Please explain to me the timing of Israel's tit-for-tat retaliation strikes

Great Debates
1

If there’s one thing I don’t understand about the Israeli/Palestinian situation, it’s Israel’s response to terror attacks. Here’s how it looks to me:

  1. Hamas et al blow up a bus, killing and injuring dozens (usu. civilians)

  2. Israeli forces, usually within 12 hours, make a military strike on an alleged Hamas et al target (say, where their leaders are believed to be or buildings thought to contain terrorist weapons stockpiles, etc.), often killing and injuring dozens (usu. civilians among them)

  3. Hamas et al and the rest of the Muslim and Arab world becomes even more furious at Israel for their heavy-handed tactics

  4. Repeat step 1.
    Now, there’s naturally a whole chicken-and-egg thing going on re; who started it, who’s retaliating against whom, etc. Likewise, it can very well be argued that apparent consequences–namely, further terror attacks by Hamas et al and growing antipathy toward Israel by the rest of the Muslim and Arab world–would occur whether Israel struck back or simply ignored the attacks.

But here’s the thing: Why does Israel even allow the pretext of vengeance strikes to exist? Why strike in what is obvious retaliation to a specific injury? I don’t believe for one second that the Israeli strikes are taking place when they do simply because Israeli intelligence JUST THEN figured out where these terrorists were hiding. The timing is clearly for effect. But that effect can only hurt Israel, IMO. Why not be coldly rational about it, strike terrorists when you learn about them (i.e., at times totally unrelated to terrorist attacks on Israel), and not give anyone the ammo to say that Israel is fueling the cycle of revenge attacks?

2

I agree that the current policy is a recipe for endless violence.

I see that Israel has two alternatives:

  1. Delcare war on the Palestinians. Much like we declared war on Afghanistan. The problem, of course, is that few if any Palestinians are looking to be liberated. But this is kind of what you are proposing in the last sentence of the OP.

  2. Live with a certain level of terrorism as thy negotiate the establishment of a Palestinian State. with the Palestinian Authority.

I’m afraid that #2 is the way they have to go. Until and unless they can get the PA to agree that Hamas (et al) is a terrorist group and must be eliminated by any means. To my knowledge, this has not been done.

The Israeli position of tit-for-tat is not working because they are dealing with someone using the stratgy known as “massive retaliatory attack” (cooperate on first contact, but if someone does not cooperate, then you never cooperate with them in the future) or possibly simply “never cooperate” (whch only differs from the first strategy in that there is no initial cooperation).

3

That’s a very interesting question. My guess is the same as yours: Israel could strike these terrorists at times unrelated to the attacks. Here’s my guess at Israel’s motivations FWIW.

Israel could deal with terrorism in at least four ways:[ol][li]Do nothing.[]Strike back only at terrorists and only when attacked.[]Strike back only at terrorists whenever they can.Strike back at the entire Palestinian people.[/ol]Presumably Israel has nuclear weapons, so they have the wherewithall to annihilate the Palestinian people. That course of action makes no sense, but it is feasible. Doing nothing seems likely to merely encourage terrorsts to act at will. That leaves #2 and #3.[/li]
Striking at terrorists all the time would involve a lot more casualties than striking back only when attacked. Keep in mind that when Israel attacks terrorists, they also kill and wound many innocent bystanders, since the terrorists live among the populace. This is one of many violations of the Geneva Agreements by the terrorists. I think Israel would get a lot more criticism from the world if they more Palestinian casualties

I suppose Israel hopes or believes that the head terrorists don’t want to be killed (although they encourage their follower to be suicide bombers.) If Hamas leaders believe that ordering an attack may lead to their own death, they may hesitate to order an attack.

BTW I’m not arguing in favor of Israel’s policy. I’m just speculating on how it may look from their POV.

4

Domestic politics? The government has to look like they’re doing something about the terrorist problem, and people are the most pissed off right after an attack happens.

5

To me, the simple answer is that if Israel had attacked the Hamas leader the day (or hour) before that bus blew up, the world would have freaked out over “Israel’s unprovoked attack that led to the death of innocent children on the eve that Hamas was about to declare a cease fire that would have given rise to full and utter peace with in the entire Middle East region, that would have ended the cycle of violence.”

And although I don’t have a cite to back this up, I’m pretty sure that at least one news group reported that targeted strike in this way, only briefly pointing out the bus bombing the day before.

Which puts you at #3 on your cycle.

