Yes. In relatively large countries with natural hideouts (jungles, mountains, etc…). I strongly doubt guerilla tactics could be of any use in Palestine (apart perhaps urban guerilla).
Azael said:
Hey, here’s an idea! Maybe they can stop “fighting back” in this way altogether and get back to the peace talks that were actually going fairly well until, well, Palestinians started regularly strapping bombs to themselves…
Nah. That’d never work. :rolleyes:
Yes, I am aware that that is how terrorism is defined, I am still a little cloudy as to how that is different from how a war is carried out. Kind of makes the term “War on Terrorism” sound a little funny doesn’t it? Language can make people percieve differences that do not exist.
I realize it may be a moot point but it seems to me that the Palestinians and the Israelis are at war with one another.
Quite often, however, I hear that the Palestinians are perpetrating terrorist acts while the Israelis are simply defending themselves/killing terrorists/bulldozing buildings (which may or may not have people in them at the time)/“occupying” towns
I know that the other side of the propaganda machine is similarly one-sided and that is what sickens me.
I also know that for many, this conflict is based in religious dogma that in practice is no less insidious than the liebensraum policies adopted by Hitler. Whether it be “Israel for the Israelis” or the goal of “pushing Israel into the sea” these are proscriptions for genocide.
Someone needs to pull these kids apart before they kill each other. But as long as the extremists rule the day people are liable to get hurt and the inemity can only grow.
Azael said:
Speaking for myself:
Terrorism is when you target civilians.
War is when you target the armed forces.
Yes, sometimes in war you accidentally kill civilians, as in Afghanistan when there were certainly civilian casualties when we attacked the Taliban. But terrorism is when you aim at the civilians, such as when Al Qaeda flew planes into the World Trade Center.
The same thing is true in Israel. The Palestinians routinely target civilians, even going to the point of sometimes aiming at school buses and the like. The Israelis generally shoot at those who are armed. Sometimes civilians are killed in the crossfire, and that too is a tragedy. But the difference is that the Israeli soldiers weren’t aiming for them.
Can I say that I’m sick and tired of the “desperation” defense for the terrorists? This implies that the situation was getting worse and worse, and that the terrorists were facing death anywaym, and so have decided to take a few of the enemy down with them.
But of course that is not true. The real purpose for the terrorism is to STOP the peace process, to shut down any possibility of peaceful coexistence. You know it, I know it, the Israelis know it, the Palestinians know it. The suicide bombings are carried out precisely BECAUSE Arafat was on the verge of a peaceful settlement. And that peace settlement was unacceptable to the terrorists, because it would have allowed Israel to continue to exist, but would have satisfied a large part of the Palestinian population and lowered their desire for the elimination of Israel.
The suicide bombers aren’t trying to make occupation of the West Bank too expenisive for Israel. They are trying to provoke the Israelis into retaliation, because that retaliation will radicalize the Palestinians further, which will make peace coexistence impossible, which will trigger a war against Israel, which will lead to the destruction of Israel, and the pushing of all the Jews into the sea.
Anybody who pretends it is about “desperation” is kidding themselves.
One doesn’t prevent the other. Whatever could be the agenda, you still need to find someone who’s willing to strap a bomb on himself. If everybody’s happy, it won’t be easy to find. You’ll surely be able to find a couple of dedicaced nutcases, but people won’t line-up for the priveledge of becoming human bombs. So, desperation is certainly a necessary part too…
No, but they might still be willing to continue on with conventional terrorism.
That’s likely. But it would be much better than the current situation.
Chumpsky, I try to answer Your OP, with answers in OPs where this question has been partly discussed. I put some claryfying notes in {}-brackets.
Two things I want to point out:
- You have to read the both threads, if You want to completely understand the context.
- I am asking over and over again, in these two OPs, if it is cleare that the civilians should not be bombed, because it takes some time for some guys to learn to read. You have already seen that in this thread and many before.
Thread What should the Palestinian do?
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/printthread.php?s=&threadid=122188&perpage=68
I take only fragments from what I wrote and I think that I can not quote other posters post, according to rules, so this will only be about what I wrote:
{The Palestinian was accused for being “facists”}
Continuing…
In the thread Palestinian bombers has no excuse. Prove me wrong
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/printthread.php?s=&threadid=121556&perpage=192 I wrote as follows:
—The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.—
This is the definition of war, as far as I can tell. The definition of terrorism, as far as I’m concerned, must include the idea that you target civilians or civilian infastructure for non-tactical purposes: not with the idea that you are weaking the enemy’s power to wage war, but rather with the idea that you are “sending a message” to the population as a whole, as opposed to just the leaders. Israel has done this on occasion (as when they bomb Arafat compounds “to send a message”) but it is far more a tactic of Palestinian organizations.
