Heh, almost as credible as me calling some senior dopers a dumbfuck (which is why I try to no longer do it). Except for you. Try this one on for size to see what anti-terrorists are up against. Hang onto your knickers, Brits.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/londonnews/articles/10329634?version=1
Peaceful religion my fucking ass.
As others have already pointed out, albeit tacitly, the choice to put terrorism in quotes is either a deliberate or an accident act of obfuscation. There are quantifiable and objective differences in motive and execution between terrorism and military actions.
An easy litmus test is to ask if the action targets civilians. Not if civilians are caught in the crossfire, but if civilians were the direct and pre-meditated target.
Hamas tries to kill civilians without attacking military targets
Israel tries to kill military targets without undue civilian loss
And it is worth pointing out, the terrorists make their bases in residential areas because they know they can’t be attacked without international outcry(and civilian casualties).
I would also point out that if the actions of the IDF really were aimed at creating terror, they could start carpet bombing the Palestinian territories. Heck, they could just level entire housing developments, why worry about lone apartment buildings?
On this point, yes, settlements are bad, occupying PA territory is bad; but at least on the latter front there is very little than can be done during Intefada , and as to the former, only when there is peace is there any real chance of Israel’s liberal community stopping the religious-right-wing drive towards settlements.
The point is, and the truly disturbing trend is:
If Israel used the exact same tactics that Palestine uses, they would be thrashed by public opinion in general and most likely the UN in specific.
Some of you might find Amnesty International’s “Open Letter to President George W. Bush” of interest. It is dated April 29 and is in reference to his recent comments of support for Israel.
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engmde150482004
This quote from the letter serves as a reminder that Israel is not without blame:
Originally posted by Zoe
mark the word; bystanders - as opposed to: deliberately, randomly picked, innocent civilians.
To paraphrase a quote I believe was attributed to Golda Maier.
“There will only be peace, when the Palestinians learn to love their children, more than they hate the Israelis”
I know Maier was right wing, but this is kind of a universally true statement.
It is conversely true of the Israelis.
Both sides have gone off the deep end, and I don’t see a good solution, other than either a full occupation or a completely hands off approach.
I agree with most of what you wrote. But this is not a time for false symmetry statements like “both sides have gone off the deep end.”
Only one side has gone off the deep end shooting children at point blank range.
Funny… I don’t see Israelis dressing their infants up as cuddly killers
Not only did the Israelis not go off the deep end, they offered Arafat more than 90% of what was being asked for, in negotiating terms, that’s a sweet fucking deal.
The response was a deliberate, methodical and organized campaign to kill Israeli civilians. After that Israel joined the war, the so called ‘Intefada’
I would also point out that ‘full occupation’ is impossible due to global pressure and the ‘hands off’ approach is being called a land grab since the wall would include some current settlements.
I think all in all that Israel has performed rather well. Have Arafat eliminate the threat of terrorism and perhaps there can be a real ‘roadmap’ that doesn’t involve any passengers in the roadtripping-middleeast-bus-o-love being blown to pieces.
-Warning- Please don’t go to the link below if you can’t handle seeing a child casualty. I can’t be selective with the images as the main page isn’t working.
The main page is down, but google shows Palestinian children being used in some (I say that because I don’t have an actual number) fights and marches.
Yeah but…
As ** Zoe’s ** link pointed out, Israel is not innocent of wrongdoing either.
Quote:
Extrajudicial executions are among the practices to which the Israeli army and security services have resorted for several years, without offering proof of guilt or right of defence. In addition to causing the death or injury of the targeted person, such attacks have resulted in the unlawful killing of scores and injury of hundreds of bystanders, including children.
So perhaps, akohl, Israel was responding to Palestinian actions, but killing kids, is killing kids. Both sides are guilty, just to different degrees.
Ouoth FinnAgain
Finn, take a look atTHISand tell me if that’s still true.
Look, Israel and Palestine are both bloody of hand in this row, granted, the Palestinians have take the matter to the Civilan poulation, which makes their actions that much more cowardly, however, not as justification, but as reason, most members of Israeli society, especially males, are now, or will be members of the IDF.
By that standard, the level of innocence is changed a bit. Granted, not for pregnant women or babies, but still changed.
I know those comments will outrage some, but no more so than THESE Israeli soldiers, who are, in increasingly greater numbers, speaking out against what Israel is doing in Palestine.
Further, Israel’s role is compounded by statements like…
“If we thought that instead of 200 Palestinian fatalities, 2,000 dead would put an end to the fighting at a stroke, we would use much more force…” Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, quoted in Associated Press, November 16, 2000.
and…
David Ben Gurion (the first Israeli Prime Minister): " If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?" Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp. 121-122.
and…
Martin Buber, Jewish Philosopher, addressed Prime Minister Ben Gurion on the moral character of the state of Israel with reference to the Arab refugees in March 1949: “We will have to face the reality that Israel is neither innocent, nor redemptive. And that in its creation, and expansion; we as Jews, have caused what we historically have suffered; a refugee population in Diaspora.”
