I think tclouie had summed up my feelings of the American bombings quite nicely.
Mswas
Are you saying that the ones that Israel are killing are not among the leaders of their organisations ?
Read, and acknowledge that you are wrong.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1511000/1511515.stm
and here
http://www.observer.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4249232,00.html
from which
…and the US State Department thinks that targeting Palestinian leaders is a bad idea so that answers your question.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2001/08/28/israel-us.htm
As for the IRA example being stupid, you don’t seem to remember various attacks by the IRA on British Government leaders, or you would have remembered the Brighton bomb that missed Margeret Thatcher by a hairsbreadth, or the mortar attack on 10 Downing Street, residence of the then British Prime Minister John Major.
The IRA have exploded devices in British pubs, railway lines, post offices, they have shot policemen in mainland Britain, they have killed folk going to and from work, they have killed Britons in Germany and they have connections with other terrorist organisations from the mid-east through to South America.
The differance between the IRA and Palestinian groups is only in scale of attack.They have certainly targeted British civilians and killed them.
Remember that the British did know who the leaders of the IRA were, and that it is those same people with which they are dealing with in the current peace process.
Don’t underestimate the influence of convicted terrorists serving time in prison who could have stoped the entire peace process, had the British government taken the same stance as the Israeli government and killed those folk(who are not seen as the leaders of the IRA - just very influencial) then the current peace process would not exist, those convicted terroists have made the differance.
I would point out that Britain has most definately not been negotiating with the IRA for 50 years, this is a recent development that is not more than ten years old.
A bit clumsy but I think I can see what you are getting at, even though it is wrong.
The UK has not been in a position to even try to give up Northern Ireland, because up until very recently the majority of that population wished to remain British, as is their birthright, and those people form a part of the UK population and not a separate Northern Irish one.
Israel has not tried to give up the West Bank in its entirety at all, they still want to keep all of Jerusalem and they still want to keep most of the Jewish settlements built on land from which the Palestinian inhabitants were removed by force .
These are the main issues and there is a case to be made that if Israel simply moved out of these areas completely that most of the violence would stop, virtually all of it in all liklehood, and the ‘need’ for targeted killings would diminish, and would probably be more justifiable too.
Casdave:
Alright, I’ll concede about the Northern Ireland bit and the citizens wanting to remain British, however, Israel has tried to concede HUGE amounts in the past couple of years. Look at what Barak tried to give up to them and you’ll see that. The problem with this, is the Israeli’s don’t have somewhere to retreat to, the live in a country the size of New jersey with a similar population size. If you’ve ever been to New Jersey, you know how dense that population actually is.
The problem with this is that people treat this issue as if Israel is a foreign occupier and not refugee settlers that actually built up a nation. They DON’T have anywhere to go, and they have showed IMO that they are perfectly willing to reconcile with the Palestinians who just don’t want them there, and I am sorry to say, the Palestinians may have been there first but the Israelis are there to stay and they need to accept that. The Israelis really have nowhere to go and to tell you the truth you don’t hear as much vitriole asking other settling populations in other areas that cause strife to not defend themselves.
And yes they DO kill the people in these groups, and they do kill their leaders, however I am sure they would negotiate if these groups were willing to parlay, which they appear not to be willing to do, and Arafat who DOES negotiate doesn’t take generous terms and talks out of the other side of his mouth to his constituents.
Yet because Arafat is willing to negotiate, they do not target him, it’s that simple. They are targetting terrorist leaders, just as the US is targetting Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar, they are both leaders of similar organizations though the Taliban are more legitimate. Are you saying we should negotiate with bin Laden because he is the leader of Al Qaeda?
Erek
I can agree with capturing Bin Laden, but I don’t agree with overthrowing and further traumatizing an already traumatized country to do it. (Israel did not have to overthrow the Argentine government to get Eichmann!) I think this should be treated as a criminal matter rather than a military one. If we try to take over every country that harbors terrorists, we will be fighting for a long time, and eventually lose. Besides which, it may not be popular to say this, but there are reasons for terrorism. Take away the legitimate reasons for anger (U.S. military support for Israel, Iraq sanctions, U.S. support of feudal monarchies) and you take away a lot of Bin Laden’s support.
