I would agree with Kuwait, but the other two are suspect.
**
Then pre-emptive strikes are the norm? I think not. Not according to the UN Charter.
**
So has Israel. Why not force them to comply?
Yes, I have a (South African) friend in the West Bank who sleeps in houses that the IDF have earmarked for demolition. They will not demolish houses when they know there is an international around.
Excuse me if I don’t see any moral difference in the policies of the IDF (who also act as accessories to terrorism perpetrated by settler groups) and Hamas as, for example, 1/10 (69/676) of Palestinian terrorists/security forces victims are minors, yet for the IDF/Israeli settlers that ratio rises to 1/7 (264/1856).
Add to that the fact that Israel has no right to be in the West Bank or Gaza and they voted for a Prime Minister whose policies only lead to an escalation of violence and I can no longer feel sympathy for Israel (that’s not to say I do not feel sympathy for the victims of Hamas, etc. at a personal level).
(figures taken from raw data at B’Tselem)
Very true. I would love to hear a reply to Nietzsche’s remark.
Thank you for an eloquent and poignant reply.
I wasn’t trying to say that iran had invented terroristic tactics. I was merely refuting your claim that there were no iranian terrorists in the last twenty years.
And let’s not forget where the Tzva Haganah le-Yisra`el got their start, back when they were still known just as Haganah, hanging around with the Stern Gang and Irgun, doing all sorts of nasty things apparently. This is nothing new for them.
Where is that alleged majority of Israelis who oppose the settlement activity that causes all these problems? Why aren’t they standing up to Sharon and casting him aside?
You still failed to name an Iranian terrorist. Accusations, a terrorist, do not make.
You forgot to mention the bit where the Hagana hunted down and killed the Stern Gang, and sunk the Irgun’s supply ship when it refused to disband.
Besides, you’re saying that revolutionaries occasionally do nasty things during revolutions? A short word starting with the letter “D” comes to mind. I don’t remember you Americans sending the Brits of with a peck on the cheek during your war of independence.
**
They weren’t offered any viable alternatives on the left, other than appeasment. Israeli empathy levels for the Palestinians are currently at an all-time low - and how can you hate the settlers when their fighting your enemy?
**
**
Punish? Punishment is in the purview of the police and courts. The IDF is an army, and its job is to protect the lives of the citizen’s of its country by preventing future attacks. Acting in a fair and balanced matter is not in its mandate, nor is it that of any other military that wishes to win wars. That aside, suicide bombers are dupes; semi-sentient guided weapons. Who do you blame for kamikaze bombers - the pilots, or the Nipponese admirals and generals who sent them out? Or pehaps the entire society which condones this terrible waste of its young?
P.S. - Tamerlane, you’re right about the “close ally” thing. My view on inter-Arab relations is decidedly Israel-centric; Syria passes weapons and instructors from Iran to the Hizballa in Lebanon, so as far as I’m concerned, they’re buddys. As an outsider, you have the benefit of the broader view.
Reasonable enough Alessan*. From where you’re sitting, I suppose it comes out to pretty much the same from a practical standpoint.
The only “bright spot” in the difference being that it is unlikely Israel will have to worry about Syria in the event of an Anglo-Iraqi War ( unfortunately Iraq’s missles are worrisome enough on their own 
).
- Tamerlane
Thank you Alessan for beating me to that correction.
In all fairness home destructions counts as terrorism in my book. Pretty wimpy terrorism, compared to bombing cafes and the like, but terrorism nevertheless. It is an action directed against civilians with the goal of motivating a behavior change via the instillation of a general level of fear in the population at large. It is wrong. It is terrorism. No two ways about it.
Bombing targets that you believe are military targets, eg. bomb making factories, or the locations of those planning attacks against you, and civilian casualties incurred while defending from attacks, are not terrorism, however. Few Palestinian minors or adults have been killed by Israeli terrorism.
