 bombing of a Tel Aviv bus, which killed 20 people, and injured dozens.

Ayyash was killed in 1996 in what was most likely an Israeli assassination, after his cell phone exploded in his Beit Lahia home, in the Gaza Strip.

According to the Channel 10 report, the street sign posted at the Ramallah location read: "Yihyeh Ayyash, 1966-1996, born in Nablus, studied electrical engineering in Bir Zeit University. Was a member of the Iz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, and was linked by Israel to a number of bombings. Was assassinated by Israel in his Beit Lahia (Gaza Strip) home in 5.1.1996."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1161451.html

[Ozymanithrax]

1. One countries terrorist is another countrie's freedom fight...

What difference does it make if they name a street after him.

[aranthus]

4. That is one of the most intellectually dishonest foolish statements ever written.

Thousands of partisans and guerrillas across Europe in the 1940's were able to fight for their freedom without murdering children, and did so against oppression that makes the Occupation look like a Sunday picnic. People resort to terrorism not merely because they are weak, but because their goals would never be agreed to by a reasonable opponent. This Hamas terrorist wasn't fighting for freedom, he was fighting to destroy the Jewish State. That's why it matters that they named a street after him.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

5. Does that apply to the several prime ministers of Israel who had pasts as terrorists?

[aranthus]

11. First we have to define terrorism in a reasonable way,

and not merely use it as a political bomb. One reasonable definition is the that it is the deliberate attack on a non-military target in order to compel a government or a group to accede to a political agenda. If there is proof of such an attack by prior Israeli leaders (King David Hotel is not one of those), then that would be terrorism. By the way, by that definition, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the fire bombings of Dresden and Japan were all terrorist attacks. Personally, I believe that there has to be an additional component to the definition of terrorism; that it is used in the service of illegitimate goals, to frighten people into doing what reasonable moral people would not do otherwise. However, I don't think many share my view, so I'm willing to use the more general definition.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

13. Your definition would render Palestinian terrorism more or less nonexistant.

Terrorism is violence whose goal is strategic rather than tactical - to induce terror in an enemy rather than to destroy a specific asset that poses a military threat. The word "terrorism" also has overtones of covertness - marching an army into a town and burning it to the ground to send a message usually wouldn't be called terrorism, even though it's morally indistinguishable from it; the distinction is purely semantic but it's one that does appear to be fairly widespread.

The King David Hotel bombing was, in fact, a clear-cut and unambiguous example of terrorism.

The WWII bombings you mention are borderline, I think - I think there's no doubt that they were morally wrong, but given that their goals were at least partially to limit the enemy's ability to fight war, one could make a case that they were not terrorist actions/overt actions morally equivalent to terrorism(although on balance, I think that most of them were).

If you claim that a good cause means it isn't terrorism then pretty much any act intended to end the Israeli occupation ceases to be terrorism. I think that this is nonsense - terrorism is a type of action; it's possible to use terrorist means in pursuit of a good cause, but doing so is exactly as much terrorism as doing the same things in pursuit of a bad one. Conversely, even if one were using your "in a good cause" criterion, that wouldn't be relevant to actions undertaken in the cause of establishing Israel.

[oberliner]

14. You have got to be kidding

The Passover Massacre? The Sbarro bombing?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

15. Read what Aranthus proposed as a definition of terrorism.

What (s)he is saying, at least as I read it, is that terrorism is only terrorism if it's not committed in a good cause. That, as far as I can see, would rule out pretty much any atrocity committed with the stated goal of ending Israeli occupation of Palestine.

Now, *I'm* not saying for a moment that the atrocities you mention, or many others, were not terrorism. But I am saying that by Aranthus's definition, as I understand it, they aren't.

My conclusion is that it's a flawed definition, not that they were not terrorism.

[aranthus]

17. You are assuming that Palestinian attacks are for the sole purpose of ending the Occupation.

Since they are in fact among other things, aimed at destroying Israel, disrupting peace negotiations, and just killing for the hell of it, as well as possibly ending the Occupation, they aren't exactly for a legitimate goal. I recognize that my definition isn't all that good, but the alternative is to have to distinguish between legitimate terrorism (Hiroshima?), and Palestinian bombings and rocket attacks. And how do we distinguish between the two? By the goals of the perpetrators.

[oberliner]

19. I don't think the stated goal was ending Israeli occupation of Palestine

I certainly do not think that was the stated goal of the 1994 bombing. Unless you believe that all of Israel is, in fact, occupied Palestine, in which case I would argue that the cause is not a good one.

[aranthus]

16. No it wouldn't.

Palestinian violence has be more or less directed at destroying Israel, and not merely ending the Occupation. By my personal definition, it's still terrorism.

