… and the poor, peaceful Palestinians have nothing at all to do with the situation… those restaurants you see exploding? Gas leaks! The busses? Motor burn-outs! :rolleyes:
Dani
I seriously don’t think that many see “the Israeli state” as the victim of terrorist attacks. Nor are such attacks, in general, aimed at infrastructure - although there may be exceptions.
I think that most Israelis (and some are posting here and can correct me if I am wrong) see civilians as the victims of terrorist attacks.
Given this reality, the state of Israel acts to protect its citizens by thwarting or killing those who seek to kill them. Every state in the world, I think, would do the same. Are you saying that the state has no right to do so?
If this is what they are doing, it is not “repression”, but justified protection, and worthy of sympathy and support.
On the other hand, some may argue that the Israeli state goes too far - is too heavy handed and indiscriminate in its attacks and controls on Palistinians, to an extent that is not justified by the needs of security. To such people, the Israeli state is indulging in “repression”. If the Israeli state is doing this, it is not worthy of sympathy or support - to the extent that it goes too far.
Does this seem a fair analysis?
The next issue, of course, getting back to the matter of Hamas, is whether this particular action falls under the rubric of “justified protection of citizens” or “repression”.
To my mind, it clearly falls in the former category. Israel has every right to protect its citizens from random murder planned and inspired by this fellow. It is morally justified.
What I do not know is whether it is wise, from a practical point of view. If, as some claim, it merely leads to more and worse violence, it is morally justified but unwise. If, on the other hand, it leads to making Hamas less effective, giving more authority back to legitimate Palistinian authorities in the long run - thus making an effective peace more possible - it is both justified and wise. And I don’t know, as of yet, which is true.
War wasn’t seen as neccessary by the Jews - it was the Arabs who rejected the 1947 Partition Plan, not us. And yes, they needed to pick up arms before that, to protect themselves both from British oppression and Palestinian attacks, which started at the beginning of the century and was a vicious form of racist, anti-immigrant violence. Jews moved to the country legally, and the Arabs refused to accept them, preferring to kill the damn foreigners
I suppose you support anti-immigrant violence, too.
So? A perfectly legal thing to do on private party, and clearly a form of Affirmative Action.
Were there any indictments? Convictions? I thought not.
Well, I have to say - your the first person I’ve seen to justify lynch mobs. You realize that Jews were a minority at the time, do you? I suppose you think that Them Negros had it comin’ for sleeping with our wimmin’.
Also, Muslims dont give a shit about the Wall - it means nothing to them What they cre about is the Temple Mount, which was always in their hands, and still is. Learn some theology. Muslims don’t even believe the Temple existed - why should they worship its remains? If they claomed that was the reason, it was only an excuse to commit murder.
And yeah, if I felt the region was on the verge of civil war, I’d get some weapons myself. Did you think the Palestinians were unarmed? Don’t insult them - they were proud warriors.
I seriously, seriously doubt that. And even if so many Arabs died, who said it was the Jews who did it? The British, as you recall, were trying to suppress a savagely violent rebellion (and they were doing it much more bloodily that the IDF is now; the British were true colonialists). It was a two sided slaughter, but the Jews weren’t doing any slaughtering.
Christ, I hate these threads. Wasn’t there an OP once?
Noone Special, don’t be dense. I’ve already spoken to why the Palestinians are fighting back, and nowhere have I insinuated that the conflict is a figment of Israeli citizens’ imagination. The Palestinians are resisting oppression initiated by Israel and subsidized by the United States. As long as Israel and the US continue this, the Palestinians will continue to resist. Plain and simple.
Alessan - I’ve done a little Googling to try and find any source material for Soviet foreign aid to the Middle East; all I’ve found is one cite from a paper (Google link, look under “ACDIS Occasional Paper”) with the following quotes:
So we have a basis for why the Soviets were giving foreign aid - geopolitics. And it appears the authors are making the argument that Soviet foreign aid to Egypt wasn’t even in response to US aid to Israel, but to other countries. As for the amounts:
(Bolding mine. The authors cite Joseph L. Nogee and Robert H. Donaldson, Soviet Foreign Policy Since World War II (New York, N.Y.: Macmillian,
1992), p. 194 as the source for this information.) Roughly speaking, then, the Soviets gave $2.5 billion in aid to the entire Middle East over the same period in which the US gave $936 million to Israel alone (1955-1967). I’m just not seeing a parity of power between Israel and Egypt here.
I’m sorry, aren’t you the fellow that just devoted the better part of a page of this thread lambasting London_Calling for putting words in your mouth? I see no point in continuing with you if you’re going to pull that kind of stunt.
And Israel is seeking to kill Palestinians. Does the Palestinian state, such as it is, not have the same right?
