# Is it OK for nations to use car bombs to kill opponents? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 26, 2004, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-for-nations-to-use-car-bombs-to-kill-opponents/266192 "2004-09-26T19:46:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![kezami](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/eb8c5e/32.png) [@kezami](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kezami)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2004, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-for-nations-to-use-car-bombs-to-kill-opponents/266192/21 "2004-09-26T21:03:54Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Read the OP – Israel has **claimed responsibility** for the car-bombing. From the MSNBC article: …“Security officials in Jerusalem, speaking anonymously, acknowledged involvement, though the Israeli government issued no statement.” Isn’t the **government** usually the official spokesman for the country? Who is this ‘anonymously’ character? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2004, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-for-nations-to-use-car-bombs-to-kill-opponents/266192/22 "2004-09-26T21:04:30Z")
> [@chappachula](#): > > The war against terror is just that–a war.Not a police procedure where you have to get a search warrant signed by a judge before you enter Osama BLaden’s cave or Saddam’s spider hole No, it isn’t, **chap.** Wars take place between **states.** (If you recall, that was the Administration’s stated reason for denying POW status to alleged terrorists captured in Afghanistan.) The “war on terror” is a public-relations misnomer for what is essentially a policing problem. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2004, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-for-nations-to-use-car-bombs-to-kill-opponents/266192/23 "2004-09-26T21:12:12Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > No, it isn’t, **chap.** Wars take place between **states.** (If you recall, that was the Administration’s stated reason for denying POW status to alleged terrorists captured in Afghanistan.) The “war on terror” is a public-relations misnomer for what is essentially a policing problem. Israel is at war with Syria, and has been since 1948. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2004, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-for-nations-to-use-car-bombs-to-kill-opponents/266192/24 "2004-09-26T21:21:02Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > Israel is at war with Syria, and has been since 1948. So? It’s on hiatus, and a surprise Israeli attack on Syrian territory, even if directed at a legitimate military target, would still be ranked as a Pearl-Harbor-level atrocity. Furthermore, the attack was not on any Syrian military target, it was on a leader of a terrorist organization called Hamas who happened to be in Syria. Nothing about this situation justifies the use of an indiscriminate weapon which might kill innocent Syrian civilians. Furthermore, Israeli authorities have no legitimate business doing **anything** in Syria – no more than they have any legitimate business sending agents into Argentina or wherever to capture Nazis like Adolf Eichmann without the host government’s permission. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2004, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-for-nations-to-use-car-bombs-to-kill-opponents/266192/25 "2004-09-26T21:25:28Z")
> [@astro](#): > > [Car bomb kills Hamas operative in Syria - Israel claims responsibility; Hamas vows revenge](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6102130/) > > Not that it’s particularly concerned about world opinion at this point, but using _car bombs_ to kill opponents? How are you going maintain the moral upper hand when you do stuff like that? Assuming opponent is the same as “enemy,” booby traps are used and have been used for years. If upon your retreat you set an explosive charge to go off when a toilet is flushed there is no guarantee than an enemy soldier will be the first to use the toilet. Planting land mines and then not taking them up when they have served their purpose kills as many people world wide as car bombs I think. That’s what is bad about war. You never kill only designated enemies. That’s even true of smart weapons. They will hit the designated target with great accuracy and reliability. But unless you have someone with 100% reliable intelligence information on the ground talking to the pilot and designating the target, you’re never sure that the designated target is really the intended target. There is just no way to conduct a sanitary war and references to “surgical strikes” are palliatives to ease the conscience of civilian supporters of wars. