So, you have named 3 cases of Jewish extremism that could be equated to terrorism. Big deal. The Palestinians have done more than that in the last week and probably killed more people than the attacks you mentioned. And I’m sure you don’t mind providing some back up to your claim of extrajudicial killings, do you?
Why don’t the Palestinians fighters stop hiding among non-combatants? Trying to take out an armed enemy in a public place is a bit different than running into a hotel lobby with 20 pound of C-4 wrapped around you.
I have compassion and pity for the Palestinians who just want a place to live and raise their families and are being used as pawns by a leader who continually puts them in harms way.
Why did this recent series of violence start? Because Sharon visited a holy site in Jerusalem. Is that a good reason to send out suicide bombers? Jewish access to holy sites was greatly limited when Jerusalem was under Arab control. Under Israeli control, the holy sites have been freely accessible to all.
Sharon’s visit was considered both an insult and a challenge to the Palestinians. This is not terribly difficult to understand, but I keep hearing people asking why it is such a big deal.
If you’re American, think of an angry American mob. Some leading anti-American bozo suddenly appears out of nowhere and starts burning the American flag while saying un-American things. I hardly think the American mob will be very happy with such developments. That is probably similar to the affront the Palestinians received, although of course you have to factor in being born and living as a refugee while always hoping that one day “your land” will be yours again, etc.
Like many of his other actions, Sharon’s famous visit was a clear provocation.
Sharon didn’t burn a a Palestinian flag. He didn’t say anti-Palestinian things. All he did was to visit a Jewish holy site. BTW that visit was permitted under the agreements in effect.
A better analogy would be, say, if Martin Luther King had visited a church in a white area in Mississippi in 1960. This might have been a provocative act. However, if the locals responded by bombing Black women and children, Abe wouldn’t be out justifiying the murders.
Abe is implicitly holding Palestinians to a lower moral standard than Americans. This indicates prejudice.
I agree that both sides are guilty of perpetuating violence, very much like the never-ending cycle of gang warfare that just keeps on getting bloodier and bloodier. What I don’t understand is why it isn’t getting into Israel’s head that their “defense” strategy is hopelessly failing. When has “rolling tanks into refugee camps” done anything except fuel the fires of revenge and resentment from the side being turned into mulch and subsequently sowing the seeds for future radical suicide bombers? Unlike Israel, it’s relatively understandable why the radical Palestinians repeat their insane tactics; if they perceive that they have nothing to lose then it doesn’t matter to them what the outcome of their actions will be. They just want to do anything that will hurt Israel, regardless of the payout for them, it seems.
I don’t know what will work to hasten peace in the region; but you would’ve thought that by now someone would have figured out that the current strategies (on both sides) are NOT working. The hallmark of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again with the hope of a different outcome.
I didn’t say Sharon burned a flag, I said that his visit to the temple was a calculated insult. You are well aware of the tensions involved, so was Sharon, but he went anyway in spite of being advised against it when he knew it would be considered a provocation. Frankly that is not really my idea of an insult, and people can burn American or other flags all they like and visit any temple they want as far as I am concerned, but to the Palestinians it was a provocation and affront. If this is still too difficult to understand, consider that showing the soles of your feet in Thailand is considered extremely rude, so if you are aware of this fact and still show your feet to a bunch of Thais the simple conclusion is that you intend to insult them. It doesn’t have to be insulting to you to be an insult. Talk about prejudice.
December, over the years I have become quite fond of the moronic ramblings and cretinous claims you scatter behind you on these boards, but you have to draw the line somewhere. My analogy was admittedly dumbed-down, but that is because some people have trouble understanding even dumbed-down arguments (or they are reluctant to try because they already hold fixed and rather moronic positions, December).
I can imagine better analogies for Sharon than Martin luther King. My example was intended to communicate that an affront was issued and received. I therefore drew on the example of flag-burning or America-bashing as comparable insults, although I do not think that comes close to the outrage that Sharon’s visit resulted in (try America-bashing, flag-burning, protesting, calling for a monarchy, and singing the praises of Osama Bin Laden on Independence Day to an audience of US patriots and you may have a more accurate parallel of the offense that Palestinians took–remembering that people in the US have it good compared to Palestinians, factors that of course heighten tensions and responses).