And the fact is that Sharon is percieved as taking a centrist position at this point. The violence from the Arab side has all but shut down the Left in Israeli politics. The best that was offered against him was someone without significant experience on the international scene who had all the apparent charisma of a houseplant. And a charismatic but single issue anti-Orthodox theocracy candidiate. Few Israelis currently believe that anything but continued shows of strength will bring any hope for security. And they’ve given up on peace for now, I think. From their POV, the other approaches were tried in good faith and failed.
Finally, back to American interests. The risk of putting small pox in a dispersable form into the hands of terrorists with mal-intent against America is a real imminent threat, if one believes that such a threat exists. But there is a larger picture. An Iraq with developed WMD would be very destabilizing for the region as a whole. Little matters of past wars with Iran and Kuwait for example inform us that Israel would not be the only or even main entity that would feel threatened. Iran and others would feel the need to respond with comparable weapons or greater themselves. A regional arms race in an area full of bad actors would be a likely result. Or even to play out the scenerio of an attack with WMD against Israel alone … the resulting conflagration of retribution would shut the MidEast down for a prolonged period of time. The death and human suffering tolls aside (what does American self-interest care about that?) the world economic consequences would cripple the US economy.
Getting Iraq to disarm is in America’s self-interest. That doesn’t mean that military action sans UN authorization is the best way to accomplish it.
The statement does seem to be a bit self serving on Sharons part. We have less reason to go after them than we do Iraq or North Korea. Next thing you know, Sharon’ll be sending the U.S. after that guy in school that called him tubby and gave him wedgies.
now that I think about it, we would have to if they were atomic wedgies;)
Sharon is pouting, as usual, and living up to a bizarre whining Jewish stereotype that Neo-Nazi’s love to portray. He’s only “pulling strings” if anything happens from it.
As for Iran - think a lot of folks here haven’t got a clue what is going on with Iran - it has a liberal government that is in long term conflict with hardline fundamentalists - a power struggle between new and modern Iran versus the power relics of Khomeni’s reign.
Iran was called to help prevent the Taliban moving opium south through Iranian terrority - thought this was partly due to British instigation - and for a while Iran looked like they would be used to contain the Taleban during the Afghan campaign.
Stupid remarks from Bush, and probably a general prejudice in the Whitehouse administration, appear to have damaged that prospect and somewhat emboldened the Iranian hardliners.
Iran is anything but an evil country - it is challenged with a lamentable recent history that it is trying to struggle out of. US dismissal of its efforts can only serve to have a general harmful effect in the long run.
- As for Iran - think a lot of folks here haven’t got a clue what is going on with Iran - it has a liberal government that is in long term conflict with hardline fundamentalists - a power struggle between new and modern Iran versus the power relics of Khomeni’s reign.*
It is liberal relative to past governments. Compare it to the current US Republican US administration and it makes Dubya look like Abbie Hoffman.
WELCOME TO STRAIGHT DOPE 2THICK
And your bizarre remark places you in what camp, Brian?
I disagree. After every successful suicide bombing, one group or another claims responsibility. At that point no one considers those responsible to be ‘civilians’ anymore, they are enemy combatants responsible for a mass murder of Israeli civilians. Unless you want to make a case that all Palestinians are would-be bombers, I don’t see the penalty imposed to be affecting the population at large.
Historically, most countries including America when at war razed the homes and villages associated with rebel and extra-national combatants. It is the penalty for giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Terrorism? Yes, but primarily directed at property, rather than lives. Big difference.
Thank you. I am impressed with the board, thus far.
This is sheer nonsense. The Iranian Pasdaran has been connected to the first bombing of the American embassy in Lebanon. The same Pasdaran tortured a CIA officer to death. They also supported an umbrella group that bombed the Marine barracks in Lebanon. Furthermore, Iran supports Hizballah and other Arab terror groups.
You are mistaking terrorist acts with support of terrorism.
Iran does not have terrorists and does not commit terrorist acts.
They merely aid people that do.
The same could be said for the US, Britain and Russia (to name a few).