To speak coldly: In both cases, it’s been pointless: if terrorism is going to have any effect at all, it has to use a demonstration to establish a credible threat of destruction far beyond what a population can tolerate.
The Palestinian terrorists have failed utterly to do this: they’ve established instead a routine of killing that Israel can easily tolerate, and that, far from establishing their ability to do much greater harm, has instead simply revealed the limits of what they are capable of (scattered strikes).
In contrast, the most successful use of terrorist tactics were the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There, the demonstration was successful, sudden, and devastating, and it established a very credible threat (though something of a bluff) that the U.S. could easily wipe Japan off the earth.
No, and neither did the UN nor Human Rights Watch nor Amnesty International. How did YOU praytell?
I can’t help but feel that all this talk about “not targeting civilians” is somewhat duplicitous. Palestinians are targeted every day by being relagated to second class citizens in their own ancestral home. Their economy is crippled by restrictions on their movements, their land is taken away to make more room for Israeli settlements. Just because the settlers aren’t always the one’s driving the tanks or bulldozers doesn’t make them any less complicit in the mind of a person who’s very livelyhood has been stolen away. Their houses are searched, they are shot at if they so much as sneeze wrong, these are a people under seige.
You realize why Israel is not allowing Palestinians who have been forced out of the region in the past “the right of return”? Because then the Israeli’s would be outnumbered and the right of the Jews to control the fates of a majority that is not adequately represented would suffer another blow.
Azael
You dare attempt to justify any reasoning that a child or grandparent or mom or dad is complicit because his/her leader is somehow suppressing a people and stealing jobs and land in a so called attempt at defense? So therefore in that persons mind they have every right to kill and terrorize those individuals in some act of desperation? Ted Bundy was a sexual deviate and claimed women thretened him and could not orgasm unless they were dead or unconsious. Do you feel that it was wrong and his own justification makes murder being wrong a “duplicitous” argument? If not please tell me how they differ.
,Chumpsky, are you supporting the Palestinians?
Sending money?
Or will you go over there and help them yourself?
vanilla
I do not know about Chumpsky, but I will answer for myself:
1) If the Palestinians needs help, and use this help in pure military actions: Yes, I can send them some money. (But this is still not he case, they hit also civilian targets).
I can also send money to any freedom-fighters in any part of the world, if the above mentioned condition is fullfilled.
2) I could go there and help them, if I would not be to old and my personal life would not be as it is. Twenty years ago, I would have gone. My speciality is Public Relations, if You wander what I would do there. And they surely need that.
They ask in the Net help with picking olives or just to be there so that there would be some international people reporting what is happening, if something is happening. I can send You such a report, if You wish.
As I see it, they are doing the war in a wrong way. But about that I have already written in my earlier post.
And if You want to help, I can send You some addresses, but You will easily find them in the Net.
Question: Which of You would sell them weapons if the Palestinians would be hitting only military targets?
Too bad there doesn’t appear to be any Palestinian leaders willing to show this level of self-sacrifice. Instead of a Mandella or Ghandi, the only thing the Palestinians get is Arafat the Impotent at best hiding in his compound or at worst ordering Palestinian children to their destruction in some useless symbolic gesture of distruction.
Hey, what are you trying to do, get Homeland Security on my ass?
You will recall that the ANC was described in much the same terms that Hamas, etc. are now, back in the 1980’s. Cheney, for example, voted against a resolution calling on South Africa to release Mandela, calling the ANC a “terrorist organization” and Mandela himself a terrorist leader. But, I doubt you will find very many Arafat supporters around here. His only claim to legitimacy stems from acts he performed decades ago, and these have long been overshadowed by his ineptitude, brutality and greed.
Arafat serves a very useful purpose for the Israelis, which is the only reason he is still alive. You will notice that when the Israelis criticize Arafat, it is because “he can’t control his own people.” You see, that is his job, to “control his own people,” to protect Israelis. He is the classic colonial collaborator, nicely set up with riches and a security force to keep the natives in line.
I absolutely despise Arafat, and will welcome the day he passes from power. That does not imply I don’t support Palestinian righs and self-determination, any more than the existence of Hitler makes me anti-German.
?
If you vocally support Palestinians, is it a violation of law or soemthing?
No, really, I don’t know much about the Homeland Security bill.
Would you be considered supporting terrorists?
Does the U.s. consider Palestinians terrorists?
seems like Israel has and is willing to trade land for peace
is it true that the land in the settlement areas were sold to the jews at inflated prices = it is rightfully owned by the settlers?
is it true that the massive millitary action by israel in in response to terrorist attacks?