6

The way I look at it is that Israel and the U.S. feed off of each other. We give them military aid and they act as our puppet in the Mid-East. This whole roadmap thing was just a ploy to demonstrate Bush still cares about the world and actually wants to mend fences and especially the barbed wire fence that is the Israel/Palestine conflict. So, gee what else has been happening this past week? A lot of questions and pressure regarding WMD’s. Mutterings about impeachment. In several days, violence between Hamas and Israel to either:

  1. Demonstrate that Bush’s noble guiding hand really isneeded in the peace process.

  2. Up the terrorism/those crazy Muslims fear back here.

I predict tomorrow we’ll be back to Orange because too many questions are being asked about Bush. He’ll learn us!

7

Any analysis must take into account the savage hatred of many Palestinian for Israel, as is demonstrated by this disturbing photograph.

8

First, I want to commend december for a logical explaination. [Round of applause]

Here is a joke that I’ve heard credited to Menachem Begen, tough it could be from any number of sources, and the details change in the various versions I’ve heard, but here it is…

An Englishman, a Frenchman, and an Israeli where together in a jungle when they were surrounded by an armed group of canibals and taken by force back to their village. The village chief greeted the captives and told them, “We are going to kill you and eat you, but first you may have one last request.”

The Englishman, seeing his predicament as hopeless, requested some tobacco so he could have one last moment of enjoyment with his pipe.

The Frenchman, also seeing no way out, asked for a steak for his last meal.

The Israeli asked teh chief to kick him in the tail. The chief, a bit confused, reminded him that this was his last request before he would be killed and eaten. The Israeli aknowledged this, and repeated his request that the chief kick him in the tail. So, in compliance, the chief was about to the kick the Israeli in the tail when the Israeli pulled out a revolver and shot the chief. He then proceeded to shoot the other canibals until they were all dead had run away.

Shicked, the Englishman and Frenchman asked the Israeli why, if he had the revolver all this time, he did not use it before they were captured. The Israeli responded, “What? And have the U.N. make a resolution against me for attacking unprovoked?”

9

Israel, as a practical matter, may not have a better option. Looking at december’s list of four possible actions on Israel’s part, and dismissing 4.) out of hat, we have the following:

1.) Do nothing. But this could likely embolden the terrorists. Clearly, there are those terrorists who don’t care what Israel does, they seek to at least clear Israel off the map, and at most kill every last Jew in the process. How much of a representation these people have among the Palestinian terrorists is subject to debate, but their existence isn’t. This segment will seek to attack Israel no matter what, with the only thing staying their hand at all being the fear of bing eradicated before their work is done. If they get the message that Israel has a “No retaliation under any circumstance” policy, why not go all out? Of course, it may well be that they already are killing Israeli civilians as fast as they can, in which case a “no retaliation” policy may be Israel’s best bet.

2.) This has the advantage of sending a direct message to terrorists: “Attack us, and we will retaliate. Let us be, and we will act in kind.” Of course, this presupposes that the Palestinians want peace in the first place; clearly, some do not, and those are the biggest problem. Also, this type of reaction is typically spun by the media as petty revenge, with a moral equivlency typically implied between suicide bombings targeted towards civilians, and military strikes against terrorists that have civilian casualties as an unfortunate side effect. Clearly, this approach is a disaster from a PR standpoint.

3.) Declare full war against terrorism, a la US vs Afghanistan. This could work, but I doubt it. For one, the terrorists have too much grassroots support. You could take out the leadership, and temporary peace may follow, but it would be a matter of time before a new leader arose, and rallied the people into a small army of suicide bombers all over again. Also, the Middle East would have a mass epileptic fit over this course of action. So would Europe, for that matter. I would expect terrorists to become the Territories’ chief import if this were to happen.
So there you go. Your options are to do nothing and get attacked more, while being ousted by your people for not responding to attacks; retaliate when attacked in an attempt to teach cause-and-effect to a people who don’t seem eager to learn; or declare full-on war, thus pissing off everyone in a 1000 mile radius. I certainly don’t envy Sharon, I’ll tell you that much.
Jeff

10

Although it can be argued that people of both sides have a long built, strong animosity for each other. December that link you provided shows no evidence of the “savage hatred” that you say many Palestinians have for Israel.

In fact, that picture was of a group of Palestinians pulling out of a car the remains of a recently killed person (I am guessing from an Israeli attack). What does that have to do with anything?

