Beyond the fact that some Israelis never see a uniform from the inside, as pointed out already…
Let’s do a thought experiment.
Johnny is on R&R from the gulf, back in his hometown in the US. He is unarmed and not in uniform.
An Iraqi, who has managed to enter the US, sees him on the street and kills him.
Is this a legitimate act of war if the killer KNOWS that Johnny is a soldier? How about if he doesn’t know and “lucks out”, as it were, having planned to kill just any old American civilian?
I won’t even get started on the question of Johnny being on a bus, surrounded by women and children.
Most people who claim Israeli is standing on a moraly superior ground make a big point of targetting non-civilians.
But what makes this possible for Israel? Could it be their superior military hardware?
As fas as I know Palestenians do not have at their disposal the same tools as the israelis have (combat helicopters, smart bombs, etc).
Is this true? And if so, doesn’t this explain why Palestinians aren’t just targetting military installations? Because they can’t?
IMHO Both of these nations are far from any sort of moral highground. Unfortunatley I think it would take a large occuping force of some neutral 3rd party to come in and force BOTH sides to stop the attacks. Either that, or some powerful people on both sides deciding enough is enough and actually DOING something about the problem rather than talk ad nauseum about peace whilst doing nothing to solve the dilemma.
Talk about a fucked up situation. The Palestinians would have a much better life if the homicide bombers would lay off for a bit. Wasn’t the quality of life better before this latest intifada? They had jobs in Israel, they had some semblance of health care, and people weren’t being blown up by missiles. Don’t get me wrong, I’m in no way saying that was life was great, it was still horrible, but they were a few steps closer to a better life then they are now.
It seems to me that most of the Palestinians are hostages to a few insane radical groups. Speak up though and you get your corpse dragged through the streets, so the cycle continues.
If I was Israel, I would take a big step back. They have to find a way to change the minds of the Palestinians (nigh on impossible I know). They need to pull out and stay out, and absorb a few attacks without retaliating. They also need to convince their own people that some of those settlements have to go. This hopefully would swing some world opinion in their favor. I would turn to the world and say, “look we haven’t retaliated, yet these attacks still come, what the hell else should we do?”.
The terror groups are the monkey wrench in the machine here, preventing everyone from a better life. Killing them will fan the flames, and obviously doesn’t work, yet convincing the Palestinians that they are bad for them is unlikely as well.
I’ll grant that Israeli use of force is disproportionate. As I’ve said before, should Israel blow up busloads of Palestinian civilians to make it fair?
While not all Palestinians are militants certainly, it is incumbent upon the Palestinians to stop the terror bombings. Israel cannot do it alone, obviously. And, equally obviously, there will be no serious peace deal until there is some restraint show by (or Israel kills), the bulk of the militants.
Yes, I know that new militants are being created all the time. Israel makes new fighter and helicopter pilots all the time also. Hence, and before, the “cycle” of violence.
I don’t excuse the Israeli “occupation.” But, it’s highly unlikely that the terrorists really are only interested in the OT. Just listen to them.
er… “busloads of civilians intentionally.” Shooting hellfire missiles and rockets into neighborhoods will pretty much destroy whatever is around.
By the way, as a nitpicky matter of the rules of war, “soldiers” are not supposed to use human shields for cover. That’s SOP for Palestinian terrorists.
I think if the Palestinians had access to the type of hardware Israel has, perhaps the situation wouldn’t be anything like it is today. First off that shit ain’t cheap, and any entity that has the money for such things would most likely have money for other things like infrastructure and social programs. Secondly, those things present big hard targets, as they need logistical support, bases for support personnel, big juicy hangers that can be bombed, etc. Lastly, you don’t use things like in a guerilla war, because you need to be fast and invisible. A $25 million F-16 can launch a $50,000 missile and kill 20 people, but it’s a huge ass blip on the screen compared to a guy in a dress slipping through a fence with a homemade explosive.
What would you rather do, train a 12 year old to evade radar and launch a pinpoint missile strike undetected in an F-16 on Israel, or slap a bomb on his back and point him East?
Isreal would not have terrorist attacks if they to the palestineans what the germans did to them. You know make lamp shades and bars of soap out of them and lets not forget the screaming ovens. Which if they wanted they could do to all of the palestineans.
You do realise that the UK government, with extensive intelligence, military presence, police work, double agents, and more than half the population on their side, not to mention a tremendous desire to stamp out terrorism, summarily failed to do so in Northern Ireland (and in England) over the course of nearly 30 years.
Even if Arafat were willing (which I’m dubious about) and able (which he clearly isn’t), the terrorism would still continue in the absence of political movement. I agree with World Eater - some absorption of terrorist acts in the course of seeking a political settlement is going to have to be countenanced.