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2004, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-for-nations-to-use-car-bombs-to-kill-opponents/266192/26 "2004-09-26T21:30:34Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > So? It’s on hiatus, and a surprise Israeli attack on Syrian territory, even if directed at a legitimate military target, would still be ranked as a Pearl-Harbor-level atrocity. > > Furthermore, the attack was not on any Syrian military target, it was on a leader of a terrorist organization called Hamas who happened to be in Syria. > > Nothing about this situation justifies the use of an indiscriminate weapon which might kill innocent Syrian civilians. > > Furthermore, Israeli authorities have no legitimate business doing **anything** in Syria – no more than they have any legitimate business sending agents into Argentina or wherever to capture Nazis like Adolf Eichmann without the host government’s permission. Do you have a problem understanding the concept of “state of war”?Under the rules of war, a country has a right to do _anything_ inside an enemy country. It’s perfectly legitimate. Bombing an enemy is not an atrocity - it may not always be the smartest thing to do, but if they don’t want us to bomb them, maybe they should think about peace. The fact that the target was a terrorist doesn’t make a difference. He was not an innocent civilian, and he was under Syrian responsiblity. If he had been in, say, Egypt, killing him would have been wrong. And please don’t assume that it was a regular car bomb, operated by the ignition key. That would be a sloppy way to work. The car was probably detonated by remote control, after men on the ground made visual confirmation that the target was inside and that no civilians were in danger. I know how these people work. Eichmann, BTW, was arrested under Godwin’s Law, which as you know, supercedes all others. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2004, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-for-nations-to-use-car-bombs-to-kill-opponents/266192/27 "2004-09-26T21:40:12Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > Do you have a problem understanding the concept of “state of war”?Under the rules of war, a country has a right to do _anything_ inside an enemy country. From the Wikipedia ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign\_relations\_of\_Syria](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Syria)): > [@](#): > > Syria was an active belligerent in the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, which resulted in Israel’s occupation of the Golan Heights and the city of Quneitra. Following the October 1973 Arab-Israeli War, which left Israel in occupation of additional Syrian territory, **Syria accepted UN Security Council Resolution 338, which signaled an implicit acceptance of Resolution 242.** Resolution 242, which became the basis for the peace process negotiations begun in Madrid, calls for a just and lasting Middle East peace to include withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in 1967; **termination of the state of belligerency;** and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence of all regional states and of their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries. > > As a result of the mediation efforts of then U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, Syria and Israel concluded a disengagement agreement in May 1974, enabling Syria to recover territory lost in the October war and part of the Golan Heights occupied by Israel since 1967, including Quneitra. The two sides have effectively implemented the agreement, which is monitored by UN forces. > > In December 1981, the Israeli Knesset voted to extend Israeli law to the part of the Golan Heights over which Israel retained control. The UN Security Council subsequently passed a resolution calling on Israel to rescind this measure. Syria participated in the Middle East Peace Conference in Madrid in October 1991. Negotiations were conducted intermittently through the 1990s, and came very close to succeeding. However, the parties were unable to come to an agreement over Syria’s nonnegotiable demand that Israel withdraw to the positions it held on June 4, 1967. The peace process collapsed following the outbreak of the second Palestinian (Intifada) uprising in September 2000, though Syria continues to call for a comprehensive settlement based on UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, and the land-for-peace formula adopted at the 1991 Madrid conference. > > Tensions between Israel and Syria increased as the Intifada dragged on, primarily as a result of Syria’s unwillingness to stop giving sanctuary to Palestinian terrorist groups conducting operations against Israel. In October 2003, following a suicide bombing carried out by a member of Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Haifa that killed 20 Israeli citizens, Israeli Defense Forces attacked a suspected Palestinian terrorist training camp 15 kilometers north of Damascus. This was the first such Israeli attack deep inside Syrian territory since the 1973 war. As this report went to press, Syria announced it would respond diplomatically, and asked the UN Security Council to condemn the Israeli action. I don’t call this an active state of war. Even if there was some declaration of war which was never officially rescinded, what Israel and Syria have now is a de facto cease fire, and it’s not kosher to violate that by hostile state action on Syrian territory. Which the Israelis have done, in 2003 as related above, and more recently with this car-bombing. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2004, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-for-nations-to-use-car-bombs-to-kill-opponents/266192/28 "2004-09-26T21:55:07Z")
Resolutions 242 et al are non-binding, as you surely know; peace agreements are made between nations, not between nations and the UN. Your article also omits the battles between Israeli and Syrian Forces in Lebanon in 1982-83 (jet against jet, tank against tank, infantry against infantry warfare), as well as Israel’s fighting with Syrian stooge Hizballa between 1983 and 2000. Israeli/Syrian combat has been going on and off for the past decade; today happened to be an “on” day. A de facto peace fire is worth the paper it’s de facto written on. ---
