It came as no surprise to me to discover that the Guardian's lead editorial on the killing of Sheikh Yassin thought it was a bad idea. And it would not be the Guardian without the usual stuff.
But with the death of Shanab and, to a lesser extent, Yassin, Hamas lost the two leaders associated with the emerging de facto Islamist acquiescence of a two-state solution: the acceptance of 22% of historical Palestine as an interim solution and the deferment of the armed struggle against Israel to "future generations". The timing of Yassin's assassination is also unclear. He lived openly in Gaza and could have been killed any time in the last five years. What does Israel gain from killing him now? Does it truly believe that beheading Hamas will make a pullout from Gaza easier? Or is Mr Sharon playing to a domestic audience, acting as the bulldog of Israel, when in fact he is about to make (in Israeli terms only) a large territorial concession?
But this qualification they put in left me nearly speechless.
Ahmed Qureia, the Palestinian prime minister, claimed Yassin was a "moderating" influence within Hamas and that his murder opened the door wide to chaos. If Yassin was being a "moderating" influence when he encouraged young Palestinian women to follow the example of a 22-year-old Palestinian mother of two who blew herself up at a checkpoint in Gaza killing four Israelis, then it would be good to know what course an immoderate Hamas leader would advocate.
Amazing. The Guardian admits that Hamas are a pack of murderers. Perhaps in tomorrow's editorial lead, they will concede that the earth does in fact revolve around the sun, and not the other way around.
UPDATE: Scott Burgess at the Daily Ablution offers up a neat obituary quiz: who wrote the more fawning obituary of Sheikh Yassin? And Michele at A Small Victorynails Fisk for being even more cretinous than usual in fawning remarks on the dead sheikh.
