I predict that suicide bombings are going to become more common, more frequent, and more destructive.
With that in mind, at some point we (the non-suicide bombing people) are eventually going to have to deal with the perceived terrorists.
My question is: how do you do this without rewarding the act?
How does Russia give Chechnya independence without sending a message around the world that “if you blow up children in our daycares will give you what you want?” Dido for Israel, North Ireland, Indonesia, India/Pakistan, the US, and now Morocco.
Is it even possible? Can a country alter its foreign or domestic policies after a terrorist attack without encouraging it?
On the other hand, one of the problems with a completely hard line stance is that any idiot with a death wish can derail the negotiation process. Israel is a case in point. I don’t wish to debate the merits of Israeli response, but any bombing derails the process. Effectively, the bombers are holding both Israel and the Palestines hostage.
I have two fairly simple solutions to the suicide bombings in Isreal, that, if implimentated, would solve the problem: 1. Remove all of the Arabs from the country, and not let any of them back in, or 2. Remove all of the Jews from the country, and let the Arabs have their state there. Of course, both of these ideas would be a pain to pull off, but they would end the suicide bombings.
I have two fairly simple solutions to the suicide bombings in Isreal, that, if implimentated, would solve the problem: 1. Remove all of the Arabs from the country, and not let any of them back in, or 2. Remove all of the Jews from the country, and let the Arabs have their state there. Of course, both of these ideas would be a pain to pull off, but they would end the suicide bombings.
This is a point I have made on multiple occasions. As long as every bombing results in a halt of the negotiations, any mad kook can halt the negotiations simply by seting off a bomb (or by persuading some hopeless teen to “die gloriously” by setting off a bomb. I strongly suspect that Sharon, who really does not want a negotiated settlement, gives a little private cheer every time some Arab kid attempts a suicide bombing on the eve of any scheduled talks. (I do not suggest that Sharon welcomes the deaths of Israelis, but he is quite happy to have an excuse to postpone the talks one more time.)
Of course if the negotiations are about “ending attacks on Israel” and attacks continue anyway, then why bother carry on negotiating if they have no affect on terror?
The lesson from the Northern Ireland peace process is surely that those with direct personal contact with the bombers themselves must be allowed to the negotiation table without any possibility of arrest or interrogation.
While Arafat may have influence, it is unrealistic to think he has the final say on each and every bombing - indeed, it was his “irrelevance” which was given as the reason Sharon wanted him out anyway.
Unfortunately, if an attack occured whilst such parties were at the table I would not forsee the talks merely being postponed but Sharon arresting the negotiators themselves, thus ending any chance that the process could proceed in a similar way to the Good Friday agreement.
The problem is the Israeli tactics in occupied territories aren’t ecatly much better than the suicide bombers/Guerrilla tactics. Checking on the figures yesterday, in the current intifada 2100 Palestinians have died, 60% (+/- 5%) have been noncombatants/non-suspected militants compared to 700 Israelis, 69% of them civilians.
So perhaps Israel should stop it’s iron fist approach too, as in periods where there are no suicid bombings the Israelis tend to escalate their operations in the occupied territories.
I wholeheartedly agree with the Jaw Jaw sentiment.
It’s happened again: on the eve of talks, Hamas, who are utterly opposed to the ‘roadmap’, send their goons out to maim, kill, and die, and Sharon stays home to deal with the crisis, rather than go to the US.
I find it ironic that Likkud is largely refusing to negotiate until the PA “ends the terrorism”. Sure, the terrorists are coming in from the OTs, but the bombings happen in Israel, a state with a superbly developed and sophisticated intelligence and defense network compared to that of the PA. Even if the PA was 100% willing to try to stamp it out (which maybe in time it will be), it’d fail. It’s a hopeless demand, and the current situation just preserves the ghastly status quo.
There’s more to the negotiations than that. Perhaps an independent and unoccupied Palestinian state would be more able to cooperate and deter these bombings. And the bombers would have less sway in recruiting as well.
Isn’t this the essence of what’s going on now? There’s no period of time, but it’s the rough idea. I do agree completely with your second post, though, Blalron.
It’s real easy to say “talk, don’t fight” when you’re on the outside.
How much “talking” was the U.S. willing to do after Pearl Harbor? After 9-11? Were we willing to “talk” with the groups that Timothy McVeigh represented?
The only way I know that might be effective against would-be suicide terrorists is to go after their families and their families’ property. “You may be willing to kill yourself for your cause, but are you willing to sacrifice your family’s wealth and freedom and perhaps lives?”
I know, this feel “barbaric” to the American mind, because we tend to believe each person is responsible for themselves, and we don’t believe that the “innocent” should suffer. I contend:
(1) In most cases, the families are not “innocent.” The families encourage these suicide bombers, venerate them as martyrs, and get rewarded financially by the terrorist groups; and
(2) Other cultures do not take the same view of individual personal responsibility that Americans do, but put more emphasis on family and group.
It may be distasteful, but I suspect it would work if it were done and widely publicized.
CK Dexter Haven that is pretty deplorable and collective punishment is illegal. The fact is the IDF already do destroy the property of the families of suicide bombers, just last week they bulldozed the house of the parents of someone who injured 4 soldiers in a suicide attack, crushing to death a pregnant women and her husband who lived in the adjoining house.
And what do you do when the demands are non-negotiable from the non-bombers point of view.
Hypothetically, a group opposed to the first ammendment right of free speech starts a bombing campaign to get the U.S. to change this little item. Are you proposing that when they cease and desist for a while, we start negotiating toward change?
Hamas and other groups are not looking for Israel to simply withdraw to the '67 borders, they want Israel to cease to exist. If they let up on the suicide bombers, should Israel start negotiating itself out of existence?
Zev, Israel has to withdraw, you cannot punish all the Palestinians for the actions of a few and absolutely nothing gives anyone the right to treat human beings in that way.
