Hopefully LC’s deliberate misrepresentation will not completely hijack this thread. Might I suggest a pitting?
To return to the OP, I found this a very interesting analysis:
http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2004_03_01_belmontclub_archive.html#108005789860948535
It is an interesting take on the matter, but only true insofar as Hamas is unable to come up with an equally charismatic leader.
London,
Have I asked you yet if you are the British guy who used to call the Palestinian TV show A Message to the World?
Y’know, you make a point really worth debating, and I have to go find it in amogst a whole bunch of side-shows…
Anyway - of course there was an internal Israeli aspect to the killing of Yassin - since when does a politician do the Right Thing[sup]TM[/sup] without getting some kind of personal benefit from doing it? :rolleyes:
That isn’t the question in the OP, though. the question was whether or not this would benefit Israel or not - not whether Sharon thought it would benefit Israel when he made his decision.
And I think that there is at least a good chance that there will not be more violence in the short run (that’s a tie); that in the medium run it may allow Israel to pull out of Gaza with better internal PR and a better stance vis-a-vis Hamas (Israel benefits); and in the long run - who knows? (call it another toss up). So I see a net benefit for Israel here.
Dani
Anyone who isn’t engaging in selective reading of my posts (and I intend to demonstrate momentarily that this is exactly what you are doing) would find it quite clear that I do not condone the use of terror in the Palestinians’ struggle against Israeli oppression.
Let’s go over the entire paragraph, shall we? Sentence by sentence, so there should be no problems with clarity.
There it is, clear as day. I feel sympathy for the victims’ families. I daresay one might infer I also express sympathy for the victims themselves. But just to be safe - I feel sympathy for the victims of the terrorist attacks.
Not only for the Israeli victims and their families, but the Palestinians as well. The bloodshed in this war is not one-sided, by any stretch of the imagination.
Here’s where you start getting heartburn and say:
But it’s not those civilians who are orchestrating and directing the building of the wall along the Palestinian border, is it? It’s not the civilians who are engaged in bulldozing Palestinian homes, and attacking crowds with missiles fired from Apache helicopters, is it? It’s the Israeli government. And it is for the government of Israel, its program of active and bloody persecution of the Palestinians both inside and outside Israel, and its continual justification of further and bloodier violence by saying it’s necessary to counter the Palestinian “threat”, which is nothing more than determined but scattered resistance to Israeli aggression, for which I have no sympathy. It is this reckless and irresponsible use of military force against the Palestinians, cloaked in the guise of national policy and the “war on terrorism”, that puts Israeli civilians in the crosshairs. I have nothing but the deepest sympathy for the Israelis who die in the attacks and their families, who have lost their loved ones in such a violent manner. I have no sympathy for the country of Israel, whose aggressive policy against the indigenous population puts its own citizens in just that specific danger. As I said in the final sentence of the paragraph,
I know it is entirely possible because I myself do just that.
There you have it, Malthus. You have picked out certain sentences of my statements, and ignored others that directly contradict your assertions, in order to make your point. You have selectively read what you wanted out of my posts, which therefore makes your argument extremely weak and your assertions baseless.
carnivorousplant - just found this on Yahoo. You were saying…?
I also like this paragraph, which touches directly on the analysis furt quoted earlier:
Somehow, I really don’t think the Israeli government is looking to strengthen its position at the negotiating table.
You are missing my point, and I think you know it.
My point is not that you have not expressed sympathy with victims in parts of what you post, but that such expressions of sympathy - admirable as they no doubt are - are contradicted by other things you have said in other parts of your post.
You did not say (to paraphrase) “I have no sympathy for the Israeli government and its actions”, you said you had no sympathy for complaints about terrorism. There is simply no other way to read the sentence I quoted.
Perhaps it will be clearer if I put the emphasis in another place:
"But for Israel to adopt a position of “Poor us, we’re being attacked by vicious bloodthirsty Arabs for no good reason" when their heavy-handed persecution and oppression of Palestinians guarantees such attacks doesn’t merit the least amount of sympathy in my book.” [emphasis added]
So - what “attacks” were you talking about?
Well, yes; but that’s a bit like saying that Bush should stay in office because the GOP will just come back with someone else who will win an election sooner or later. Hamas may replace him … or they may not. If they can’t, I imagine some other group might pick up the slack; thier leadership may or may not be as effective as this guy. If he is more effective and/or more extremist, I suppose the IDF can just shoot him, too.
But there is an “in the meantime,” which may last quite awhile. In that meantime, the PA can consolidate control. Theoretically at least, one could then hope that a moderate succeeds Arafat, or at least some one that the Israelis can look at as being unquestionably in charge. I don’t know that that’s true; I rather think that PA and Arafat are riding the extremist tiger, and if he pulls the reins very hard, he’ll slip from the saddle and get eaten. Then again, what do the Israelis have to lose?
All of which to say, it may or may not be a good thing for Israel and/or the Palestinian people in the long run. But it is worth noting that short-term, Arafat can’t be terribly sad about it.
Only if you continue to read “Israeli citizens” when I say “Israel”.
When I mean Israeli citizens, I say “Israeli citizens”. When I mean Israel as a distinct geopolitical entity with its own government, I say “Israel”. I suppose I could actually type out “Israel as a distinct geopolitical entity with its own government” every time, but that would only make sense if everybody else in this thread were having the same difficulties as you were. Clearly that’s not the case, so I hope this post straightens the matter out for you.