So what I am saying, when I say both sides are “off the deep end” is that the societal conflict is now, and will continue to be the fertile soil in which the hatred is allowed to grow. The yield from that field will continue to be desperate actions by individuals and terror groups in Palestine and the continued show of military might by the Israelis, all the while, day-to-day people die, for little more than ideology and land.
I certainly won’t debate that. However, I see little other than the settlements as wrong, and I am honestly willing to grant you that the IDF reaction is wrong if, and only if, you can suggest a viable alternative.
Again, I’m more than willing to grant that Israel’s action was wrong, if you can show me another viable course of action. Otherwise collateral damage when going after military targets honestly seems like a fair price to pay. If anything, the terrorists have a greater burden for Palestinian casualties than Israelis: they choose to place their HQ’s in the middle of populated areas.
I did take a look and am honestly surprised, to a certain degree. However. Even if the initial Israeli offering was 100 percent horseshit, isn’t the civilized response to return to the negotiating table and not instigate a war-against-civilians?
As my mama told me, it takes two to tango. Yep, both sides have taken actions which they should not have. But you can’t just brush off the Palestinian campaign against civilians as ‘more cowardly.’ By targeting civilians specifically they turned their war into a war crime.
Furthermore, IIRC, all men and women over age 18 must serve in the IDF, this is, however, not due to any Zionist warmongering, but due to the fact that after five decades of being attacked by all their Arab neighbors, they still need to be protected, always.
I don’t see the change. Israeli children have to be drafted to fight because time after time Israel has been attacked and genocide was attempted. This is, opposed to the claims of ‘genocide’ against the Palestinians a real and orchestrated attempt. On May 15, 1948, Azzam Pasha, Secretary General of the Arab League, said in Cairo: “This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.” (See Maps 1 & 2)
So no, Israelis are not innocent per se, but I think a case can be made for them having the right to self-defense.
I don’t really see a problem with that as that’s how democracy functions.
Again, this just seems like pragmatics to me. You have an enemy which targets your civilians and is not open to negotiation?
Kill as many as needed to stop their attacks.
This I don’t see as a problem either… to begin with the land has been ‘stolen’ time and time again… or should the Hitites now claim a right-of-return?
The fact of the matter is that many Arab nations have never gotten over Israel’s mere existence. That they use this to fuel their hatred and war doesn’t mean that reflects Israel is guilty of anything. To elaborate, this is similar to the old filth that
“The Jews must deserve it, look at how many people don’t like them!”
Just because almost none of the Arab nations, in Ben Gurion’s opinion, would accept Israel’s right to exist does not mean Israel lacks a right to exist.
Should Israel have been established right where it was? Perhaps not. But it is there now, and I doubt that the Israelis are leaving any time soon.
Awwww… a good ol’ fashioned Jewish Guilt Trip, puts me in mind of Passover seder it does.
The question of refugees is a sticky one. To begin with, why hasn’t Jordan absorbed them, as they were Jordanian citizens? Furthermore, many left due to the fact that the Arab nations would soon begin their campaign of genocide. Surely that is unfortunate, but then why doesn’t the blame lie with the aggressors in ’48?
Again, I have a problem with this false equality.
Honestly and truly, show me a pragmatic solution Israel could have taken and I will agree that they’ve gone off the deep end. Otherwise I’ll have to keep on thinking that the whole situation is horrible, but that while the Intefada is raging, Israel simply has to act in order to survive.
I am very sympathetic towards Israel (despite that being highly unfashionable these days), and if I hear the word “extrajudicial” again, I fear I may puke.
In case you haven’t noticed, war has been declared on Israel. You can argue semantics until the cows come home, but dramatic declarations of war are a thing of many decades ago. Israel has no choice but to defend herself against ongoing attack of the vilest kind. So Israel offed an old terrorist commander in a wheelchair. Big deal. It was an act of war, not one of murder.
As has been mentioned above, the Palestinians’ worst treatment has come at the hands of the Arab world itself. Arab states using the Palestinian cause to whip up a frenzy of hatred against Israel (and therefore the US and the West generally) is a mere political convenience in the current climate. Otherwise, the Palestinian cause would have been given about as much support by the Arabs as has been given the Kurdish cause, ie. diddly squat.
Erm, maybe I hadn’t noticed, but what exactly are you referencing here?
Nice to see another bunfight about who is ‘most evil’ between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Can we not just agree that the militant elements of both sides are composed of murdering scum without a single moral between them, and be done with it.
The only other predictable element of such a thread is that someone will use it to attack a far more evil target, the BBC. Gum, you’re a twat. Please not that a rolling news service will tend to have headlines on the front page referencing the very latest occuring events. As you didn’t have a link, I think you may even be talking about the ‘news ticker’ on the top? Anyway, here is an actual link to the BBC story (‘Gunmen Kill Jewish Settler Family’).