No, it indicates an understanding of the situation that you may be lacking, which is the recognition that social mass dynamics are often predictable to some degree. Sharon knew his visit to the Temple would be poorly received, yet he went on with it anyway. He deliberately spurred the Palestinians on at a sensitive time.
And who is stating that there is any justification for suicide bombings, Marc? My position, for one, has always been quite the opposite. Please take your brain out of one-liner gear and try to look at the bigger picture.
Abe, I appreciate your views but please don’t get my nice little thread closed down by calling someone moronic or cretinous. december, please resist any temptation to retaliate in kind. This is GD, the BBQ Pit is ovah theah. Thanks, dudes.
Sam Stone had some good suggestions in his second post but I disagree with him on the right of return.
Did any body watch Bill Maher’s “Politically Incorrect” on Tuesday night? There was a very articulate pro-Palestinian spokesperson who did a fine job of standing up to Bill. She also told off a conservative congressman, and won some audience sympathy. I think we should find out who she is, and invite her on these boards.
adam yax, glad you asked. In the current intifada alone, settlers have murdered children and entire families. The IDF planted a land mine that killed children. Israeli Arabs have been killed by vigilantes as well as by riot police. And that’s without even mentioning Mohammed al-Durrah. (Please don’t tell me how the IDF conveniently rebuilt a wall to exonerate itself for that one.)
Are you really unaware of all these incidents? They’ve been in the news.
Every single time the IDF shoots unarmed demonstrators or rock-throwers, that also qualifies as extrajudicial killing. For that matter, all “targeted killings” count as extrajudicial killings. The IDF has used car bombs, which are the moral equivalent of suicide bombings because of the potential for hurting bystanders.
The trouble with a lot of the killings by soldiers and settlers is that they are often blamed on “heat of battle,” or “collateral damage”, and so don’t get widely reported. OK, here’s a more famous example: the post-Oslo killing of a young settler girl who was on a hike in Palestinian territory. It turned out she had been shot by one of her own bodyguards, who also murdered a couple of Palestinian rock-throwers in the same incident. You must remember that incident.
So yes, there have been a lot more than three incidents. They’re just under-reported.
I’m not saying that Palestinians haven’t done the same things to Jews, but Israelis are far from innocent.
The OP talked about Israeli refuseniks. How about we stop all the hijacking and get back to that?
Abe**, you have portrayeds the Palestinians as being remarkbly thin-skinned. You say that for an Israeli leader to legally go to one of his religious sites affects them the way the burning of an American flag would affect me or the way some long-established taboo would affect a Thai.
I disagree. I think some Palestinian leaders were looking for an excuse to start trouble. Do you have a cite showing this sort Palestinian hyper-sensitivity in other contexts?
I know all Muslims are not the same. Still, I didn’t see a Palistinian uprising when the Taliban were methodically destroying ancient religious sites in Afghanistan. I don’t hear any complaints from the Palestinian people that a group of their gunmen shot their way into the Church of the Nativity and are holed up there. So, if their alleged hyper-sensitivity seems to be a one-way street.
december, why on earth would ‘other contexts’ be relevant? What we’re talking about is this one act.
As for thin-skinned (straw man?): Sharon is anathema to the Palestinian people. He’s been named by an Israeli state enquiry as being indirectly responsibile for the massacre of 800 - 2,000 Palestinians by Christian militias. He chose to enter a Muslim holy site in an occupied city, alerted the world’s media, and brought the TV cameras with him.
While generally we allow posters to say what they like about a poster’s argument, sometimes it edges near direct personal attacks. I have to draw the line somewhere, and I’m drawing it here. Cool it.
You had a well-written post, you with the face, much of which I disagree with. Let’s take it point by point:
I don’t buy the “cycle of violence” theory. The various terroroist groups spent years preparing for the current intifada. They had to secure guns, bombs, bomb belts, etc. They had to promote hatred, so that people would be happy to become suicide bombers. All this preparation and planning for terrorism took place during a period of peace, when Israel wasn’t attacking Palestine in any way. Instead, negotiations were ongoing, based on the Oslo Accords.
That’s good rhetoric, but actual experience indicates that the opposite is true. Before Israel’s counter-attack, there was a suicide bombing almost daily. Since the attacks began, the suicide bombings have stopped.
I reject this sort of anti-Palestinian bigotry. Palestinians are human beings who desire a good life for themselves and their families just as much as you and I do.
