My knowledge on the whole situation is a little sketchy so I was wondering if someone could answer a theoretical question (or two) for me.
Say, for example, the Israelis made the moral stand, pulled right out of the Palestinian territories and said they were willing to talk about the very prompt creation of a Palestinian state, would the suicide bombings then stop? Is that all the Palestinians want? Is the suicide bombings stopping all the Israelis want?
Is it as simple as one side making the moral stand? If so, why doesn’t one side do it? Is it because Arafat doesn’t have the influence to stop the bombings? Is it because Sharon would be committing political suicide if he were to back out first?
Sorry if I’m getting of topic, I’m just trying to understand the situation better.
As for the OP, the idea of suicide bombers killing innocents does disgust me a lot more than an army attacking militants. Why do the Palestinians feel this is the way to go? I can see why they feel they need to attack something, but why don’t they restrict their attacks to Israeli military targets? Is it to get more of an audience, the world’s attention as it were? Is it because they are unable to successfully attack the well-guarded military targets? Again, I’m just trying to understand because it seems to me they would get a whole lot more sympathy for their cause throughout the world if they weren’t rejoicing in killing innocents. I realise the Israelis are killing innocents too, but they at least CLAIM to be attacking militants only and say any innocent Palestinian deaths were accidental.
You mean oppressors like this? This person was killed by the murderer at the bus stop this week. Just look at the evil in her eyes! Death to the oppressor pig Jew!
We won’t even get into that oppressive bus full of high-school students.
Then call me deluded. I might raise a civilian militia. I might even march on military outposts. But I would never stoop to butchering children or noncombatants. I know civvies die in wars. We can try to avoid it. But the Palestinians are pathetic. They’d have a very nice country if they put all theat effort into building which now goes into destroying.
I can’t believe what I’m hearing… err… reading! I can tell you, without a shadow of doubt in my mind, that if my country was “under attack” I would NEVER resort to killing women and children. And anyone who can justify has a serious screw loose IMHO.:mad:
Israel has done this. They have restained themselves in the past. cite I just do not see this as a cycle at all. If the palastinians were not killing innocents, the Israeli’s would not be retaliating. Simple as that. Let’s not forget the numerous times Arafat has rejected peace agreements. cite He talks out of both sides of his mouth. To the US “We want peace.” cite Then out of the other side of his mouth “I will die a martyr’s death!” cite
I really do sympathize with the palastinian people wanting their own land, but the means they are using do not justify the cause!!!
Thanks for the links, ummm… yeahh…, but in the articles you supplied it was just talking about Israeli restraint in retaliating to specific bombings, not that the Israelis had tried pulling out of the occupied territories. The first article actually mentions the “Occupied Palestinian territories”.
Not that the restraint is to be sniffed at, of course. It was still very commendable. If anything, the first article suggests to me things were better when the Israelis were showing the restraint, with less violence on both sides. It’s a shame both sides didn’t make that final effort for peace when they had that chance! The Palestinians could have made the push to meet the Israeli gesture halfway, and the Israelis could have gone that bit further in the interests of peace and pulled out of the Palestinian territories completely. I still wonder if the only reason Arafat doesn’t offer more concessions to the Israelis is because he doesn’t have the power over his people to make the promises.
Hasn’t the United States specifically targeted civilians (including women and children) in previous conflicts? Such as in the fire bombings of Tokyo, and the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? I’m not claiming that these acts are analogous to terrorism or suicide bombers, I’m just wondering why it’s acceptable at some times for the US to do it, but when someone else does it, it’s unacceptable and immoral. Can someone explain the difference?
The OP asked for the suicide bombers’ excuse for their actions. I would think they might say that they don’t have a standing army and cannot mount a realistic defense against Israel’s “legitimate” military forces. As such, they might feel that their options are either to do nothing and be subject to the will of Israel or do something else, i.e. terrorist attacks.
This might be their excuse. Is it a good excuse? Not in my opinion. But I can an at least grasp how someone in that circumstance might end up making such a poor decision. The whole thing is very sad.
Agreed. I really think that Israel would do much more for it’s cause by not retaliating. The international community would have no choice but to step in and say “this needs to stop”. But when a mother and her 3 kids are blown away, it’s tough to expect that. I think the same applies to Palestine. If they would stop there homicide bombings and start talking, things would go so much further. Let’s face it, if peace is what both sides really wanted, it could be achieved. But at least one of these sides truly does not want peace, at least not without eliminating the other.
I am convinced that Arafat has lost all control. cite
This would work if the bombings were targeting military instillations, but they’re not. They’re targeting schools, restaurants and malls. Places where civilians are.
The bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were tragic. I wish it never happened. I’m not going to try to defend it, though I think I could, for the sake of not hijacking the original topic.
Yes, but as they must know that suicide bombings targeted at military installations would be totally ineffective compared to the emotional/political effects that result from terrorist attacks, they opt for terror.
It would possibly be more defensible from a moral perspective if they tried to take out Israeli troops and troops only, but it would hardly have the same impact.