They can come to America. In fact, a lot of Israelis are FROM America, so it makes more sense for Jews to come here than it does for Palestinians to go to some “rich Arab country.” Why does America not fill the bill as the “promised land” of the Jews? Jewish people have it better here than they ever have before, anywhere else, including Israel.
I’m not suggesting that Israelis should go anywhere else, but I think it is too much hyperbole to claim that Israelis would be made homeless by giving the Palestinians justice. Most of the land claims, including those dating from 1948, could be taken care of by an independent and international land claims review board. If returning a particular piece of land would involve dispossessing too many current residents, then the former Palestinian owners should be justly compensated and allowed to buy and build on land elsewhere in Israel.
(By the way, is it not true that Palestinians are not allowed to buy land in Israel? If so, that law needs to be abolished, because it’s tantamount to apartheid and as such is an obstacle to peace.)
London-
Facts never hurt when casting stones…
Here’s something interesting from the UK Independent:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=100318
"And the Palestinians blurred over crucial details of Reham’s death, producing a narrative of their own to suit the occasion. Mourners at her funeral insisted that she was shot dead by a machine-gunner in an Israeli tank, as she played before class in the yard of her school. They said that as the Israeli forces crossed into Jenin – part of the West Bank under full Palestinian control – the tank had begun firing randomly into buildings including the school, called the “Two Ibrahims” school after two men killed in the first intifada.
I went there with a colleague. We found no bullet marks in its eight-foot high wall, and none near the spot where she is said to have fallen. There was no blood. She may well have been killed by the Israelis – so many others young Palestinians have been. But the story of her death was wrong."
SO…
What does this tell us about all of those other times when we were told that the IDF “targeted” children?
Class?
You fucked his mother? I am assuming this is badly transliterated Russian. Otherwise, please excuse the misunderstanding.[
Let’s review. We seem to agree that the US situation and the Israeli position are similar. In both cases we have governments that have Islamic fundamentalists groups angry with them and have some who would argue that some of the grievences are justified. In both cases, before terrorist attacks, democratically elected governments decided on their countries policies, but not without dissent. In both cases we have organizations harboring and protecting those culpable.
Okay, you are in charge. You know that attempting to go in directly for Bin Laden, protected by the Taliban military, will cost many more US military lives than would be lost if the Taliban’s military capacity is degraded first. (or substitute the Israeli equivilent) How many additional US casualties are you willing to give up? Any amount? Five thousand? Or is it a ratio? One civilian loss is worth one hundred US military? Or what? You’re in charge, decide. I’m glad it is not up to me. For the US or for Israel. I’d argue that a fair number of military deaths are worth protecting a small number of civilians, but I’ve never had to tell a child that his daddy ain’t comin’ home because of my decision.
Or would you attempt to appease terrorism? “Oh, you murdered our people, well, now we’ll consider changing our policies. We are so grateful that you pointed out the error of our ways.”
That’s a good plan.
OK, to all of those who disagree with the targeted killing of Palestinians, what would you do instead?
Diplomacy hasn’t worked. Terror continues as there is no valid rule of law in the territories. You have to protect your people, and you know who is planning the terror attacks. How do you protect your people?
Moving settlements is a good idea, as I have posted above, but it alone probably will not solve terror. The extremist groups planning attacks enjoy massive popular support in the territories. Just evacuating the settlements won’t do much to change the popular support, as Jerusalem can’t (and won’t) be evacuated. Also, there will be no settlement on the refugees that can possibly appease the PA. Evacuating the settlements is something that will take years – these are basically cities of tens of thousands of people in some cases, so it is certainly not a short term solution either.
Israel has its hands tied by the US, by its own left wing, and by world opinion. I think that this is a good thing. But, Israel has to find a way to protect its populace. Borders, buffer zones, and diplomacy haven’t been able to do it. While targeted killings haven’t either, there has been an increase in “work accidents” and botched/thwarted suicide bombings in the past few months. Whether this is attributable to the Israeli policy is of course debatable.
Israel has very few alternatives, as I see it. Would somebody please like to suggest some? If you don’t like the targeted killings, please let’s debate better alternatives. It is the same as the Palestinians at Camp David – you don’t like the offer on the table but you can’t suggest anything better. Here’s your chance. This applies to American action as well.
The leaders of Israel, and the US, and the UN and all the Arab world cannot, or will not come up with an answer and you expect a solution on this board ?
