As one might expect, the folks over at TownHall.com are ravenously upset about the characterization of Hamas leader Ahmed Yassin as a "spiritual leader." "Think of him as a charismatic Hitler rather than a dull, hands-on Eichmann. Somehow that's supposed to have made him less dangerous. It isn't logical, but logic has nothing to do with it. This is the Middle East," writes Paul Greenberg. Later on, in the second point of what he calls "eight degrees of separation from reality," Greenberg laments that "the United Nations' Kofi Annan, who seldom if ever finds anything illegal when Israelis are blown apart, denounces the loss of said terrorist -- excuse me, militant -- as a crime against international law."

The Israelis are equally ravenous about their security, and celebrated the assassination, calling it "a blow to terrorism comparable to the American pursuit of Al Qaeda" (NYT, 22 Mar. 2004). The response? Thousands of Palestinians decided that suicide bombing is wrong and agreed to submit to whatever terms Israel was willing to offer.

Just kidding. They protested in the streets and declared Sheik Yassin a martyr. They also vowed revenge. I'm glad Ariel Sharon is so concerned about peace.

Just kidding again. Seriously, though, the man is insane. Sharon belongs in the Cold War world. His hard-liner ideology would work great in the black-and-white world of the Cold War, where the United States was clearly in the right and the Soviet Union was clearly the leader of what former U.S. Messiah Ronald Reagan called "the evil empire." (Note: Reagan had never visited the U.S.S.R. when he made that statement in 1983. A few years later, when he actually visited the country, he repudiated what he had said.)

What did Sharon think this action would accomplish? That Hamas would fall apart? Well, they have -- if your definition of "fall apart" is "elect an equally fanatical leader as its leader." Dr. Abdel Aziz "Snooky-bear" Rantisi, Hamas' new spiritual leader, said on Wednesday, "The Israelis will not know security. We will fight them until the liberation of Palestine, the whole of Palestine" (NYT, 24 March 2004).

Criticism for the assassination was more or less the same worldwide: no one liked it. The G-Dub Administration found itself in a bit of a pickle: on the one side, we support everything Israel does. On the other side, they did a very bad thing. So we took the moral high ground and changed our position throughout the day. Monday afternoon, Condoleeza Rice said in a TV interview that it was "very important that everyone step back and try now to be calm in the region." Later, the administration was "deeply troubled by this morning's events in Gaza" (NYT, 23 March 2004). Later in the week, the U.N. almost unanimously passed a resolution condemning Israel's actions. "Almost" because only the U.S. and Australia voted against it (and probably Israel, too).

The United States should have condemned the assassination, which is what it was (by the way). The U.S. does not officially sanction political assassination, despite what the CIA may be doing abroad. We're even going to give Saddam Hussein some semblance of a trial. If we ever find Osama Bin Laden, believe that he will also be given a very public trial . . . and then executed. Certainly Ariel Sharon is not dumb enough to believe that killing the leader of Hamas will completely destroy the organization -- if anything, it's further substantiated their quest to bomb Israelis. And then the Palestinians will revolt, Israel will move in with (U.S.-supplied) tanks, blow some people up, and the Palestinians will respond with suicide bombs. Is this Sharon's idea of progress? No, but after the intifadas that will follow this assassination, it will give Israel more justification for moving further into supposed Palestinian territory.