Israel is doing a lot more to the Palestinians than just trying to thwart terrorist attacks. They do go too far, as you hypothesized in your post, and they do so on a regular basis. The assassination of Yassin cannot be viewed in isolation; it must be considered against the background of the entire scope of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. This is not an act of protection, it is an act of provocation. “We can kill you and your leaders whenever we want, and there’s nothing you can do about it. We’ll just keep smashing you.” There’s no way it can be even morally justified. It’s already clear they’ve provoked the Palestinians thoroughly this time around; the demonstration at Yassin’s funeral and the selection of the hard-liner Rantisi to head Hamas speak to that quite clearly.
As far as I know, the Israeli state is not going around and deliberately killing whatever Palistinian civilians they can. If they did, there would be precious few left, considering that Israel has a powerful army and the Palistinians don’t.
The topic of this thread is the Yassin assasination. I fail to see why we cannot consider this action and its justification. Similarly, I would consider each and every Palistinian act and, equally, its justification.
I have given an argument as to why I think this act was justified, from a moral point of view; rebut it if you can. If there is a Palistinian act of violence you think to be justified, describe it and I will either agree or argue as to why it is not.
I don’t see why Palistinian anger is the gauge of the moral worth of the action in question.
So far, the Palistinian response seems rather unworthy: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3565607.stm
A 14 year old, developmentally handicapped boy used as a suicide bomber.
They’re doing everything but that: bulldozing homes, bulding that blasted wall, winking at clearly illegal Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory, breaking up the lands they choose to give the Palestinians so as to maintain a military advantage, and so on and so forth.
I never said that shouldn’t or couldn’t be done. But it makes no sense to judge each action of Israel’s in complete and total isolation from the background of the history of the country and the totality of Israel-Palestine relations. The justification of “protection of Israeli citizens” falls flat when viewed from this perspective - which, furthermore, I believe is the correct one in this case.
I’m not looking to justify particular terrorist attacks because I don’t condone the use of individual terror. I justify the Palestinian struggle on the fact that it is resistance to oppression, which is a right all oppressed people possess.
It isn’t. Why they’re fighting is.
What did that article say?
OK, they don’t even know if the kid acted alone. Blame Hamas, naturally!
Yes, they are doing a lot of things, the legitimacy of which is a subject of debate. But not this particular debate. Your assertion and question was: “And Israel is seeking to kill Palestinians. Does the Palestinian state, such as it is, not have the same right?”
Are you gonna claim I read that wrong?!
I don’t see why even the most evil state, guilty of the most henious crimes imaginable, doesn’t have the moral duty to protect its citizens from murder.
I fail to understand your switching from the specific to the general. You seem to want to have it both ways - to support their “stuggle”, while ignoring the form in which it takes.
I support the right of the Palistinian people to national self-determination. If they adopted half-reasonable tactics to achieve this, I would support them whole heartedly. But they adopt tactics of random murder, so I cannot.
Are you shitting me? Have I been “wooshed”?
First, I never said anything about Hamas - find where I did if you can - I blame whatever Palistinian militants did this deed. I don’t know who they are; but it is obvious it was someone, Hamas or whoever.
Second, do you expect me to believe that a developmentally handicapped child was able, all on his sweet lonesome, to make a bomb?!
Geez, that’s worthy of derision if it wasn’t so plumb absurd.
Well, another week has gone by, with zero terrorism hitting Israel - with or without connection to the killing of Yassin.
I am beginning to think that, in a psychologically twisted way, the killing has guaranteed a period of relative calm here - becuase Hamas feel that anything they do right now will be seen as their revenge - and “just blowing up another bus” will be seen as pitiful and inadequate revenge.
So they have to regroup, and put all acts of terrorism on hold until they can come up with a really “meaningful” operation. But they had been trying for that already! (The Ashdod port bombing, for example) - so nothing has really changed.
Except that in the meanwhile, while they try to organize “the big one”, they can’t afford, politically, to launch any smaller scale activity. This achieves two things from my (the Israeli) perspective - one, obviously, a safer environemnt. and two - a “quieter” environment, in which there is less “noise” (small-sacle activity by independent cells) masking the “signal” (centrally controlled attempts to put together a major operation) - thus giving Israeli intelligence a better chance to discover and subvert such attempts in advance.
Not that I think our politicians thought this through ahead of time - many of them would have problems finding their back side with both hands - but with 20:20 hindsight, they may have done the exact right thing, for a variety of wrong reasons.
It also appears that the Yassin assassination (and possibly the recent spate of attempts to use children as human bombs) has caused some re-thinking of the whole suicide bombing idea - see here
Thoughts?
Dani
One would think that some group not under the control of whoever leads the groups would have done something. Would the Israeli government foil some attempts and not announce it?
Not too sure about that, actually - Fatah and Hamas may be squabbling for power, but between them they have fairly good control of what goes on in the PA
Happens all the time - but (and this is a completely unscientific gut feeling) things somehow seem quieter in the past two weeks.
And of course, I may be completely wrong, whistling in the dark, wishful thinking…
Dani