They are leaders, they have teams of advisors, I expect leaders to have the intellect, imagination and creativety to come up with something.
They are in positions of respect, power and priveledge and it’s about time they showed us why instead of wringing their hands and saying “it’s oh so very difficult”.
The people of those troubled lands don’t want to hear how difficult it is to come up with solutions, they want true leadership, Sharons tough man stance has simply led to more deaths on both sides and taken them further apart.
Any fool can wave the flag and remind a nation of its birthright, been done dozens of times.
Keep looking at the past, keep looking at history and pick a period that suits your message, meanwhile people die.
Israel knows the Arafat’s hands are tied but its actions serve only to weaken his position as radicals flock to those who promise revenge.
This is not rocket science, Israel must know what the effect of its actions are and how it undermines the only credible voice there is for the Palestinian people, so one can only draw the conclusion that it wants this conflict to continue, possibly it wants to come to a deal where it gets to keep all of Jerusalem, who knows, but its actions are not those of a state doing what it takes to secure peace.
If you want to defeat terrorosits you usually need to undermine their support, and that means showing them an alternative, trampling into thier territory with tanks whenever it suits you, using aircraft ostensibly purchesed for defence against invasion against peoples in crowded town streets are likely to keep the wheel of anger rolling.
My point about the comparison of deaths is that a lot of people seem to ignore the magnitude and effects of the multitude of deaths have on the Palestinians. The death of one Israeli gets front-page news, while the death of dozens of Palestinians gets page 20.
casdave:
Your point is similar to my point. Nobody can come up with reasonable alternatives.
Whether or not Arafat represents a legitimate entity for negotiation with the Palestinian people is a serious point of contention. While I, like Peres, believe that he is probably the best that the Israelis can do, there are many others more qualified than I who believe otherwise.
Arafat was the one who refused a Palestinian state on a platter at Camp David and Taba. While others will debate the quality of Barak’s offer, I believe it was the best the Palestinians could have hoped for. Anything more would seriously compromise Israel’s right to exist.
It appears that if Arafat did not directly promote the violence, he took no steps to stop it. Among things he either authorized or turned his back on were the release of militants from prison (arrested in 1995 post-Oslo IIRC) and the closing of universities and schools “in protest.” He has made no steps to stop it in the territories until the past week, IMHO.
The more serious issue is, if Arafat were to negotiate a settled peace, does he posses the power to implement all security guarantees within the territories. I think that he probably doesn’t, what with the popular support of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. This is a much more serious issue for the Israelis.
There are elements in the Palestinian society, now much repressed, who may form a valid moderate opposition. These elements need to be coddled and promoted by both Arafat and Israel. The press needs to be freed, the mullahs or imams need to tone down their rhetoric, Israel needs to provide economic assistance. I agree that these are all good steps, but those steps will have no immediate action in cessation of the violence. If Arafat doesn’t have the power to do that, then Israel needs to step in. It is a “kill or be killed” situation in many respects. In short, war.
I don’t like Sharon that much, and I think many of his policies are near-sighted. But, targeting militants, I think, has many immediate advantages. First, it assures Israelis that their government is doing something to protect their safety, and taking out those directly responsible for cold-blooded attacks on people eating dinner and catching buses. Second, it pushes Arafat to be more pro-Israeli, lest his cabinet gets targeted. Third, it may incapacitate terrorist organizations by “decapitation” with little extra needless death. I think (I hope) Sharon understands these immediate but not long-term actions and this is why his national unity government works so closely with his foreign minister Peres (who is one of the only doves left in these times, it seems) to pursue negotiations and the “humane” steps seen above. Also, there can be no negotiations until Israel feels secure. Nothing else can acheive a popular mandate. Unfortunately, it is life during wartime.
capacitor:
I try to evaluate the news from an unbiased eye. Granted, as you can tell, my opinions are far from being unbiased. But, I will say that most major news sources I feel have balanced reporting on the subject. Palestinian deaths are always reported at the same level as Israeli deaths. When 2 settlers are killed in drive-by shootings, that is given the same press (at least on CNN and BBC, which is what I usually read) that 2 Palestinian deaths in Bethlehem are given. The pro-Israeli side always accuses the media of being Palestinian-biased; the pro-Palestinian side always accusses them of being Israeli-biased. I see neither, and I think the fact that both are complaining is a good sign of fair reporting.