The second Intifada
No.
Because that would imply that the people coming to try and kill your civilians are morally equal to the people trying to defend those civilians.
There is just a simple fact at work here that many people are trying their damndest to ignore:
Palestine
targets
civilians
on purpose.
What I meant was that I am standing at the edge of the pool and with great effort, managing to NOT fall into the deep end. When I heard about the attack yesterday I was at work and it really broke me up. But I managed to get through the day without losing my concentration too much.
So I probably speak for a lot of Israelis who are managing not to fall into the deep end when I say that it hurts when people make comments like that which trivialize what we are going through, even though I realize that buttonjockey308 didn’t mean anything by it.
Right. Well, if that is what The Loaded Dog meant, then I would quibble with his assertion of 'war having been declared on Israel. What with the continued illegal occupation of land and all.
Is that aimed at me? Because I just called them ‘murdering scum’ with ‘not one single moral’. The actions of the Palesetinian militants do not, however, have any bearing on my view of the Israeli militants, who I also called ‘murdering scum’ with ‘not one single moral’.
I really have no interest in a debate about whether one hue of scum may be slightly more scummier than another. Or whether one complete abscence of morals may be slightly more pronounced than another.
Yes, very different degrees. You could say the same about any conflict. Pick an urban war or battle and you have the same situation.
Exactly how is the level of innocence changed? Men and women, by law, are required to serve in the IDF - a military force that doesn’t actively seek out civilians to kill (like what happened in the OP).
That “reasoning” sounds like something you painstakingly made an effort to establish, but it doesn’t explain the targeting of school buses, walking children, discos, pizza parlors, et al. They don’t care who they kill, isn’t that obvious? If you need proof, scroll to the top of the page - examples aren’t hard to come by.
Why don’t you provide the entire quote and situation in which that took place?
“If we thought that instead of 200 Palestinian (militant) fatalities, 2,000 dead would put an end to the fighting at a stroke, then we would use much more force. But in our opinion … the opposite is true, and the state of Israel would then be in a much more complicated situation.”
And the story behind the quote.
Israel was founded by the U.N. to stop the terrorist activity and violence within the land and has, since the first day of its creation, been attacked repeatedly. Jews weren’t safe, and going back to Europe wasn’t an option. Even America denied Jews the right to seek refuge.
The amount or reason of those attacking doesn’t change the fact that Israel is fighting for its right to exist. Do not ignore the conflicts behind it.
Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, etc. have declared war on Israel. Hence the explosions, gunfire, and call to arms. Read this as well.
When that isn’t the case, no. We can not.
Then you live in a world where no one (at least no Israeli) is allowed to defend themselves, and the only acceptable action in light of civilian targetting is to willingly die.
That is exactly what I meant, and you are entirely missing my point. My point is that war HASN’T been declared. Wars aren’t declared these days. No more dramatic speeches on the “wireless” I’m afraid. This refusal to play by traditional rules might have been shocking in Vietnam, but we should be used to it by now. The enemy often isn’t even a recognised nation state anymore. My point is precisely that the old rules no longer fit, and this should be borne in mind before issuing cries of “Extrajudicial killing! Shame!”.
As has been said before many times, instead of the old bloke in the wheelchair, what if Israel had blown away Mr O. Bin Laden himself?
Exactly. They’d have been praised. And I still maintain there is little difference between the two targets.
I agree with your post except for the last part. The Arabs will never be appeased, my friend. There surely is an Arab (really, Islamic) Manifesto. We all must recognize this and call it what it is - if we are to survive their voracious and sly ways. Israel is just the tip of the iceberg!
Don’t let them fool you for one minute. They can’t even live peacefully amongst themselves! They don’t give a rat’s ass about the Palistinians, deep down. They’re just happy to see someone be a thorn in Israel’s side. If they cared at all for their “Arab brothers”, they’d carve them out some elbow room from all that wasteland they have to share. These are one set of “brothers” that will never have “harmony”, pun intended.
When suicide is held as the ultimate act in their culture, there is no reasoning or bargaining with such “people”. When life has no meaning to them, why should we deal with them any differently than they would deal with their own kind? If so many virgins are promised to be waiting for them, then why aren’t their leaders the first on that bus? - Jinx
Ok, I think I’m understanding your point. Presumably, with the ‘traditional rules no longer applying’, you will also defend the rights of Hamas et al to use the tactics that they believe best advance their cause, although these also infringe the ‘traditional rules’ of warfare? Or is it only nation states that are no longer bound by this restriction?
If the ‘traditional rules’ no longer apply, you are either saying that there are no longer any rules (in which case, carry on suicide bombers) or that the rules have changed. In which case, who defined these new rules and what are they?