Well, many of them died because they were shooting at or throwing stones at Israeli troops, a few were suicide bombers, some planned acts of terrorism, and of course, some just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, which is tragic whenever it happens. However, it is not the policy of the Israeli government to kill unarmed peaceful civilians. That is the policy of some Palestinian groups.
It seems like the Palestinians really wanted it to stop when Arafat turned down Barak’s offer.
Marc
Well as you can see the Palestinian Authority has (as far to my knowledge) not killed a single Israeli accidental or other wise(but they did kill a Palestinian). That is better then what the Israeli Government has done so far.
Now, if you are saying that the because Arafat turned down Barak’s offer they are “asking for it” (to be dead). Then I will say to you what I said to sailor, please come to your senses.
It’s all in the presentation.
Of the 170 Israelis killed, how many were: suicide bombing? - preparing same and got blown-up? - throwing rocks or shooting at police?
Of the 600 Palestinians killed, how many were eating in a pizza place? - getting on a train? - trying to bury their dead? - took a wrong turn?
Just wondering…
To everyone on this board:
This new disscusion scares me a bit, Palestinians are human just like us. They are not monsters who bomb with no feeling, or send their own childeren to be shot. They feel sad, anger, and not happness, at death just like the rest of us do they are not monsters.
A lot more then you care to see…
>> Palestinians are human just like us.
Speak for yourself,for they are not like me. I am no such fanatic. Our culture is not fanatical like theirs
>> They are not monsters who bomb with no feeling,
Oh? I do not know about the feeling part but it is a fact that they bomb
>> or send their own childeren to be shot.
Sorry, but it is a fact that they do this. You can see them throwing stones or shooting. You can see the mothers proudly saying they are raising martyrs.
>> They feel sad, anger, and not happness, at death just like the rest of us do they are not monsters.
I have seen them rejoice when they beat the two israelis to death and threw them out the windows.
Sorry, war is tough for everybody and I am not happy to see the Palestinians suffer but I am most definitely on the side of the Israelis on this one.
Um, no, please do. The OP asserted that since both sides cause civilian deaths that they are thus two sides of the same coin. The same analogy can be applied to my two examples except that what makes it relevant is that in all cases a democratic country is using military means to end mass murder of innocent civilians. Inadvertently some innocents are killed bythe Democratic country.
See Above
Um, so please characterize how it is inappropriate. It really is this simple, Israel has made taken huge risks for peace. It has offered far more than anyone would have expected. They at one time had a peace lobby which controlled over 70% of the government. There is, and never was a concurrent peace lobby in Palestinian lands, and the response to the peace overtures by Israel has been murder of innocents. If you are want to get nitpicky about the semantics, be my guest, but the scenario is precisely as outlined.
This is patently ridiculous. When the Jews began to move to British mandate palestine they were attacked by arab mobs, when the state was created by the UN they were attacked by the Arabs, in every case all Israel wanted was to be left alone. When it defended itself and defeated the Arabs, those defeats were then used as arguments for further aggression.
As far as the PA being against terrorism, you have just shown yourself to be utterly unfamiliar with the facts. In numerous cases the Fatah - Arafats own security force - has been the terrorists. The PA applies the death penalty to anyone who assists Israel in finding terrorists. They do not arrest the terrorists and when they rarely do they release them within days.
As for the Israeli army and the so-called ‘rag-tag’ groups, this is ridiculous. First of all, the exact same scenario is happening in Afghanistan, except in that case you approve. Moreover, in almost every case, the dead Palestinians were attacking innocent civilians, on a rare occasion they were attacking a military outpost (Let’s go get a mob and attack Fort Detrick with rocks, grenades, molotov cocktails, and snipers and see what happens).
The number of dead palestinians includes a very large number of suicide bombers, Terrorists, snipers, etc… On rare occasion an innocent is inadvertently killed.
Your analysis is ridiculous and ill-informed.
I see that you are a fan of useless rhetoric. The fact is that this policy of killing leaders of terrorist cells is the cleanest way to get them. Of course your inclusion of schoolchildren in the equation is meaningless. They were not targeted and only rarely were hurt. I still remember in the beginning of the Intifada when the Israelis were nice enough to give prior warning for their strikes on terrorist bases. Thankfully they have abandoned that silly idea. It didnt gain them any sympathy from fools like you and made their strikes ineffective.
Aha, precisely like the US in Afghanistan.
Even if your claim is true (it isn’t accurate on the Israeli side), what is the end result? Terror in both cases, except that Israel is also responsible for oppression, occupation, human rights abuses, etc.
[/quote]
Of course your wishing away the context makes your assertion meaningless. All of that supposed 'oppression, occupation, and human rights abuses’is a result of making the security of innocent civilians in Israel a priority. OF course it matters not to you that before the Intifada none of this was an issue.
The numbers are ridiculous. More Germans died in WWII than Jews. One however targeted an innocent population for annihilation and one was simply massacred innocents. Of course when you add all of the dead terrorists and suicide bombers in the list of dead palestinians it makes this claim even more farcical.