That I believed the theory to be that the replacement would hesitate to order nasty things done. Then I agreed that it didn’t seem to be working.
Abdel Aziz Rantisi is a pediatrician.
I can’t decide whether is more more bizzare-for a baby doctor to plan the murder of children, or the military to try and kill someone who brings children into the world.
Meh, I totally missed that. Sorry.
Riddle me this then - in what way exactly can “Israel as a distinct geopolitical entity with its own government” be the victim of "attack[s] by vicious bloodthirsty Arabs"?
Well, I like London_Calling and I paid my five bucks.
From this thread (bolding mine):
Apology forthcoming?
No, because in that quote, Alessan isn’t saying the lives of Jews are more important than the lives of non-Jews…he’s saying that to him, the lives of Israelis are worth more than those of Palestinians.
I don’t know… off the top of my head, things like damage to infrastructure, like buses and streets and buildings. Whether or not the state of Israel is really a victim in these attacks is immaterial; the government (and, most likely, the majority of Israeli citizens) see the state of Israel as a victim of an attack just as much as the individual Israeli citizens who died or were injured. This, then, becomes the justification for further violent crackdowns on the Palestinians, which in turn provokes further terrorist attacks, which allows the state of Israel to portray itself as a victim, which leads to further crackdowns on the Palestinians, which in turn provokes further terrorist attacks, and so on ad infinitum.
As a hypothetical, let’s say it can be conclusively proven that a state, that is a geopolitical entity, can never be the victim of a terrorist attack, and that the Israeli government accepts this logic and consequently rejects the argument of state victimhood for support in its treatment of the Palestinians. What, then, becomes the justification for repression?
It’s still a horrible justification for the things Israel does to the Palestinians under the guise of self-preservation. “If we have to keep killing Palestinians by the dozens in order to teach them to stop bombing us, so be it. Israeli lives are more important to me than Palestinian lives.” Obviously people like Sharon feel the same way. And the results are unfortunately far too obvious.
Please note, before you comment on this, that I don’t think this is any more of a correct argument from the Palestinian perspective.
Indeed. Firstly, in that thread Alessan stated that Israeli lives were worth more to him. He never mentioned anything about Jewish lives.
Secondly, the way London_Calling put it, his implication was that Alessan’s statement applied to the Jewish religion as a whole. Which is doesn’t.
Just to review; London_Calling stated:
However, that’s not what Alessan said. No where did Alessan state that Judaism teaches that Jewish lives are more valuable than non-Jewish lives. He merely stated that to him Israeli lives were more important than non-Israeli lives. Guess what? That has little to do with Judaism, as I’m not an Israeli, but I’m certainly Jewish. It’s a statement about Israeli lives and the value he places on them. It’s not a statement about the value that the Jewish religion places on it’s own adherents.
Zev Steinhardt
**zev_steinhardt ** – I don’t know why you’ve suddenly popped up here in this thread, or why you feel the need to speak so often for Alessan, but I’m going to give him/her a while to pipe up for him/herself . . .
Yes ! What ? No. I don’t have teevee. And if I did why would I watch Palestinian teevee when I like in the UK – it would be like eating McDonalds in France, or summin’.
Noone Special - To be exact, the question posed by the OP was: Is this policy of assassination a good one for Israel?
To which the easy answer is no because it ratchets up the cycle of violence one more notch; tens if not hundreds of Israelis will die in the next week, but it is good for the personal political interests of Sharon – which is, in any event, pretty much the sole purpose of this assassination.
Okay, post two to come . . .
Well that remarkable. That’s the exact thread I had in mind Leander, and I can only thank you profusely for locating it. Really a fine effort!
But, you know, when I read the entirety of that thread I find that, in my mind, I had associated ** Alessan** more closely with the views of the lunatic december than is fair. In fact, the whole thread makes me very sad. And actually, Alessan read, back then, like about as fair-minded a person born into that kind of environment as I could ever hope to be.
So, on the one hand we have the passage kindly cited by Leander:
“On the other hand, I think I’ll answer JJimm’s and Guinastasia’s question myself: yes, to me, the lives of Israelis are more important than the lives of Palestinians. To me. I fully expect that a Palestinian asked the same question would give quite a different answer. I’m sorry…”
Yet on the other Alessan also writes:
“I would love to be able to help the Palestinians - really. I just don’t see any way of doing it without risking my own life and that of my friends.”
and
I’m not december. I don’t believe my country is always right, and you have to believe that it hurts me when it isn’t, and that I dearly want that to change. I just don’t think that being right or wrong has any bearing on my loyalties and obligations. Being right takes a second seat to survival. I wish I could care about the whole world equally; but I know that if I do it I’m dead meat.”
I had exaggerated a memory from 18 months ago. Alessan is a long way from thinking like december. As best I can tell, he doesn’t comment one way or another on the issue of the worth of Jewish lives over others, so I don’t know what he thinks as opposed to believing I did know what he said then. On that I was wrong. I don’t know what he thinks. And even as a result of this thread I don’t know.
However I do know he doesn’t have the luxury of being an impartial bystander.
My only experience of the kinds of difficulties experienced over there is when London was an IRA target periodically for three decades, and that’s a fundamentally different situation.
**Alessan ** - You and I are in entirely different mental places with entirely different life experiences, but I do wish you well. And I hope you can understand that, with the best of motives, I wish you better leadership as well.
And one more profuse thank you to you, Leander !
I say London Calling? Total classy post there my friend. Total class.