**Author:** ![Noone\_Special](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/noone_special/32/2863_2.png) [@Noone\_Special](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Noone_Special)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2004, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-for-nations-to-use-car-bombs-to-kill-opponents/266192/29 "2004-09-26T22:15:29Z")
The bomb was almost certainly **not** keyed to the ignition of the car alone: From [yahoo news](http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=586&e=1&u=/nm/20040926/wl_nm/syria_hamas_dc) > [@](#): > > “He got into the car and then the phone rang,” Nabil said. After answering the phone, Khalil tried to start the car, he said. “We heard the explosion. We rushed toward his car and found him in pieces in the back seat.” Sounds like the bomb was keyed to both the phone **and** the ignition **and** visual sighting (in order for the call to come as he entered the car) - that’s about as surgical as these operations get. (Note: I realize that this **could** have been a coincidence, but I doubt it…) Dani ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2004, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-for-nations-to-use-car-bombs-to-kill-opponents/266192/30 "2004-09-26T22:20:08Z")
This is a misleading thread title. The bomb is “a bomb in a car”, designed to kill those inside. A “car bomb” is a terror weapon composed of as much explosive as possible, packed into a car, and then detonated, in order to cause massive collateral damage. I ask that the thread title be changed. I ask that the thread starter ask as well. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2004, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-for-nations-to-use-car-bombs-to-kill-opponents/266192/31 "2004-09-26T22:20:27Z")
Also from the Wikipedia – [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas:) > [@](#): > > On January 26, 2004, senior Hamas leader Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi offered a 10-year hudna [truce] in return for complete withdrawal from all territories captured in the Six Day War, and the establishment of a state. There had earlier been some talks within Hamas about doing this but this time, according to him, “the movement has taken a decision on this”. Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin said recently the group could accept a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Rantissi stated that Hamas had come to the conclusion that it was “difficult to liberate all our land at this stage, so we accept a phased liberation.” Rantissi said the truce could last 10 years, though “not more than 10 years.” [2] ([http://www.aljazeerah.info/News%20archives/2004%20News%20archives/Jan/27n/Hamas%20proposal%20of%2010year%20truce%20scorned.htm](http://www.aljazeerah.info/News%20archives/2004%20News%20archives/Jan/27n/Hamas%20proposal%20of%2010year%20truce%20scorned.htm)) (See Hudna) > > On March 22, 2004, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin was assassinated in an Israeli missile strike. Following Yassin’s death, Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi replaced him as the leader of Hamas. On March 28, he stated in a speech given at the Islamic University of Gaza City that “America declared war against God. Sharon declared war against God, and God declared war against America, Bush and Sharon.” > > On April 17, 2004, Rantissi was also killed in an airstrike by the Israel Defense Forces, five hours after a fatal suicide bombing by Hamas. With the death of Rantissi, the top three Hamas leaders in Gaza have been killed since August 2003. As a result, Khaled Mashaal, overall leader of Hamas, who is based in Syria, said Hamas should not disclose the name of its next leader in Gaza. [3] ([http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/18/international/middleeast/18MIDE.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/18/international/middleeast/18MIDE.html)) > > On April 2, 2004, according to the Boston Globe, a United States federal judge in Providence, Rhode Island, found Hamas guilty in a civil lawsuit resulting from the 1996 murder of Yaron Ungar and Efrat Ungar in Israel. Hamas was ordered to pay the family of Yaron and Efrat Ungar $116 million. The court has not yet ruled regarding the liability of the Palestinian Authority and the PLO. > > On April 18, 2004, Hamas secretly selected a new leader in the Gaza Strip fearing that he will be killed if his identity is known. (NYT) ([http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Israel-Palestinians.html?hp](http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Israel-Palestinians.html?hp)) > > As of late April 2004, it is believed that the new leader of Hamas in Gaza is Mahmoud A-Zahar, the second-in-command, Ismail Haniya, and third in authority is Sa’id A-Siyam. [4] ([http://www.israelnn.com/news.php3?id=61435](http://www.israelnn.com/news.php3?id=61435)) > > As of 2004, Israeli military and intelligence sources believed that the Hamas infrastructure in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip has been significantly weakened by targeted assassination and Israeli military operations that came in response to a number of very bloody suicide attacks in 2002 and 2003 (see below). Israeli sources have supported this assertion by noting that no prominent attacks have been carried out or claimed by West Bank based Hamas militants (whereas bombings by Fatah-linked Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades did occur), even though reputedly Hamas leadership had ordered an escalation of attacks, especially after the