One recurrent theme – and one that I hadn’t previously addressed – was deterrence. A number of writers made the argument that, by killing Yassin, the Israelis had sent a message to the Hamas leadership that none of them were safe from retribution. Ever. That’s true, and it’s a very good point. Nevertheless, in and of itself, it does not ‘justify’ the decision to kill Yassin at this time, and in the way that happened. Hamas has plenty of leaders, killers all, who fully deserve to be a lesson in deterrence. Why choose the one whose assassination will inflame the situation the most, not only for Israel, but also for the US (for example, a number of people e-mailed to say that Yassin’s death had caused yet more trouble in Iraq)?

Just so there’s no ambiguity, when I write that deterrence does not ‘justify’ Yassin’s killing, I am not arguing about morality. Yassin was an evil man. He was a murderer. He deserved his fate. But that is not the point at issue. What we are discussing here is whether this move made sense strategically. And that’s an entirely different question.