It depends: Is this person an active duty member of the IDF carrying out orders given to him/her by someone further up the chain of command?
See, that’s what you find with people who are constantly having to rebuild their own homes, they have little time for constructing discotheques. I notice you didn’t include homes in that list…
That was the Palestinians. Here was me thinking it was the Saudis. Or, hang on was it Saddam Hussein, I get confused. See you can lump a whole load of people together to suit your purposes, but why don’t we just say it was the “Middle Easterners”. Now you are included, see. Happy now?
At the same time, CheekyMonkey613, I wonder if Israel isn’t glad to have the Americans and others publicly counseling restraint. While it’s important as a deterrent to imply that you’ll go to every length in retaliation, I’m sure they’re equally leery of events spiraling out of control.
This way they can plant fear in the Palestinian mind that any agression will be met with an overwhelming response and then blame the lack of additional harshness on the American’s calls for restraint.
Escalation is held in check but they don’t look any weaker.
Just a guess.
I agree with this statement to a certain extent.
However, when negotiators to take the attitude that the problem is merely genocidal, as opposed to territorial (as I am sure is prevalent in Likkud at the moment), then the status quo will be maintained - absent fencing off every single Palestinian person, which, despite what’s going on there at the moment, ain’t going to happen.
And let’s face it, Arafat isn’t going to be any help with negotiations. It’s down to Israel to produce a nobly negotiated, or unilaterally declared, two-state settlement: it would give Israel the moral highground that it so desperately needs, with relation to the OP.
Withdrawal to pre-67 borders on the part of the Israeli government, despite the appalling bloodloss that occurred today, and has done for years, and will continue ad infinitum while things remain as they are, will, I predict, have the support of the entire western world, rather than queasy support from the US and downright horror from most of Europe and the UN.
A withdrawal and separation into two states will certainly not eradicate terrorism. But anyone with half a brain can see that it will almost certainly reduce terrorism. I’m afraid that history shows pretty much every democratic state that is involved in a territorial dispute will have to settle for some terrorism against its people. It is the duty of the Israeli government to reduce that level, something it clearly is failing to do at the moment.
(Finally, yet again, enough with the “homicide bombers” schtick. What - you think suicide is noble? IRA bombers tried to make damn sure they didn’t blow themselves up, but they were still terrorists, and still “homicide bombers”. The key thing that this kind of Palestinian terrorist does is to commit suicide while murdering innocent people. Do you use the same term for the Tamil Tigers? To apply the term “homicide bomber” to them is illogical.)
The Palestinians have never given up the “right of return” to Israel, and there is nothing to suggest that they ever will. Of course that would spell the end of a democratic state guaranteeing the existance of a safe haven for the jewish people and their liberties.
For the Palestinians its really all or nothing and the Israelis are really between a rock and a hard place.
For those of you who feel you don’t have a big enough grasp on the history of Israel (and for some of you who feel you do), pay a quick visit to this animated site:
You can always tell the morons in debates like this–they’re the ones who believe that “Palestinian” and “Arab” are just interchangeable terms, and that it makes no difference which one you use. The section started out talking about Palestinians, but then segued predictably into encompassing the whole Arab world.
Here’s a few more for your list:
-
All Palestinian homes razed by bulldozers, without trial or recourse, and generally without anything more than suspicion of criminal or terrorist activity.
-
All Palestinian civilians killed by the IDF, many of whom were armed either with nothing at all, or with rocks and sticks, at the time of their deaths. Of course, we can’t call this “terrorism,” because in the convenient formulation adopted by abbynormalguy and some others, regular armed forces apparently cannot, by definition, commit acts of terrorism.
Interestingly, the OP had the answer to his own question right there in the first post:
Well, if the ability to hunt down and kill Palestinians is goddammed important to you, why don’t you suggest the obvious solution? Israel should say to the US, “We don’t want any more of your money, and we’re no longer going to listen to you regarding the Palestinian situation.” But, of course, they’re not going to pass up all that American cash. And, unsavoury as the idea may be, in the international political arena financial aid usually comes with strings attached.
That was a policy of the IDF that was in force briefly and was stopped when the Israeli High Court issued an injunction banning the practice. And that’s the fundimental difference. When Israeli soldiers have an inhumane policy, Israeli citizens protest and the Israeli goverment makes them stop it. When Hamas and al Fatah have an inhumane policy, they get cheered by Palestinians and praised by Arafat.
You know, when I read your posts on Israel/Palestine, it makes me wonder if your solution is to teach every Israeli how to swim.
Sure, it is, Captain Amazing , then after the Israelis are in the water, it’s like ducks in a barrel!
Oh dear. I don’t know what you were trying to achieve with that link, but the effect your endorsement has had is to indicate that you take such a blatantly-one sided and subjective view of the situation that there’s really no point in talking to you further.
jjimm I almost completely agree with your post. On paper, you’re right about it being up to Israel to declare a two-state settlement. Here’s the problem when that is put into practice:
The Palestinians want to exist less than they want Israel to cease to exist. It’s been proven time and time again. If Israel were to give up %51 of her land, they’d want the other 49%. It would never finish there.