Also I have a question? Do you visit that site often? It is more sicker then the comments at Fark.com. Here are some choice quotes:

I don’t know much about the SDMB’s policy of conduct but, this is an Anti-Arab/Muslim hate site. Please don’t link there.

11

How much does Israel rely upon trade and travel between Israel and Palestinian territory?

There had been some talk about Israel building a fence approximately along the 1967 borders, patrolling it, limiting travel across it and telling the Palestinians effectively “When you are done solving your own problems and ready to talk, we will be here.”

Benefits:

  • Israel can better keep out known terrorists and capture co-conspirators within its borders
  • Gives the Palestinians a de facto state.
  • Internationally recognized borders

Drawbacks:

  • Closed borders are not good economically
  • Palestine would be even more chaotic for at least a while
  • Leaves settlement holders out in the cold
  • Israel gives up a lot without getting a solution to right of return and right to exist issues
  • Closing off a whole border is a challenge (see US-Mexico)

Anybody else want to chime in on this option?

12

So instead of opening themselves up to the accusation that they are continuing the cycle of violence, they should open theselves up to the accusation that they are starting the cycle of violence? I really don’t see how an unprovoked attack is better than a provoked one.

13

I agree, that’s a sick site, and I see no connection at how it adds anything to the discussion.

14

As far as I know, the only benefit Israel gets from “trade” with the Palestinians of any consequence is cheap labor. Palestinians have no real specialized idustry or export or anything Israel deosn’t already have or need, except for people to do the labor in buildng roads, cleaning hotels, etc. That’s part of what makes terrorism so ludicris, that the Palestinians lose so much from the violence (jobs, easy access to hospitals, etc.) that they could have if only there were safe borders. Israel, meantime, has attempted to replace Palestinian labror with other foreigners, some of which have, incidentally, been killed in terrorist attacks.

15

This has nothing to do with the substance of the debate, but are you nuts? How are nuclear weapons a feasible option to destroy people who’s territory is right next to yours?

Hmmm, it has nothing to do with the debate, and doesn’t even really have much to do with my description of it (hatred for Israel): so where can I put this? I can’t start another inflamatory thread just for this picture. I guess I’ll just dump it in this thread anyway! I mean, Andrew Sullivan linked it, so that means I have to too, right?

16

Can someone explain the relationship between Hamas (just to pick one) and the PA? Is it the PA’s position that the leaders of Hamas are criminals and must be arrested and prosecuted? Is it their position that they simply don’t have the power to do anything about it?

Suppose that instead of trying to assassinate the leader of Hamas, Israel had captured him and turned him over to the PA. What would have happened to him?

Seems to me that as long as Hamas is not actively fought by the PA, then the peace process is going to go nowhere.

17

I don’t agree at all. The savage hatred of many Palestinians (and other Arabs) for Israel is central to the problem. I saw it with my own eyes when I was in Israel a few years ago, just in the manner in which some Palestinians conducted themselves. This is not parallel. Israelis (by and large) don’t hate Palestinians; they want to be able to live in peace and security.

keeper0, I doubt if closing the border is practical. For one thing, it’s hard or impossible to maintain security. Also, Palestinians share Jerulsalem, so they have access to that city. Furthermore, many Palestinians legally live in Israel and are full citizens. Yet, some of them may be involved with terrorist organizations.

Frankly, I have no idea what will work. My prediction is that sooner or later Israel will be destroyed and the Jews driven out. There are too many enemies surrounding them with too much implacable hatred and too much world support.

18

You see Johnny Mace, there is nothing the lightly armed PA can do that the IDF isn’t already doing to combat Hamas. Take the recent suicide bombing as an example, though Sharon’s personal adviser said it meant that the PA had to do more to fight terrorism, I am left wondering how they could in anyway of prevented this attack as the bomber came from the town of Hebron where the PA aren’t even allowed inside by the IDF.

19

MCMoC: But what of my question about what would happen if the Israelis captured the Hamas leader and turned him over to the PA. That bypasses your argument about the PA not having the wherewithall to do the capturing.

20

Here’s a solution, how about Israel withdraw to its original borders and stop treating Palestinians within Israel as second class citizens? If we want to talk about savage hatred, Israelis aren’t totally innocent. Atrocities have been enacted on both sides. I don’t understand the blind U.S. loyalty to Israel expecially with Sharon in charge. And allowing Israel to have nukes? Stupidest idea ever!