I believe it tells us that the hearsay observations of mourners at a funeral as reported to a journalist aren’t worth a jot – I refer you back to the BBC article.
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding your point ?
LC, your post makes a good case that it was not intentional. As you sayk it may have been reckless and inexcusable, but it contradicts Israel’s stated policy of targeted killing.
It seems too obvious to mention that if this tank had wanted to kill children, it could have killed many more than one. This isn’t just a hypothetical idea. When Palistinian teorrorists blow up restaurants in Israel, they DO kill as many civilians as possible, including children. If Israel were retaliating in kind, there’d be no doubt of their intent.
LC you have a good case that the tank commander deserves court martial. (although I can’t support or oppose that position, since I know nothing about this sort of military operation.) However, you weaken your position by accusing Israel of intentionally targeting children, a position with no evidence and no logic. You come across as someone already prejudiced against Israel.
This is not to say that Arafat has exactly been a model of peace with courage. Once he signs the eventual final agreement, he knows that terrorists will target him. That is why he is stalling. But he has to realize that his fence-sitting is over.
december – Have a little respect. This is the quote in full, in context:
I have bolded the “Especially given” as it’s absent from your quotation. It seemed relevant.
You’re going to have to explain to me where I said Israel targets children because I don’t believe I have said that, I certainly don’t believe that’s the case and if I gave that impression, I’d like to change that impression.
Getting back to the subject in hand, I’m glad you acknowledge the action of the tank crew may have been reckless and inexcusable.
Of course, since Arafat’s jails seem to have revolving doors, arresting anyone really means nothing.
The idea that Israel shoulddd just sit still in the face of random bombings is not only ridiculous, it would never be suggested to anyone else as a viable course of action.
The idea that they can offer more may or may not be valid, but it was not given a chance by the Palestinians - after rejecting the offer Israel made, the violence was the next step. Not counter-offer, not give and take, violence.
Once you take this into consideration, how can you honestly say Israel should not go after those who are blowing people up? How can you justify just waiting to be next?
No country should be required to sit idly by while it is attacked, and anyone who is capable of defending themselves should do so to the best of their ability. Not to the best of some outsiders’ beliefs, but to the best of their ability. If that means executions of terrorists, than that’s what it means. If that inlcudes imposing brute force to protect cities from suiside bombers, than that is what should be done.
I’m certainly thankful thattt the U.S. can respond to the attacks of Sept 11, and to go after those responcible. I believe Israel is doing the same, and should not be critisized just for trying to defend their county.
The military of any nation should always be accountable for unjustified acts of destruction, and to determine if this was such an act should be mandatory. But to have blanket critisizm of the policy (of self-defence) is pure bull.
Do you have an hour? If not I’ll sum it up for you.
-
Stop the persicution of Palestinians in all forms (that inculdes murder)
-
Remove all Israeli forces from Palestine (which includes settlements).
-
Unite strong ties with my Arabs neighbors (incudling the newly formed Palestine).
-
Share the city of Jerusalem and declare it a city for both peoples to live in peace.
Did you expect him to find that acceptalbe? If he really wants freedom for his people it will be for “all” of them not just “most”. It will be either “all” of Palestine now or “all” of Palestine later after 10 more years of death and opression.
Also giving Palestine it’s freedom can only be good for Israel. Holding on to it will only destroy her.
Well maybe, if Israel stoped the daliy assassinations of Palestinians they wouldn’t be so radical. Like I said before, to befriend them as brothers is the only way to safeguard Israel’s future. To keep killing them is to invite terrorism and even more death.
In other words: If you put a gun to his face maybe he will accept your views. If he doesn’t kill him.
No my friend, that won’t help. That is what we call terrorism.
Maybe you should check the news. The deaths are needless but they are not little.
Well, considering that Israel is targeting terrorists and murderers, it would be really easy to get Israel to stop, right, Efrem? Stop terrorizing and murdering Israelis and the gov’t won’t kill you.
Israel’s foreign policy is to have good relationships with anyone who has good relationships towards her, including Arab states.
As for Jerusalem, it’s part of Israel.
Of course, Israel could always just give the West Bank back to Jordan and Gaza back to Egypt, both of whom owned the land before they lost the war. Then, if those two countries want to set up some sort of Palestinian state, that’s up to them.