assassinations of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin and Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi. The West Bank has been placed under a significant level of Israeli military control during Operation Defensive Shield launched in April 2002 severely limiting the mobility and organization of the remaining Hamas members. > > In the Gaza Strip, on the other hand, Hamas was generally seen as a major force, rivaling Yasser Arafat’s Fatah movement. Apparently, its social base in Gaza was very considerable. > > In 2004 in a prelude to the planned Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, Israeli forces carried out a number of incursions in Gaza cities and refugees camps, seeking to draw out into the open and kill Hamas-affiliated gunmen who have often engaged Israeli soldiers in skirmishes. This was done, presumably, to make it harder for a weakened and bloodied Hamas to claim the withdrawal as their own hard-won victory. Awareness of high casualties during such incursions have led the Hamas leadership to call its activists to avoid putting themselves in the line of fire needlessly. > > In September 2004 Israeli army chief Moshe Yaalon said that Israel would “deal with … those who support terrorism,” including those in “terror command posts in Damascus.” On September 26, 2004 a mid-level Hamas official Izz El-Deen Sheikh Khalil was assassinated by a car bomb in Damascus, Syria. Israeli government officials acknowledged responsibilty for the assassination. In a statement released in Gaza, Hamas threatened to target Israelis abroad in retaliation.[5] ([http://olympics.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=6334113](http://olympics.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=6334113)) [6] ([http://www.boston.com/dailynews/270/world/Car\_bomb\_kills\_Hamas\_operative:.shtml](http://www.boston.com/dailynews/270/world/Car_bomb_kills_Hamas_operative:.shtml)) It seems as if, at least at this point in history, Hamas is more sinned against than sinning. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2004, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-for-nations-to-use-car-bombs-to-kill-opponents/266192/32 "2004-09-26T22:35:50Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Also from the Wikipedia – [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas:) > > It seems as if, at least at this point in history, Hamas is more sinned against than sinning. Are you even reading your own cites? The leader of Hamas said that maybe - if he’s in a good mood, and he can’t vouch for anyone else - he’ll accept everything Israel would ever consider offering, in return for waiting a few years before he’ll continue trying to kill them all. That’s like saying “give me everything I ask for and I’ll give you some time to settle your affairs before I kill you. Hey, I’m offering you a bargain!”. Or maybe you believe that because Hamas is losing its fight, they’re obviously in the right. That’s an attitude I can’t help with, but let me reveal something, something that may shock you: sometimes, the underdog is the bad guy. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2004, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-for-nations-to-use-car-bombs-to-kill-opponents/266192/33 "2004-09-26T22:42:44Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > Are you even reading your own cites? The leader of Hamas said that maybe - if he’s in a good mood, and he can’t vouch for anyone else - he’ll accept everything Israel would ever consider offering, in return for waiting a few years before he’ll continue trying to kill them all. That’s like saying “give me everything I ask for and I’ll give you some time to settle your affairs before I kill you. Hey, I’m offering you a bargain!”. > > Or maybe you believe that because Hamas is losing its fight, they’re obviously in the right. That’s an attitude I can’t help with, but let me reveal something, something that may shock you: sometimes, the underdog is the bad guy. No, I don’t believe the underdog is always in the right. On the other hand, I do believe things have progressed to the point where Israel could well afford to meet Hamas’ demands – that is, they could withdraw to the pre-1967 borders, or something near, and Israel would still be safe from attack in the form of conventional warfare. And once that was done, the Palestinians could get on with the business of building themselves a real society, and the impetus for terrorist attacks on Israel would gradually fade, even if some organizations like Hamas still make noises about taking back all of Palestine the way the Kuomintang on Taiwan used to make noises about taking back the mainland. But Sharon won’t consider it. So the bloodletting goes on. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2004, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-for-nations-to-use-car-bombs-to-kill-opponents/266192/34 "2004-09-26T23:08:39Z")