Here's a more official definition. According to U.S. Code Title 22, Ch.38, Para. 2656f(d), "(2) the term 'terrorism' means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents"

18 U.S.C. §2331 defines terrorism as, "…activities that involve violent… or life-threatening acts… that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and… appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping…."

Finally, http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=terrorism defines it as, "(the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear)."

All of these definitions include the concept of a deliberate attack on non-combatants. By all of these definitions, the King David attack was not terrorism, and Palestinian attacks on buses, pizzerias, and other civilian targets most definitely are.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

18. Except the King David attack *was* a deliberate attack on non-combatants.

It fits all the definitions you provide to a T.

[oberliner]

23. No, it wasn't

It was meant to yield no casualties. That's why there were warning phone calls made prior to the bombing to evacuate the location. The primary goal of the attack was to destroy sensitive intelligence documents that the British were in possession of.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

24. Please tell me you're joking?

You don't seriously believe that the King David Hotel bombing was not intended to cause casualties? If so, such faith as I have in your ability to distinguish fact from propaganda will be seriously dented...

[oberliner]

25. I was parodying your earlier response about Palestinian terrorism being non-existent

Your claim along the lines using the definition provided by the poster was completely outlandish. Do you not see that?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

47. Except I never said that.

I said that, *by Aranthus's definition* - a definition I explicitly rejected - Palestinian terrorism was virtually non-existant.

[oberliner]

48. And by virtue of the same definition - the KDH bombing was also not a terrorist attack

It involved as much of a "good cause" as the 1994 Palestinian bus bombing if you go by the statements of the perpetrators and planners of the attacks.

That was my point, although, the whole thing is academic anyway if one doesn't accept that poster's definition as valid.

[Igel]

54. Had the switchboard operator

relayed the message--and been believed--the 15 minutes' warning given before the blast went off in the hotel might well have been sufficient to see everybody evacuated.

That's the problem. For some, 15 minutes is a joke--no way to give the evacuation order and make sure everybody's out. On the other hand, 30 minutes' warning would have probably enabled the bomb to have been disarmed, but still would be considered a joke certain about Irgun's intent. Heck several days' warning would, for that matter--it's not like there's a lot contemporary documentation concerning their intent in this case. I go with the warning not being a joke--if you move quickly it's long enough to save most lives, at the very least.

It has little to do with belief. Simple pragmatics. You'd want to give a sufficient warning to allow evacuation but not disarming. 15 seems a bit short, I'd have hoped for 20 or perhaps 25; then again, it's not like they synchronized watches. 30 would be on the long side.

The flip side is belief about intent. 15 minutes' evacuation warning says that if they intended to cause casualties, they nearly foiled their own intent. Unless we want to say that just warning the switchboard operator and not contacting somebody higher up was part of the nefarious plot. Then again, there were other calls to be made.

If the Sbarro's or the Aquarium had 15 minutes' warning, I'm sure that many would argue that the Palestinians were vastly exceeding expectations.

[aranthus]

28. No, it absolute was not.

It was intended to destroy or disrupt the British military headquarters in Palestine. that's a military target if ever there was one. Where do you get the idea that there was a deliberate intent to target civilians?

[shaayecanaan]

22. Would you consider assassination of UN peace mediators

to be terrorism?

[aranthus]

30. You're thinking about Bernadotte?

He was a civilian, no doubt. But was the assassination intended to compel some government to do something through fear or coercion? I don't think so. So the Bernadotte murder wasn't terrorism. It was a political murder.

[shaayecanaan]

37. So in other words, if Hamas bombed a United Nations office in Gaza...

in a fit of pique, and not necessarily to compel a govt to do something - that would not be terrorism?

[aranthus]

38. While it would be mass murder, it wouldn't be terrorism.

Terrorism has a political or ideological intent to force people to do something out of fear.

[shaayecanaan]

39. Okay, but that means a lot of people that we considered terrorists...

who engaged in senseless killing for ideological reasons are not, in fact, terrorists.

[aranthus]

50. It's an often misused word.

Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, Hitler, and many others have killed lots of people for ideological reasons, and we don't consider them terrorists. Today it's often used as an epithet by people who haven't thought through what it really means.

[Ozymanithrax]

21. So you would define the freedom of a people to determine their own path in history...

an illegitimate goal.

If so, then every person who fought in the Revolutionary war, Jewish partisans fighting the Germans in WWII, or the 1948 war of independence in Israel would be illegitimate.

Personally, I think attacking civilians who are not threatening the attackers in order to force political change is terrorism. Yes, some of the Palestinians are terrorists, including the man who will have a street named in his honor. Some of the Israeli's are terrorists. But I don't think Israel should have a say in what the Palestinians want to name their streets, and the Palestinians should have no say in the naming of Israeli streets.

[oberliner]

26. No one is claiming that Israel should have a say in what Palestinians name their streets

The fact that this particular man was chosen by the PA to have a street named after him is worth reflecting upon, however.