Excuse me? When innocent Palestinians are killed the Israelis respond by moving tanks?
The point was that the response of the population gives away their relationship to killed innocents. One cheers it and one deplores it.
Nah, just that the arabs have never learned to accept the fact that the Jews ought to live peacefully in their own country. They make lots of excuses to try to validate the continuin massacre of innocent Jews.
Barak was booted for foolishly believing that the Palestinians wanted peace when they said openly to their own people in Arabic that their intention was destruction of the entire state of Israel. He gave them land, guns, an interim state and just as they said they would, they used it as a launching pad to massacre more innocent Jews. Who would want a person as short-sighted as that as a leader?
Precisely, your attempt to rationalize the intentional massacre of innocents by comparing it to the attempted prevention of said massacre is the kind of thought used by Islamists worldwide to perpetrate the horrors that we have seen both here and in Israel.
I would never say that they’re asking for it because they turned down Barak’s offer. But it seems obvious to me that they’re not just asking for it to stop. If they were they could have taken Barak up on his offer.
Now of course when you start sending suicide bombers then you’re asking for it.
Marc
efrem, although you started out with a question and some logic to back it up, you have now abndoned that completely and resorted to one-sentense rhetoric.
You say things without saying anything, like “A lot more than you care to see” and “Palestinians are people too” as if someone implied they were not. That is simply rediculous, and if you want ot rant about it a pit thread would be good. But you have stopped debating since other posters have put up logical arguements against your POV.
So, you say, in one of your few attempts at logic, that the PA have not killed an Israeli. (Not directly, anyway). But once again, I point out to you that there are terrorist organizations operating on their territory, who openly and regularly carry out attacks against Israel. They (the PA) are either unable or unwilling to stop these groups, and therefore, are in no pisition to seek power since they have no control. Israel had left them to govern these territorries, and they took on the responsibility. They should keep the peace.
The other posters here who feel that the Palestinian Terrorists are wrong in what they do, but that Israel is also wrong, please explain how Israel SHOULD respond. You don’t want them to target terrorist leaders, yet they must stop the attacks. They can not go into PA territiry to arrest them, so what options do they have?
BTW, I would truly like to see a Palestinian state next to Israel, living in peace. I would also be in support of any freely chosen government for Palestinians, capable of controlling the radical elements. This would no doubt lead to long-term prosperity for both since there is quite a bit of support in the world for both.
From what I’ve read, Sharon seems to favor overkill-didn’t he once lead a major offensive into a Palestinian village, killing a great many innocent people? Wasn’t he forced to resign?
I guess how I see it is-are ALL Palestinians terrorists? Are all Israelies hawks? No.
But…I’m sorry-I don’t buy into the Israeli-Good, Palestine-Bad, or vice versa arguments. I say they both have done some pretty nasty things.
YES, when Israel was first formed, many of their neighbors were against them. And the Israelis fought to save their asses. (I haven’t done MUCH reading on the history of the whole mess, which I’ll try to do this week when I’m over at campus). From what I understand, however, once they were able to hold their own-they still insist on playing the martyr. As for the Palestinians-why wouldn’t they be upset-they have no home! That does NOT in any way though excuse the violence from some factions.
The fact is, anymore, I feel life if I express my views, I’m going to be called anti-Semetic. Or anti-Islamic. Non-sense.
I think SOMETHING has to be done. Something, anything. It’s getting out of hand.
I don’t approve of terrorism, nor do I approve of overkill retaliation.
Because it is the innocents-the innocent Israelies, and the innocent Palestinians-who are caught in the cross fire.
Guinastasia, Sharon did lose his job over the insident, but he did not lead any attacks the way you describe. It was a group of Christian Lebanese who killed Palestinian refugees, in an extremely ugly massacre. Sharon made the mistake of allowing it to happen - I am not sure about all the details, but I remember reading about it, and the fact that he was put on trial. Charges were brought up recently, and dismissed, in an international court. Sharon was not at all proud of this, and at the time, I think was unsure about what was going to happen. But he did not order any such attacks - this was animosity between two other groups.
But if you want to bring that up, make sure to mention Arafat’s past. Make sure to recount his history of terrorism, including bombs, highjackings, kidnappings. Surely there are many qualified and more moderate poeple in the Palestinian population who may lead.
The short answer is no, yes.
I’m assuming you’re thinking about the massacre at Sabra and Shatilla. Here is briefly what happened.
In 1975, Lebanon broke out in civil war. Lebanon had always been a divided country, religiously split between Christian and Muslim, and the split contributed to political tension. In addition, large numbers of Palestinian refugees had crossed the border into Lebanon, and they, as well as the members of the PLO who came with them and used the refugee camps as bases to launch attacks on Israel. Lebanon, without a stable government, was unable to deal with the tensions between Muslim and Christian, and the large number of refugees, and the government collapsed, and Christian and Muslim millitias formed and began slaughtering each other, as well as unarmed civilians. The most dominant Christian millitia was called the Phalangists.