> [@](#): > > that is, they could withdraw to the pre-1967 borders, or something near, and Israel would still be safe from attack in the form of conventional warfare. Because Lord knows, before 1967 Arabs and Israelis lived in peace and harmony. The 1967 borders are not defensible. From the 1967 borders, Israeli cities are open to rocket attack and shelling. It’s not going to happen. As long as the Arab world keeps up their ignorant conspiracies, blood libels, and claims to want to destroy Israel, Israel is never going back to the 1967 borders. Any political leader in Israel who tries to do that will be thrown out of office. The Arabs are the bad guys here. They have repeatedly attacked Israel without provocation. They maintain an open stance of religious and ethnic intolerance. Their governments are totalitarian. They commit grievous crimes against their own people, subjugate women, spread racist lies, and advocate genocide against Israelis (with some exceptions - Jordan is doing its best to shed its past). Israel would be insane to trust its security to the word of Arab governments. This does not mean Israel is squeaky clean. It has operated with a heavy hand in Palestinian regions on many occasions, going further than it needed to and accepting more casualties among Palestinian innocents than it should. But Israel has been pushed into a very difficult position, and in my opinion has acted with far more restraint than most other democracies would have, including the United States and Canada. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2004, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-for-nations-to-use-car-bombs-to-kill-opponents/266192/35 "2004-09-26T23:14:00Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > From the 1967 borders, Israeli cities are open to rocket attack and shelling. Motivated by what? If the Israelis stopped occupying and oppressing the Palestinians, and let them have their own truly independent state with no Israeli military presence, the **main** point of conflict would be solved. There’d still be a lot of grudges held on both sides – but wouldn’t the Palestinians be too preoccupied with nation-building to be concerned with hating Israel? ---
**Author:** ![PaulFitzroy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/2acd7d/32.png) [@PaulFitzroy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PaulFitzroy)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2004, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-for-nations-to-use-car-bombs-to-kill-opponents/266192/36 "2004-09-26T23:18:55Z")
Why was Israel attacked by seven Arab armies while the “Palestinian” areas were all under Arab control? Gaza and the West Bank were not Israeli-occupied before 1967, but that didn’t stop the Arab Muslims from being intent on the destruction of the Jews in the Middle East. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2004, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-for-nations-to-use-car-bombs-to-kill-opponents/266192/37 "2004-09-26T23:22:24Z")
> [@PaulFitzroy](#): > > Why was Israel attacked by seven Arab armies while the “Palestinian” areas were all under Arab control? Gaza and the West Bank were not Israeli-occupied before 1967, but that didn’t stop the Arab Muslims from being intent on the destruction of the Jews in the Middle East. That was then, this is now. In 1967 Israel could make a case that the occupation of the Territories was necessary for defensive purposes. But now most nations and peoples of the region, even if they won’t admit it, do accept Israel’s existence, at least in the sense they’d just like the whole problem to go away. I do not believe granting independence to the Palestinians would expose the Israelis from new attacks by its other Arab neighbors. Quite the contrary, it would reduce the possibility the wars would ever be renewed. ---
**Author:** ![kezami](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/eb8c5e/32.png) [@kezami](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kezami)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2004, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-for-nations-to-use-car-bombs-to-kill-opponents/266192/38 "2004-09-26T23:46:54Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > That was then, this is now. In 1967 Israel could make a case that the occupation of the Territories was necessary for defensive purposes. But now most nations and peoples of the region, even if they won’t admit it, do accept Israel’s existence, at least in the sense they’d just like the whole problem to go away. I do not believe granting independence to the Palestinians would expose the Israelis from new attacks by its other Arab neighbors. Quite the contrary, it would reduce the possibility the wars would ever be renewed. I’ve never heard of Israel referred to as “the whole problem” before, that’s a new one. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2004, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-for-nations-to-use-car-bombs-to-kill-opponents/266192/39 "2004-09-26T23:50:14Z")
> [@kezami](#): > > I’ve never heard of Israel referred to as “the whole problem” before, that’s a new one. :dubious: “The whole problem” is, of course, not Israel but the Arab-Israeli tension. And I’m sure most of the Arabs are just as sick of it as the Israelis are. ---
**Author:** ![kezami](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/eb8c5e/32.png) [@kezami](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kezami)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2004, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-for-nations-to-use-car-bombs-to-kill-opponents/266192/40 "2004-09-26T23:56:17Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > :dubious: “The whole problem” is, of course, not Israel but the Arab-Israeli tension. And I’m sure most of the Arabs are just as sick of it as the Israelis are. Simple then, renounce the use of violence, sit at the table, and talk, as humans should. If not…let the bloodshed continue. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-for-nations-to-use-car-bombs-to-kill-opponents/266192.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-for-nations-to-use-car-bombs-to-kill-opponents/266192.md?page=3)