If a Baruch Goldstein street was so named in Israel, I would think that would be newsworthy as well.

[aranthus]

32. Who said that Israel or anyone should have a say in naming Palestinian streets?

However, I am certainly allowed to comment on who the Palestinians choose to honor, and what that says about Palestinian society and their supposed desire for peace with Israel, among other things.

As for whether the Palestinian fight for freedom is legitimate, that's an incorrect question. You're assuming that that is all the Palestinians are after, and that just isn't true. I don't know of a single Palestinian terrorist group that did not have as a goal the destruction of Israel. You have to take the Palestinian position as a whole. That position isn't legitimate.

[aquart]

31. Yes, dear. Blowing up the King David was terrorism.

Are you incredibly happy now? Have you achieved some great goal of equivalence? Have you proved that if the Palestinians will just stick to the plan of blowing up Israelis (and the odd tourist), that eventually the Israelis will be too discouraged or dead to continue and the Palestinian Arabs can just move into the abandoned orange groves and hotels and hospitals?

THE ISRAELIS DID IT FIRST. THE PALESTINIANS ARE COMPLETELY JUSTIFIED IN KILLING AS MANY OF THEM AS THEY WANT!!!

There. Be joyful.

[aranthus]

36. I don't believe that it was.

I don't think that my post suggested that it was either. Perhaps you meant this for someone else? Even if it was terrorism, that wouldn't justify Palestinian terror attacks intended to frustrate peace and ultimately to destroy Israel.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

7. Nonsense. Why don't you say what you really mean, Aranthus?

And what do you think freedom fighters in Europe would have resorted to had they been oppressed for 40+ years?

[aranthus]

12. Because I already did.

If Hamas did not want to destroy Israel (you will at least admit that, won't you?), then you might have some kind of an argument. If the Palestinians announced that all they wanted was a separate state of their own in the West Bank and Gaza, and withdrew demands inconsistent with Israel's existence such as the RoR, then it would be a completely different story. But, they haven't done that, have they?

[aquart]

33. And denied citizenship in lands they were born in, like Jordan.

That would make anybody murderous and mean. Of course, then people don't really want to be living next door to such charmers. So they shut the door like Egypt has.

The thing is, of course, that murdering people does make them want to murder you back. Are really sure this works as a policy?

[Ozymanithrax]

20. Occupation is never a Sunday picnic. To say so is intellectually dishonest.

I believe that the Palestinian people should be free to name streets in their country after any damn person they desire. That is called freedom.

I see no problem with Israel naming streets after their own heroes. Menachem Begin Road is one of them. Begin began as leader of the right-wing Zionist militia, Irgun, and is considered a notorious terrorist. I have no problem with Israel naming a street after him. Here in the U.S., George Armstrong Custer, a man who is known to have massacred Black Kettle's band of Cheyenne while they were under a white flag, has elementary schools named after him.

[aquart]

29. It matters to YOU. It matters to Israel.

And destroying the Jewish state IS how they see themselves gaining their freedom.

To them, that's a GOOD thing.

You can't dictate who somebody's hero is going to be. You can be appalled, but it's really none of your business. They named a street that they control for a man who murdered with the goal of putting Israel's streets under their control. From their POV, that's a hero.

Of course, when they start whining that nobody likes them, you should feel free to mention this.

[aranthus]

34. Of course it matters.

That being said, I'm not trying to dictate who anyone's hero is. What I object to is the moral relativism of the statement. The idea behind, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter," is to question people's ability to make moral judgments. Sure, the Palestinians see this monster as a hero, but that doesn't mean that decent people have to accept the correctness of the Palestinian position. I'm sure there were some nuts who thought Timothy McVeigh was a hero. I have no interest or right to dictate their thoughts, but I sure as hell can comment on them.

[aquart]

2. To them he's a patriot.

This is their own history they're writing and they're entitled to tell it their way not our way.

[oberliner]

3. The blast was so powerful that parts of bodies "reached the top floors of buildings"

Muatab Mukadi, a member of Ayyash's Samaria battalion (of the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades), drove al-Souwi to one of the bus's first stops. al-Souwi chose an aisle seat on the left side of the bus, and placed the bomb (stored in a brown bag) at his feet.

At approximately 9:00 AM, as the bus was slowing down for a stop 100 metres north of Dizengoff Square, al-Souwi detonated the bomb killing 21 Israelis and one Dutch national. The powerful explosion lifted the bus off its chassis and the heat melted the fiberglass bus frame. Limbs were projected like missiles into the seating area of nearby restaurants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dizengoff_Street_bus_bombing#cite_note-Katz151-2

Response from Israeli government at the time:

Hamas wants Israelis to "lose our heads and stop the peace process," Foreign Minister Shimon Peres said tonight, adding, "No way on earth."