The Syrians had heavily supported the Muslim millitias, to the point that they sent troops into Lebanon to fight in the civil war. Meanwhile, Mossad (Israeli intelligence) was covertly backing the Phalangists. Finally, in 1982, Israel, concerned about the instablity in Lebanon, invaded, and forced a peace. In August, plans were drawn up for Beirut to be evacuated by the militia groups, and Gamayal Bashir, the Phalangist leader, was elected president of Lebanon.
In September, Bashir was meeting with Phalangist commanders when he was killed by a bomb planted by Muslim terorrists operating out of the refugee camps in West Beirut. The IDF (Israeli Defense Force) moved troops into West Beirut, and coordinated with the Phalangists (who at this point were effectively the Lebanese Army). The Phalangists announced to the IDF that they were going to find the people responsible for the assasination of Bashir. The IDF, considering this a local matter, didn’t object. When the Phalangists were in the camps, they massacred a number of people, including women and children.
When this happened, there was an outcry in Israel, and people demanded to know why the IDF didn’t object to their entering the camps in the first place. A Commission of Inquiry was formed (The Katan Commission), which ruled that the Israeli government was negligent and failed to take precautions to prevent an action like this, and Ariel Sharon, who was at that time Minister of Defense, as well as Lt. General Raphael Eitan, who was commander of the IDF in Lebanon, were found to be negligent and forced to resign.
I am sorry but some on this board <b>have</b> implied that they are not people. When we start saying that all or most of the 600 Palestinians killed are violent terrorists, who “deserved” what they got, how is this a logical argument. It seems a lot more like discrimination, and racism. It is not logical.
Saying that most of the Palestinians who were killed were terrorists does not imply that they are not people. No one is arguing that, and you’re setting up a straw man here.
tradesilicon is right I need to carry my anger to the pit.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=102798
And they have none because Arafat rejected Barak’s offer, which gave Arafat 98% of what he asked and 90% of the occupied land. Most Israelites, according to a recent poll, favor a Palestine state.
And why did Arafat reject such a generous offer - an offer so generous that Clinton was appalled at the rejection - an offer so generous that it would have meant the end of Barak’s political career? Because it did not offer the one thing that PLO wants: the destruction of Israel.
The PLO charter still contains over half a dozen sections calling for the destruction of the state of Israel. Altho Arafat has repeatedly said those provisions would be repealed, they have not been.
It’s a vicious cycle of violence. Israel’s policy is to strike back every time it is attacked. Israel citizens are attacked, and even teenagers were the main source of a recent attack, but Israel does not go after civilians. They seek to destroy the planners of the attacks. Unfortunately, civilians are killed, and so each side seeks revenge and retaliation. But what is Israel to do, sit back and take it and hope that the international community will help it?
It is quite similar to our situation vis-a-vis the Taliban. The only difference is that the PA have the means and geography to make frequent attacks in Israel. The Taliban has been planning frequent attacks against us. The PA and the PLO want to destroy Israel. The Taliban wants to destroy us. The former is possible; the latter is not.
PA see death for their cause as martydom. They rejoice when they send their children out to stone Israelites, throw incendiary devices at them, and then get killed, for now their children have attained their goal: martydom. Suicide bombers. Both PA and the Taliban. Israelites weep at the death of their people. So the analogy continues.
So, again I ask, “What should Israel do in response to the calculated murder of its children?” What is the answer? There is no easy solution. It has been Israel’s policy that they must retaliate or indeed be driven to the sea.
What other country, other than us, has been willing to give back land acquired in a war? Land which Israel needs to give itself a proper defense. Land needed for defensive purposes. Israel was willing to give it up on the promise of the US that we would not let it be destroyed, for it could not rely upon any guarantees from Arafat, who for years has not taken one step to rein in the militants. Rein them in, Hell. He has incited violence against Israel and fosters the attacks. I don’t believe for one moment that he is powerless to act.
We have been attacked before, but made only half-hearted gestures in the past, if any. The result: 9/11. If we had acted years ago, these terrorists would not be so many and scattered all over the globe. If Israel never retaliated, there would be no Israel.
I realize that-but I still don’t think either side is the innocent victim. Maybe once upon a time-but right now, it’s very complicated.
You all talk like it’s a fact that the PA has sent the terrorist squads out to kill civilians. Not only is their not proof, but it makes no freaking sense for Arafat to di it, anyway you look at it.
Basically what we have seen over and over again is that some some group unrepresentative of either the policy of the the PA, or at any rate not under the PA’s control, and also not supported by the will of of the people, committing the terrorism, and in response Israel sends in some tanks to mow down some houses or maybe fire some rockets at areas unrelated to terrorist activity, and are surprised when Palestinians fire back! And then the Israelis fire back and darn the luck civilians get in the way.
These kind of retaliations on the Israeli government’s shows either a total lack of understanding on what will end the violence, or a total lack of interest in finding any peaceful solution at all.