That’s why I sadly have to conclude that there is no negotiating with these people. Just as much as GWB does not want to negotiate with terrorists, nor should Israel have to. And even if Israel declares a two-state settlement, she will still be at the same point she is now, but with less territory than was granted to her and is rightfully hers.
So … Unless I’m missing another option …
Can’t negotiate.
Can’t live in peace.
Can’t give up some land in the name of shalom.
Fight like your life depends on it, because it does.
On another note: The difference I draw between the suicide bombers and an IDF attack on Palestine is as follows.
The suicide bombers are groomed into the position, look forward to the day they die in the name of Allah, look forward to their rewards for this (72 virgins for one), and intend on killing random people, most of which (if not all) s/he knows are civilians.
An IDF soldier is groomed to obey commands from higher ups in hopes of defending their country and it’s citizens, looks forward to the day their mission is accomplished. Though they face the possibility of death they certainly don’t aim for it. They do not do this not for Allah, but for their country. They don’t intend on killing random citizens. Their goals are specifically targeted individuals and/or structures.
Well that kind of attitude is quite prevalent and mimics Sharon’s attitude towards Arafat.
NOOOOOOOO … No that wasn’t my question in the OP.
My question was: Why is it OK for the US to go into Iraq for a POSSIBLE threat (which I believe Bush knew never existed, but that’s beside the point) and not for Israel to act on a PRESENT AND IMMINENT threat?
Of course, the intent of the OP has been blown away by IF Israel has the right to protect her borders. So I’ll let it go from here. I got my venting out.
BTW: I’m sure it was a typo, but I’m a SHE (not a he) and the name is CheekyMonkey.
Hoist with my own petard. You’re right, and I’m shamed.
OK, cheekymonkey, I’ll point you to this, which gives, IMO, a more balanced account - though perhaps you may have some critiques.
This is an assumption based on previous bad blood, surely. Arafat may indeed have exhibited such tendencies at Oslo, but how can you be so sure that this is true. And even if it is…
Great, well my proposal has not said negotiate: it’s said do that which will reduce terrorism within Israeli borders. Withdraw unilaterally and fuck the negotiating.
[quoteCheekyMonkey613]
And even if Israel declares a two-state settlement, she will still be at the same point she is now, but with less territory than was granted to her and is rightfully hers.
[/quote]
Granted when? I’m saying 1967 borders, not 1948.
Finally, I don’t think that the Bush doctrine for eliminating terrorism is any yardstick against which to compare another state, given that it’s an entirely new approach and there’s no proof that it’s working. Maybe look to situations that have been resolved (if only ever partially)?
jjimm, first clue was my opening sentence:
“I understand the argument about “Palestinian” and Israeli territory. And yes, from me putting Palestinian in quotes, you know what side I’m on.”
I respect your opinion though you feel there’s no point talking to me.
We’re out of synch: I retracted.
Well, but that’s what the Sharon government is doing. That’s the entire point of the fence. It gets built, then the Israelis withdraw within it, and everything on the other side of the fence belongs to the P.A. Now, admittedly, the fence isn’t drawn exactly to pre-67 borders, and the area within the fence includes some settlements…mainly suburbs of Jerusalem. Obviously, from the Palestinian standpoint, this is bad, but I think its inevitable. Sharon has basically said, “We’re going to go behind the fence…all the settlements on the other side are on their own.”
And I think it’s wrong to characterize Likud policy as “genocidal”. There seems to be this tendency to assume Labour=peace, Likud=expulsion of the Palestinians and annexation of the West Bank. Likud isn’t Molodet, or one of those parties, and Likud is committed to a two-state solution. And, now that the religious parties aren’t in the government coalition, that can happen.
A misconception and a misinterpretation, Captain Amazing:
-
The fence does not follow the 1967 borders. It deviates from them wildly, especially around settlements. Furthermore, it actually only encloses chunks of the West Bank. The rest of the land going up to the Jordan is still under Israeli control. Map (warning - huge).
-
I didn’t say that Sharon’s policies were genocidal. What I meant was that the assumption of a purely genocidal motive for Palestinian terrorism is false and counterproductive. Apologies if I was unclear.
It deviates around some of the settlements, yes. It’s not practical to build the fence around the 1967 borders, because those aren’t secure borders. And the rest of the land going up to the borders doesn’t border Israel. You can see on the map that there’s no fence between Jordan and the West Bank, but that’s because the Israelis aren’t worried so much about the Jordanian-West Bank border, so much as they are about the Israel-West Bank border. It’s still something to start with.
And, remember, too, the West Bank wasn’t under Israeli control before the Second Infatada. After December of 2000, most of it was under the control of the Palestinian Authority.
I apologize. He mentioned “global” terrorists in that speech. Here and here are links to articles referring the war against “international” terrorism.
I’m sure there are more cites. I remember being struck at the qualification. It wasn’t terrorism he declared war against, it was international terrorism. I still maintain he did it to avoid the thorny issues of the IRA and Chechnya, thereby enlisting the help of Britain and Russia without promising to stamp out their local problems.
But that is opinion.