"As immersed as we are in our grief, that is how much we should be determined to continue the peace process," Mr. Peres said.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/20/world/attack-israel-overview-20-killed-terrorist-bombing-bus-tel-aviv-48-are-hurt.html?scp=1&sq=tel%20aviv&st=nyt&pagewanted=2

[ProgressiveMuslim]

8. INdeed. The "Peace process" has been good for Israel.

[oberliner]

9. Hamas pretty much slammed the door shut on that process every time things looked promising

We have the Hamas bus bombing of 1994 cited above right around the time that Israel was making peace with Jordan and after Rabin and Arafat had exchanged their mutual letters of recognition.

And of course when the Saudi Peace Initiative was first being presented, Hamas orchestrated a serious of terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians including the infamous Passover massacre.

[aquart]

35. Israel's pretty peaceful.

In all the places without the Palestinians. In fact, most countries who have had to deal with the Palestinian Arabs seem to develop that attitude. Lebanon didn't seem to like them much. Jordan rescinded their citizenship. Egypt slammed the doors shut on Gaza.

But I say they eat dry cereal for breakfast wearing idiotic tee-shirts just like I do...and surely that's enough in common to begin discussions.

[Shaktimaan]

40. I don't like this statement much.

It is unpleasantly reminiscent to me of that old suggestion, "Everywhere the Jews go in the world people seem to hate them and massacre them... hmmmmmm?! Isn't that just the dag-burned most weirdest dang coincidink? Maybe we should consider (just CONSIDER) the possibility that there might not be something wrong with EVERYBODY else on the planet after all, but with the JEWS themselves!?"

Of course there are constantly problems with the Palestinians... they are constantly oppressed and used as pawns by every other Arab state as part of a larger political strategy that doesn't benefit them in the least, they have been in a state of constant conflict with the strongest military force in the region, their corrupt leadership has stolen most of their aid money and either foolishly/selfishly squandered opportunities to advance their nation's cause or purposefully assassinated it in the service of a fundamentalist political agenda, and, and, AND... so on.

Even the American Indians have themselves some fucking casinos, man. The Palestinians haven't got much beyond the shaft and an impressive sounding narrative to present.

[Violet_Crumble]

42. No, I didn't like that statement much either...

You and LB have pretty much said everything I was going to say that will end up falling on deaf ears in the case of that poster....

[aranthus]

52. Agreed.

Also with LB's post.

[LeftishBrit]

41. So if Palestinians have been treated badly by several countries..

that must be the fault of the Palestinians?

I've heard similar stuff about Jews.

I don't like hearing it about anyone!

[aquart]

27. Uh huh. I didn't need to know. He's not my hero.

He's theirs.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

6. So, Oberliner, what do you make of this?

[oberliner]

10. It's a shame

I wouldn't think anyone would want to honor the memory of this person.

[Shaktimaan]

43. I am really curious to get your take on it. np

[ProgressiveMuslim]

45. That there isn't really as big a divide

among Palestinians over this issue as westerners might like to think there is.

[Violet_Crumble]

44. Related thread: Israel glorifies its own murderers

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=307344&mesg_id=307344

Post #1 is worth reading as I'm pretty sure if the word 'Jew' was to replace 'Arab' in that post, the person who posted it would have been swiftly banned from DU...

[ProgressiveMuslim]

46. Endlessly fascinating that threads that portray Palestinian resistance in this light

have tons of responses.

Threads discussing Palestinian nonviolence? Crickets.

[Tarc]

49. The Israeli lobby machine is a slick business

[ProgressiveMuslim]

51. I'm talking about here on the DU.

[azurnoir]

53. What I have found "facinating" here is once again

the endless ability of the ProIsrael crowd to parse and attempt to explain away why it is only terrorism when "they" do it but it is not when we do

[Eg-ptiangirl]

55. Fighting occupation

It is legal. French did it to fight Nazis, Washington did it to fight Brits, why it is now illegal for Palestinians? For me I never kill nor like any killing and I am not a Hamas supporter but I don't like double standards also.

[shira]

56. Fighting occupation with terror against innocents behind human shields is evil and cowardly

[ConsAreLiars]

57. Siezing land and maintaining an occupation through mass murder of innocents using captives as human

shields, demolishing thousands of homes, grabbing thousands off the streets or from their beds at night and locking them up with no trial, torture, targeted assassinations, denying medical supplies or sufficient food or water or even books or a chance to leave their ghettos, destroying their shops and factories and farmlands.

These acts, according to the occupying supremacist fanatics, are just and laudable since those victimized are not regarded as actually human, just as obstacles to the land grab. And you pontificate about "evil" when people resist. No shame, no self-awareness, no sense of decency, no sense of being a part of humanity.

(edit to add a tiny bit)