(BTW, I’ll say it again, “homicide bomber” is a fucking stupid term. All terrorist bombers are homicide bombers [or “genocide bombers”], if they kill innocent people. What do you call a “homicide bomber” who only blows themselves up…? Stop implying that killing oneself in an act of terror and murder is somehow noble or worthy of sympathy.)
I agree that “homicide bomber” is a stupid, political word designed to avoid any humanization of palestinians.
I also agree that there is no moral difference between suicide bombings by Palestinians and retaliatory attacks on civilians by the Israelis. It’s morally unjustifiable. End of story.
I took pleasure, when in the middle of nowhere in South Island New Zealand, in chucking a couple of Israeli hitchhickers out of my car (not literally - we’ll leave that to the Israeli Secret Service) when I discovered they had just come out of the Army and seemed proud of it. Little fuckers…
Small change maybe, but one must enjoy small pleasures where one finds them.
Meanwhile you simply cannot equate Israeli and Palestinian actions. The Palestinian’s are fighting a freaking military occupation, no different to France versus Germany in WWII or East Timor versus the Indonesians. To my mind any Israeli, military or civilian, who steps foot in the occupied territories is fair game to be taken out. As an occupying power Israel have no rights to complain about what comes to them.
Meanwhile they continue to abuse the Geneva Convention on a daily basis as a matter of policy. For a nation state, as opposed to a resistance movement against military occupation, that is puts them simply beyond the pale.
It just seems to me that both sides are being pigheaded buttheads. For Sharon to get a pro-Sharon GWB to ask him to show some restraint shows how out of hand it is. On the other hand, Yassar is a master of playing both sides, and I don’t see how anything will ever get done with him there. If Sharon and Arafat both had heart attacks in their sleep tonight, I think the chances of peace would improve dramatically, for both seem to have a personal crusade they are fighting, and neither are the type to back down. Neither seems truly interested in peace.
It’s a weird situation. Sharon doesn’t have the political power to pull back the occupation and the settlers. He doesn’t have that power due to continued attacks. The attacks continue because the occupation isn’t gone and the settlers are still there. Sharon has to do something, so he attacks the attackers, which further incites the palestinians, which causes more attacks. The Palestinian “Street” supports the attackers. The Isreali street supports no concessions. Which makes it so Sharon doesn’t have the political power to pull back the occupation and the settlers. He doesn’t have that power due to continued attacks. The attacks continue because the occupation isn’t gone and the settlers are still there…cut and paste and repeat as needed.
The good news is Arafat is getting old. I think some major upheavels in the Palestinian political spectrum will occur when he passes, and hopefully some of the bad elements will get shaken out, or at least be put under one roof. At that point, Isreal will have a painful decision to make: Suffer some casualties in the name of long term peace, and then hopefully some period of detente, or keep in place a pre-emptive mind set which attacks the attackers, often at the price of civilian casualties. Which, IMHO, continues the conflict ad naseum.
“The good news is Arafat is getting old. I think some major upheavels in the Palestinian political spectrum will occur when he passes, and hopefully some of the bad elements will get shaken out, or at least be put under one roof. At that point, Isreal will have a painful decision to make: Suffer some casualties in the name of long term peace, and then hopefully some period of detente, or keep in place a pre-emptive mind set which attacks the attackers, often at the price of civilian casualties. Which, IMHO, continues the conflict ad naseum.” -NurseCarmen
Which brings to mind two questions:
Who is his most likely successor (and how is he viewed by Israel and Washington)?
What part will the wall play in lessening the attacks (and thus breaking the cycle)?
You do realize, of course, that they probably never laid eyes on a Palestinian during their tour of duty? Would you do the same to a recently decommissioned GI (who was proud of his service and had never left US soil)?
You mean like the women and children the terrorist at Maxim’s looked in the eye before exploding amongst them?
“bouncer, when you are in a refugee camp, what are the options for living elsewhere?” -TwistOfFate
Do your feet work? Then you have an option of moving a few tents farther away. Lots of other people manage to live away from them so it’s clearly possible to do so. My point really is though, that in at least some of the cases your talking about people who are not truly bystanders, but rather sympathizers. If you chose to be around the PLO or Hamas or Hezolla then you CHOOSE to accept the risk that association with them creates.
You don’t get to hang out with the thugs and not take the risk of being caught in the crossfire. Just doesn’t work that way. ESPECIALLY when dealing with Israel, which has faught two wars for it’s survival and still recieves rocket fire on a daily or weekly basis. And it’s not like the people who live there don’t know this.