From REUTERS:

Ismail Haniyah, chosen by the militant group Hamas to serve as Palestinian prime minister, could be a target for assassination if Hamas carries out suicide bombings, a former Israeli security chief said on Friday.

Avi Dichter, the former head of the Shin Bet internal security service and a possible future defense minister, also told the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper that Haniyeh would be arrested if he ever fell into the hands of the Israeli army.

Haniyeh brushed aside the comments as not worthy of a response. "We do not fear threats," he said.

Dichter told the Israeli daily that he does not "see a situation where Haniyeh will have immunity just because he is prime minister."

"If there will be a terror attack in which Israel decides to respond with a preventive step, then Haniyeh would be a legitimate target because Hamas could not carry out a terror attack without Haniyeh's authorization," he said.

Dichter, the architect of Israel's policy of assassinating Palestinian militants, no longer holds a policy-making position but he wields clout within the centrist Kadima party which is expected to win a March 28 general election.

"(Haniyeh) was and remains a man of terror," Dichter said. "If Haniyeh turns up at a military checkpoint I believe that he would be arrested, interrogated and put on trial for being involved in terror attacks."

Hamas, which has carried out almost 60 suicide bombings since a Palestinian uprising began in 2000, has largely abided by a year-long truce. Hamas's charter calls for the destruction of Israel.

Under Dichter's leadership, Israel expanded a policy of assassinating Palestinian militants as a key strategy against an uprising that erupted in September 2000 after failed peace talks.

The killings were widely supported by Israelis. But Palestinians and world leaders condemned the killings, saying they have fueled violence and undermined peace efforts.

Thoughts?

Doesn't really surprise me.

A terrorist is still a terrorist, even in PM trappings.

*PM's simple schoolboy

Completely agree. If given the chance, take him out.

That should have positive results.

Well keeping him alive certainly wont have positive results. Fuck him. Make him pay.

Yeah. And removing Saddam from power was better than leaving him there.

Yeah. And I can't imagine the families of the hundreds of thousands of Kurds who were tortured, gassed, and killed would argue with you . . .

You mean the ones he tortured and gassed 15 years before the Iraq war, or the Kurds who were living in an autonomous democratic region where Saddam couldn't touch them because they were protected by American air power from 1991-2003?

Try again.

you honestly believe that the people of Iraq were better off under the rule of a murderous dictator who committed horrible atrocities at his slightest whim against anyone who crossed him?

the work that is being done there now - to bring democracy to the region - is being resisted by an insurgent element that is largely imported. is life in Iraq less stable now than it was under Saddam? yes. but that's a short term view. when the insurgency is defeated and the democratic process has time to overcome the initial tendencies it has to divide religious factions, Iraq and the Middle East will be a better place. I just hope that we have the staying power to see it through.

Oh you're right, that makes it much better. Sweep everything under the rug. Memories die young, along with Iraqi citizens. What, do you honestly think Iraqis didn't suffer after the first war? Or are you going to argue that any suffering was the exclusive result of UN-sponsored, American-backed economic sanctions. I hear the post-Gulf War 1 Saddam is being canonized.

That's not what I'm saying, and I know you're smart enough to see that.

Just like the Hamas situation in the PA right now, you’ve got a bad guy in power. But will it be BETTER if you remove that guy from power by force of a foreign (and already HATED) government? I think it won’t, just like I think it was the wrong decision to remove Saddam by the force of a foreign and already hated government.

If your goal is to produce chaos and lawlessness in the West Bank, then by all means, “take out” the Palestinian Prime Minister. Excellent plan.

Sometimes you have to know when to punt. This was one of those times. America was not prepared to reconstruct Iraq, because America didn't have the slightest interest in doing so. It is clear now that the Bush administration had only thought as far as toppling Saddam, and then thought "the rest will take care of itself".

That's not a very solid foundation on which to "spread freedom". It needs a plan. It needs a lot of thought. And yes, it needs a lot of time. The first two impact the last one. And right now, it's clear that the first two didn't exist.

If the US take the democratically elected Palestinian leader out, it will go down in history as the definition of geo-political suicide.

I was speaking of Israel, but the Bush administration does seem to be fond of geo-political Russian roulette.

Well, like it or not, anything done by Israel will be seen to be done hand in glove with the US. So practically, the same thing.

I didn't say it was a good idea, its just that its ridiculous to assume that he should have special protection just because he has a government position if he is directly associated with terrorism. The Israeli policy of targeted assasinations probably hasn't done too much to make them safer, but on the other hand they can't very well arrest these individuals without incurring losses. I don't think Israel really plans on doing this, but there certainly would be a justification for it.

If Israel assasinate the democratically elected leader of the Palestinians, I guarantee you we will witness the mother of all intifadas. Bad, bad, bad idea.

That's ridiculous. So what if he's been democratically elected? That doesn't mean he isnt a terrorist. What if, for example, a mayor of a US city is charged with a crime. They are not immune to prosecution because they were democratically elected to their position.

What if they said that they would start a "mother of all intifadas" should the US kill bin laden. Would that stop the US? Would that make you want the US to stop hunting for bin laden? No.

I don't give a shit if he's democratically elected to anything. That man is an asshole. And this is not a conventional situation. You must kill these terrorist leaders no matter what.