I think the suicide bombers feel they can have more of a political impact by killing 20 civilians at a bus stop than hundreds of soldiers on a battlefield, which they couldn’t do anyway.
I agree. And they are right. Attacks on civilians are more effective politically. Still doesn’t justify it. (I know you weren’t trying to defend it, just making a good point.)
Still no excuse to bomb innocent civilians. I don’t see people in urban slums in the U.S. doing this, do you?
In any event, they could have had something, had their leadership taken some of the money they were given by the international community and invested it in some national infrastructure, instead of pocketing the money for themselves.
**
Largely their own fault and the fault of their Arab neighbors. They could have had a state in 1948 if they accpeted the partition plan. They could have had a state at any point between 1948-67 if Jordan and Egypt cared a whit about the Palestinians and withdrew from the areas they occupied. They could have had a state as recently as two years ago, if they’d just agree to let Israel live in peace and turn off the bombers…
**
Again, largely due to the actions of their more radical cohorts. If it weren’t for the bombers, Palestinians would be able to move freely throughout the West Bank and Gaza without problem.
**
As retaliation for the bombings.
**
Still no excuse.
**
“Wicked and oppressive beyond belief?” Are you kidding? So, what’s your suggestion? Simply let the bombers have their way with no response from the Israelis?
I don’t think any Israeli leader would have simply sat back and allowed the bombings to continue. Any responsible Israeli Prime Minister would have taken retaliatory actions.
Unfortunately, if taking over the entire region is necessary to stop the bombers, then so be it. It shouldn’t have to come to that (and if it does, it will be sad indeed), but Israel must do what it must do to keep it’s citizens safe. That is the fundamental responsibility of any government.
It is In-SANE to think that the Israelis are not justified in rolling on the Palestinians with their tanks. How many suicide bombs must Israel endure before they are “allowed” to defend themselves? Assuming that the suicide bombers have a moral justification that places them above a Timothy McVeigh, the Colombine shooters, the Unibomber or any number of other psychos who feel justifies because of some reason or another. If their strategy is to force Israel into reprisals that are so severe that the international community steps , it aint workin’. No one cares.
If I was Israel, I wouldn’t let them have their own state either. So the Palestinians as a soverign state would then have the legitimacy to import from their Arab neighbors tanks guns and other heavy weapons to fight a conventional war against Israel? Or once they achieve their own state do you believe that there will be peace.
The Palestinians need to demonstrate that they can live in peace BEFORE they earn the right of national soverignty.
I don’t see Apache helicopters firing missiles into the Cabrini-Green housing project in Chicago, either. Nor do I see Caterpillar bulldozers knocking down still-occupied houses in Southeast DC, burying people inside while the rest of their family watches. Lord knows the thought of attempting a suicide bombing would certainly have crossed my mind were I to witness such things happening to my relatives.
During the American Civil War, many Democrats in the North were supportive of preserving the Union - i.e. putting down the Confederate insurrection - while leaving the issue of slavery alone. Radical Republicans, and eventually men like Lincoln, came to understand that such a solution would be forcing the southern Blacks to swallow a great injustice. I doubt there is a Doper among us in this debate that could seriously disagree with that.
The foundation of the state of Israel is a grave injustice to the Palestinians, as it is based on the expulsion of thousands of Palestinians from their native villages, the further encroachment of Israeli settlements on nominally Palestinian territory, and the complete degradation - punctuated by outright slaughter - of the refugees at the hands of Israel for decades, starting long before the Palestinian organizations turned to terror. For them, accepting the partitions Israel proposes is accepting the injustice that has been done to them - it would be akin to the slaves saying “We agree to remain enslaved in order for the Union to continue as one indissoluble whole” - and I completely support their right to fight back, even though I seriously disagree with the terror tactic of suicide bombing. But seeing as how Israel has them outgunned, outmanned, and completely surrounded, I am not surprised they have turned to such tactics in their struggle.
I will give a very short answer here on the Nagasaki/Hiroshima issue vs. Palestine + Israel. Other than that, lets take it to yet another Nuke thread.
It was a decision based upon cold calculation and desperation. We could have invaded. However, we could by no means establish this would be a better way, in any possible sense, for either us or the Japanese.
It was a military assault between two opposing armies. Civilians were hurt, but not deliberatly targeted simply to kill civilians.
The Japanese had shown their willingness to brutalize any civilian population they could. They attempted to firebomb the US from an ocean away (one of the most pointless attacks in history, but they still tried). This does have a meaning and importance: by their own propaganda and actions, they saw no difference between the military and civilian populace. The characterizations here are telling. Neither Palestine nor WWII Japan seemed to see any value in an individual’s life, except in how he/she spent that life for the people or the government.
But which preceeded which? The reason you don’t see Apache helicopeters firing into the Cabrini-Green housing project in Chicago is because the residents of the Cabrini-Green housing project are not sending out suicide bombers to the rest of the state. If they were, you’d better believe the civil authorities would be taking any and all necessary steps to put a stop to it.