One key factor is that Arafat is effectively a dictator. He is acting in HIS best interests, which are not the best interests of his people. In particular, he turned down a terrific offer 18 months ago that would have led directly to a Palestinian State. I bet if that offer had been described to the Palestinian people and they could have voted, they would have happily accepted. However, the offer didn’t serve Arafat personally, so he rejected the offer, and began the intifada.
If one looks at the Palestinians and Israelis as a single system, then there are many better solutions. Trouble is, they’re not a single system.
Or, more likely, you just don’t understand the situation.
Given the realities, I believe the refusedniks also don’t understand the situation or are indulging in wishful thinking about what the situation is. (There, we’re back on the OP, tc)
Israel is a democracy, with a free press. “Refuseniks” are entitled to their point of view, and are entitled to discuss their views with the press, to have their views known and circulated.
Now, I have to ask the question: where are the Palestinian equivalent of “refuseniks”? Where are the Palestinians who think that peaceful solutions are better than war and terrorism? We never hear from them or about them – not because they don’t exist, but because the Palestinian Authority does not tolerate dissent and does not permit a free press. When the Palestinian doves speak out, they are bruttally murdered – usually beaten to death and their bodies strung up in the town square – by their Palestinian brethern for being “collaborators with Israel.” (There were another seven or eight such reported this week.)
I don’t see how this changes the fact that Israel is caught up in a cycle of violence. The tactics of each side is different as are their primary motivations, but the end result is the same. I fling stones in your direction, you throw back grenades. So then I put car bombs in your streets, and you retailate with some “defense targetting”. So then I strap on some explosives and blow myself up along with some Israelies, and so then you roll some tanks into my neighborhood and start shooting civilians. This is the cycle that I speak of. We can point fingers and yell “but they started it!”, but it doesn’t change the fact that the cycle is what it is.
Well, that’s not surprising. The question is, what’s going to happen after Israel stops counter-attacking? Perhaps the suicide bombing will stop, but it’ll be rather ironic if that happens only because the radicals turn up the fire even more and start using bioweaponery next. Or something even worse.
I think you’re reading waaaay too much into my post if you get the feeling I’m being anti-Palestinian. Did you notice I qualified Palestinians with radical? This means that I don’t perceive all Palestinians as having this “nothing to lose” outlook on life, only the suicide-bomber types. IMO, a person does have to have at least somewhat of this attitude if they are willingly turning themself into a walking bomb.
I understand that fighting terrorism with terrorism makes as much as sense as fighting fire with gasoline. And I think that’s enough understanding for me.
While in other places I have stated I cannot put it against Israel to take military action in the West Bank, I can also safely say that I understand the reservists’ position. I wouldn’t want to do that job either, especially the way the IDF tends to do it.
I think december’s point that the prep for the infitada was going on during the Oslo accords is right; however, it must be balanced by the fact that the IDF wasn’t exactly passing out garlands of daisies at the same time. Arming during peacetime is something America has done as well.
tclouie, here’s the incident to which C K Dexter Haven was referring. There is not enough information to confirm or deny his implication that they were refuseniks rather than simply accused of collaboration. Whichever is true, it is a brutal way to dispense ‘justice’.
He’s said that there are none because the Palestinians don’t have a draft. Oh, come off it. Quoting me out of context and then twisting what was saying is low… (typical, perhaps, but low.)
What I said was:
That is, I was very clearly drawing the comparison to “equivalent” opinion on the Palestinian side – not an exact comparison, since that’s impossible, but a comparable opinion. That is, to those who support peaceful solutions rather than violence.
I’d like a real answer to my question, rather than an adroit evasion. (It wasn’t even an adroit evasion, but I’ll be kind.)
Israel has a peace movement. Israel has political parties that call for peaceful solutions, not for military solutions. Israel is a democracy with multiple voices and multiple opinions.
WHERE IS THE PEACE MOVEMENT AMONG THE PALESTINIANS? Where are the Arabs who condemn the terrorist acts of the Palestinians? Where are the voices of dissent?
Do you think that the Arabs all speak with one mind, and that there is no disagreement? That would be ludicrous to believe of any people, and certainly of the Arabs as a group. No, the answer is that dissent is not allowed. That a “peace movement” is not allowed. That the Palestinian Authority continues to support and encourage the terrorism.
