What you are saying is that the Palestinians have really left Israel with no choice but to raze homes killing innocent women and children.
Only if a foreign political body had come in and said…This isn’t your land anymore! Get the hell out!
Sure, Israel is a terrorist state. Women who are raped were obviously asking for it. People who are robbed are obviously flaunting their wealth. Murder victims are clearly responsible for the murders.
A not uncommon tactic: blame the victim.
agreed. ;j
So attacks that kill innocent victims are ok with you?
I agree that selective attacks that get the guilty parties are called for. But to often Israel 's attack are not selective. And Israel has the power to make them selective. But they don’t. As shown by their many assissnations. Yet they choose to kill wantonly.
Killing of innocents on both sides do nothing but keep the killing going.
Firstly, I don’t quite see where anyone is arguing that the victim should be blamed for trying to stop being victimised, only that the methods used seem scattershot and indiscriminate. Secondly, Israel is, quite simply, not the only victim here. It seems highly doubtful to me that their military has some magically efficient system that allows them to punish only those persons who directly facilitated attacks by Palestinian suicide bombers. Or is your position that all Palestinians are equally culpable? I’m not trying to start a fight; I just don’t understand what your post has to do with the discussion so far.
Despite the rather inflammatory thread title, seems to me the crux of the discussion is whether the Iraeli policy of house demolitions has any practical purpose other than “eye for an eye” revenge, and whether such revenge is a justifiable act.
I dunno. Sounds okay to me, but I’m just a one-man consensus.
Besides the legal arguments there is the question of what is effective and what is not in a “war on terror”. I’m paraphrasing, but for fun can anyone tell me who said this and fill in the blanks in the following:
An effective anti-terror campaign needs a force component and a ‘winning hearts and minds’ component. I see Israel doing nothing regarding the latter and the force component is performed like a conventional war or worse. I’ve heard some who have studied terror say that a war against terror should be less than a conventional war yet more than a “war on crime”, it should contain elements of both. I agree.
Well, it sounds a little too reasonable to be Yassir Arafat. If I may observe, guessing games don’t seem to go over very well on this board unless you set a definite time by which the answer will be revealed. We’ve had problems lately.
I was thinking I should probably avoid that. I’ll have to post the exact answer tomorrow but it goes something like this:
The only means to fight terrorism is ‘to remove the legitimate grievances of every Jew in Palestine’, and to ‘state objectively … the historical causes for the growth of this beastly phenomenon in a decent people’. If we do this we can ‘rely on the support of moderate elements in suppressing terrorism, and I believe that the majority of the population would turn against the extremists’. If however, we simply demand ‘the replacement of the Jewish League by another organization and the disarming’ of the resistance fighters it ‘would merely provoke the Jewish populace into a fanatical support of the extremists.’
The author was a British MP in the 40s discussing the behavior of the Irgun and Stern Gang Jewish terrorist groups and their support in the community.
I’m sick of the cliche “killing innocent victims”…As far as I am concerned Israel has been too meek…If my surrounding neighbors deny my right to exist and continue to murder and maim my family, I’d destroy them and if
*innocent victims" get caught in the crossfire after being told to leave the area, its unfortunate but necessary.
Taking a “Kofi” break and discuss and talk and talk and talk works only when the people you are talking to are capable of negotiation.
Yes, Israel is a terrorist nation and should be even a stronger one to fight those who insist on the destruction of Israel.
In some ways, I follow the logic of this post: labeling is never going to be the way to determine who deserves what, fundamentally, in the Middle East.
It’s the old “Terrorist vs. Freedom Fighter” debate. I’m the Freedom Fighter!!! No, look over here, he’s just the lousy terrorist, I’m the real Freedom Fighter!!!
Who cares? Who can adjudicate the battle of labels? I’d rather debate actual conduct, or actual claims, than consider who is more “terrorist” than whom. In which battle, BTW, I have no assurance Sharon/Likud would win, anymore than I think Arafat and his dubious friends would.
How do you define “terrorist state”?
I define a terrorist state as a state which uses terrorism. There are many definitions of terrorism, but I think this one’s pretty good:
(Some of the other definitions include “unlawful”, don’t include the “against civilians” part, and/or include destruction of property.)
From what you write, I’d guess that your definiton of terrorism includes the word “unjustified” somewhere. Is that correct?
I agree with MadSam that there can be situations in which specific acts of terrorism are justified. (I disagree with the rest of his/her post, though.) Before that comment earns me a visit from the nice ladies and gentlemen at the Surveillance Police I hasten to add that what I have in mind is something like attacks against civilians who actively supported the extermination camps in Nazi Germany, for instance clerks who made the lists of people to be sent there, or owners of businesses which provided supplies for the camps. I’m not aware of any groups which only use terrorism in ways that I’d consider justified, thus I do not support or sympathise with any terrorist groups.
IMO, there’s no doubt that Israel uses both violence and threat of violence against civilians, that this is intended to cause fear among Palestinians, and that they do this to attain goals that are political (and possibly ideological) in nature. Those of you who don’t agree that Israel is a terrorist state, do you disagree with the previous sentence, or do you disagree with my definitions?
I see that the weakest part of my argument is the “political/ideological in nature”-part. One might argue whether “making group X stop killing people from group Y” is a political or ideological goal. If there are anyone here who think that this is the only goal behind Israel’s attacks against civilians, and that for this reason Israel isn’t a terrorist state, I’ll return to argue that point.
And I do agree with Huerta88 about the limited usefulness of labels, especially this label. The “terrorist”-label seem to be used to plant “this group is certified evil, human rights and due process are optional when dealing with this group” flags these days.
Well of course. It takes two to rape: a rapist and a raped. Two to murder: a murderer and a murdered.
I think your definition is a good foundation to lay some arguments upon. I wonder, though, exactly what are the ‘political and ideaological’ goals of Israel? I’m pretty sure national security is high up there. Do you have any other suggestions? Specifically relating to Israel’s violent actions towards civilians?
Heh. This argument again.
To answer a question asked above - namely, why Israel demolishes houses of suicide bombers - I suspect the answer is “attempt at deterrence”. I have no idea if it works or not, or if it makes the situation worse - but that is why they claim to do it.
The point is a simple one. Suicide bombers, by nature, cannot be deterred in and of themselves, as they (by definition) die during the attack. They cannot be appeased, as (in general) those factions within the Palistinian community who support suicide bombing have an extreme view of what they wish to accomplish - namely, the total destruction of Israel.
The idea is that if suicide bombers know that their family home is at risk, they may be deterred from bombing. As you are aware, several terrorist organizations attempt to encourage suicide bombing by providing payments and other benefits to the families of “martyrs”. If an incentive to the family can be effective in convincing those on the edge to do it, presumably a dis-incentive to a family can be equally effective in convincing them otherwise.
So, one can either prevent attacks by walling off Palistinians, to make it harder for them to get at Israeli civilians, or by providing disincentives to bombers - by demolishing their houses or otherwise taking away what is theirs.
Who is being raped? The Palestinians who got kicked out of their homes and get shelled by the Israeli army, or the Israelis who get killed when their bus explodes?
This isn’t a case of rape or murder. This is a case of mutual war. Mutual terrorism. Two sides trying to outdo each other.
Zag, I think you have a skewed idea of Israel history…especially the early history.
From wikipedia…not the best source for this, but one that seems trusted on this board for some reason.
I can probably dig up some additional cites that show that the Arab armies urged the Palestinians to flee so that the way would be clear for the combined arab armies to more easily slaughter the jews if you really feel you need to see it. My point though is that you are making categoric statements of fact when the subject is hotly debated, with cite and counter cite on both sides (personally, from my own research I come down tentitively on the Israeli’s side, at least for this issue).
A state that sponsors terror to achieve its ends as a first resort or primary tool to enforce its will on its population or to use against perceived external enemies. I suppose thats close enough to your definition. The only debate would be…is what Israel does to the Palestinians ‘terror’ or retaliation? Is it justified or unjustified. Does Israel have any viable alternative based on past history in the region?
-XT
Of course, I should have said, “lots of people care.” Because if you (on either side) can make the “terrorist” label stick, you’re well along the way to winning.
Thus the labeling can serve as a shortcut to winning the argument on the substantive underlying issue. If you believe that the State of Israel has a legitimate claim to sit on top of the land it does, then you will necessarily view the Palestinian militants as . . . “insurgents,” terrorists, etc. If you question whether the Palestinian territory was legitimately claimed by Israel, then anything the Palestinians do is self-defense, whereas the Israelis’ hostile actions are of dubious legitimacy and thus potentially terroristic.
Tactical distinctions can be of some use: “Anyone who blows up little kids is a terrorist, regardless of the legitimacy of his grievance.” But there’s a limit to this usefulness, as it leads to tit-for-tat: “Anyone who kills old men in wheelchairs is also necessarily a terrorist, claims of self-defense notwithstanding.”
Americans have, I suspect, by a substantial majority, accepted that Israel has a territorial right to be pretty much where it is, and that at most, it should grant some more rights, concede a little more land here and there. Most Americans also, and not coincidentally, see Palestinian militants as terrorists, but would reject that label for Israel. And . . . most Americans can’t understand why Europeans or others have sympathy for Arafat, etc. They must be soft on terror! More likely, the real problem is that Europeans have a fundamentally different conclusion on who owns “Palestine,” and thus a more ambiguous view of who is engaging in unfair or “terroristic” military action.
Maybe Europeans have a more tenuous grasp of history…and who actually parsed up not only Israel but most of the other ‘states’ in the region to MAKE them states (here’s a hint for my European brothers and sisters…it was mostly Europe). 
Or, to put it another way as far as the Israel legitimacy question goes…if Israel isn’t ‘legitimate’, then doesn’t this bring into question the entire UN?
I agree with your short discussion on lables for the most part though.
-XT