**
I disagree. Lincoln himself is on record as saying that if he could preserve the union without freeing the slaves he would have done so. As it was, freeing the slaves was a necessary step to putting the union back together again.
That doesn’t mean, of course, that slavery wasn’t a great injustice, but that’s a different argument for another time
Whether what you say is true or not is really beside the point. Israel is here and it is not going to lay down and die. As such, the Palestinians can end the violence and accept the state they have been offered time and time again, or they can keep bashing their heads against a wall that will not yield. The choice is theirs and has been for a long, long time. The longer they choose to fight, the longer they will continue to live in poverty and suffer the consequences of that fight. The sooner they agree to peace, the sooner they can start to rebuild their country and live their lives in peace. The choice is now, as it has been for a good deal of the last 55 years, in their hands.
Palestine is not “under attack”. Palestinians were driven from their homes through a systematic campaign of violence and terror, forced into refugee camps (where the living conditions are truly horrid, and before anyone says, “well, why don’t they make them better”–they don’t have the means to do that!), and have to live daily with checkpoints, the ability of the Israelis to throw any Palestinian into prison for up to six months without even fucking charging them with a crime, and with the world’s most powerful nation supporting their oppressors. By now, two generations have been born and have grown up under these conditions. And you wonder at their rage? At their willingness to commit any act against their oppressors, no matter how desperate?
The Palestinians are the Cheyenne at Sand Creek, and Israel is Colonel Schimmerhorn, or, to put it another way, they are the Navajo at Bosque Redondo–except that they’ve been at Bosque Redondo for over fifty years.
They can’t raise a militia, because that’s seen as “harboring militants” and their homes and those of their neighbors are bulldozed. :rolleyes: They can’t raise an army. They cannot get the compassion of the US, because the US and its citizens–as evidenced on this board–refuse to listen.
I simply cannot believe that some of you are comparing Palestinians with the US urban poor! Our slums at least have clean running water. Our slums at least have regular electricity service. More importantly, the residents of those slums have guaranteed rights, which the Palestinians do not. Unlawful search and seizure? <snort> Habeas corpus? <snort> The right to a fair and speedy trial? <snort>
The claim that the ‘state’ offered two years ago was fair and just has been refuted–with cites–so many times on this board that I’m not even going to bother with it.
So what good is sympathy? Sympathy won’t remove the Israeli settlements and it’s impossible for the Palestinians to have freedom with them there.
pldennison:
How many equally cute Palestinian children are being deprived of their liberty? Are they terrorists?
“Give me liberty or give me death”. Does this sentiment only apply to Americans? The Palestinians are saying “alright then, death it is”.
Zev:
And this includes making another country’s citizens unsafe and unfree? Your right to swing your fist stops at my face.
Unfortunately, if sending 100 suicide bombers a day is necessary to remove the settlements, then so be it. Which side’s strategy will work? It doesn’t really matter. There’s only one more Star Wars movie left, but this series is never gonna end.
UNRWA, which helps to administer the Palestinian refugee camps, had a 2001 cash budget of $310 million. About two-thirds of that was budgeted and spent in the Gaza Strip and West Bank areas.
Right. Which is why both the Secretary of State and the head of the CIA have both met with Yasser Arafat in the last three months. Notably, both meetings were accompanied by horrific suicide bombings. Bush’s announcement of support for a provisional Palestinian state was met by a suicide bombing.
The United States is the single largest contributor to UNRWA, contributing more than $89 million in cash and in-kind funding in 2001, more than double the next largest contributor (the EU). You know how much the Palestinians’ Arab and Muslim brethren contribute?
Egypt: $10,000
Bahrain: $45,000 ($30,000 of which came from the U.S.)
Jordan: $86,462
Kuwait: well, they at least ponied up, $2 million
Lebanon: $8,753
Saudi Arabia: $2,050,000
Syria: $37,209
Turkey: $200,000
UAE: $500,000
So between them, they came up with about a tenth of what the US contributed for caring for Palestinian refugees. Funny, that. Of course, many of those Arab and Muslim countries skip UNRWA and give funding directly to the PA or to other groups like Al-Aqsa. Perhaps if those groups spent more of the money on improving people’s lives instead of blowing up Jews . . .
So don’t tell me the Palestinians do not have the ear of the US. But you can only blow up so many teenagers and five-year-old girls and grandmothers and old men playing chess before people pull a Darth Sidious on your ass.
While the recent spate of Israeli armed attacks on Palestinian villages are in response to the suicide bombings, the bombings themselves are a response by a dispossessed and almost completely repressed people to their dispossession and repression by an occupying force. The destruction of villages and expulsion of Palestinians started long before this, and now that Israel has a bona fide war criminal at the helm, things have gotten that much worse for the Palestinians. So they respond to these desperate times with desperate measures.
Right, never let truth get in the way of your stated position. :rolleyes:
