That seems pretty consistant DSeid. Cheers 
Some terrorists can be reined in by leadership (IRA at the moment for example) but not all. Some are removed from a central organisation and will continue with their own agenda. The peace process can’t be held hostage by these people or by extremists on both sides.
So the Royal Ulster Constabulary is not a valid target, since it is a police force, not the military, despite the fact that it has, in the past, butchered civilians left and right?
You still fail to grasp that there was no war.
In other words, the Geneva Conventions are meaningless to you. You could have served Saddam well.
Except of course that most of these buses HAVE military value, cause there are soldiers in there. The problem is that the IDF does not agree with your assessment of what is a fair target, having engaged in wholesale slaughter of civilians as a response to attacks on military convoys and installations.
Home razings are terrorism? And extrajudicial executions, hosing down city quarters with unguided missiles, purposefully depriving people of their means to make a living, destroying civilian infrastructure critically dependent on the economic survival of the Palestinians is what?
Do you know how many people have died on either side?
Let’s see.
The war on independence back in 1775 between the brits and founding fathers of the united states.
Israeli terrorist activities in the late 40s leading up to the birth of Israel and this whole mess we find ourselves in now. A former terrorist leader being the democratically elected leader of Israel in 1980.
Now call me crazy and spank me but I do believe that one of those is relevant to the a present discussion on credibility and the other is not.
Justifes? Absolutely not, but pot, kettle, black. The reason that Palestinian terrorism is continuing while Israeli terrorism is nearly a half century old is that Israel has a state, and Palestine still really does not. Maybe I’m just jaded, but ‘terrorism’ to me is more and more just a buzz phrase. States have a luxury in that their actions can’t be terrorism since, of course, they are a nation.
Hmmm, you seem to be ignoring the two 20th century examples of terrorism that I cited, by nations that are frequently the source of protests against Israeli policy. And if you like, it’s easy to find more recent examples of American behavior that could qualify in some people’s minds as terrorism (think of Vietnam).
What’s the statute of limitations for past bad acts in relation to the capacity to express moral outrage over terrorism?
"Sorry, but you were comparing apples and oranges. There is a difference between condemning terrorism and claiming a moral high ground about someone you have been abusing yourself and who uses your very own methods."
Condemning terrorism, does, in fact, involving claiming a relative moral high ground. As to using “your very own methods”, I don’t recall any recent examples of Israelis blowing up Palestinian buses, or of Israelis strapping explosives to themselves and setting off the charge at the entrance to seaside cafes.
If one hears about incidents such as the King David Hotel bombing, and then responds to current-day terrorist acts against Israelis with the equivalent of “So what? They deserve it”, then one has a severe problem with one’s moral compass.
Oliver,
And what exactly do the Geneva conventions have to do with defining what is terrorism vs what is guerilla warfare vs a human rights violation?
Let’s go through this. Just a matter of terms, not of value judgements:
Terrorism to me is an attack whose prime target is civilian and whose intent is to cause a policy change by causing fear in a general population. I think that definitions which confine terrorism to non-states are self-serving creations by states. To me the bombing of Nagasaki was a terroist act (search for a good thread on that)
Guerilla warfare is surprise attacks on miltary targets and infrastructures by non-traditional forces who often hide within civilian populations. Often a formally declared state of war does not exist.
Human rights can be violated in the process of an attack on a justified military target by either guerilla or traditional means if inadequate attention to minimizing civilian casualties was employed. Such however is not terrorism.
If the military objective of a destruction of a military target causes unavoidable civilian deaths despite reasonable efforts to achieve the military objective while minimizing civilian losses, then human rights have not been violated.
All whether you agree with the ends or not.
Going after terrorist or military infrastructures in an urban environment with the goal of accomplishing the military objective and incidentally causing civilian casualties is not terrorism. If inadequate attention was paid to minimizing civilian deaths then human rights are violated.
Extrajudicial executions of terrorists is not terrorism; one can debate if it is a violation of human rights - I believe that it is. But then I am against the death penalty in all cases.
Destroying an infrastructure used in military or terror attacks with the goal of preventing it use in attacks is not terrorism. It may or may not be a violation of human rights depending on whether or not one believes that the military objective could have been achieved with less effect on the civilian populus.
Israel is currently engaged in little terrorism and in some human rights violations. How much is human rights violation and how much is unavoidable civilian harm caused in the process of achieving justifiable military objectives is a matter on which I am sure we disagree.
Well I made a general claim to lack of relevance. But sure…
No they were not. Given present common usage of the term “terrorism” it does not (regretably perhaps) include cases where a state commits atrocities toward the civilian population. This is usually contained in terms such as “war crimes” and the likes.
But sure, if we agree to broaden the use of the term, that opens up for a discussion on present Israeli state terrorism towards the palestinian population, one that i would find quite interesting.
I do believe you will have to elaborate on this one if you want to make sense, although i suspect you are alluding to WWII in some way?
Now, let me just quickly state that neither Britain nor Germany nor the United States equals Israel or the PLO, which are the two parties involved in the conflict whos morals are up for scrutiny. So there is a general lack of relevance to your argument.
How about you actually try to adress the argument being made: It is not credible to condemn Arafat for his terrorist past while at the same time having accepted Menachem Begin, Yitzak Shamir and Ariel Sharon in public office in the last 20 years.
See what you fail to acknowledge is that these guys were never condemned for their attrocities; they were made heroes and elected to lead their country.
See what you fail to acknowledge is that these guys were never condemned for their attrocities
What? As I mentioned in my earlier post Begin and the Irgun were very much condemned from all sides for the King David bomb. Ben-Gurion called Irgun “an enemy of the Jewish people”, and Irgun’s standing in the Haganah after the attack was very much strained.
Sharon (for his role in Sabra and Shatilla) was found indirectly responsible by an Israeli tribunal and was forced out of his position as Defence Minister at the time.
How is that being “never condemned”???
Randy, you are engaging in a very tortuous and dubious logic if you are suggesting that there is something uniquely reprehensible about pre-Palestine Zionist terror acts. OliverH falls into this category as well when he says “There is a difference between condemning terrorism and claiming a moral high ground about someone you have been abusing yourself and who uses your very own methods.”. OliverH is overlooking the fact that Jews were often an abused minority in Palestine for many years before the establishment of Israel, subject to discrimination and mass killings. And given that there were a number of Palestinians who collaborated with and were trained by the Nazis in WWII (including at least one Palestinian explosives expert that I know of), it is ludicrous to claim that Palestinians adopted Israeli methods of terror. If anything, it was the other way around.
Which justifies nothing.
I will have to further disagree with Randy when he says that the morals of U.S., Britain, Germany etc. are irrelevant when they attempt to intervene in the Mideast. For example, Israel’s policies cannot be judged in a vacuum without historical perspective, which should include scrutiny of
Western nations guilty of egregious acts of imperial conquest, as contrasted with a country struggling to survive while surrounded by hostile enemies.**
I don’t believe the issue is Arafat’s terrorist past - rather it is his terrorist present (or if you don’t buy his active involvement in ongoing terrorism, his near-total disinterest in curbing such activities by those close to him).
All fine and dandy my friend. But your interpretation of the requirements for “terrorism” leads down one slippery slope, that may lead to some unintended results.
Consider for example Timothy McVeigh. He believes himself, and other “right-minded” americans to be in a war proper with the US federal government. So then the FBI building becomes a military target. If you feel an urge to define the actions of McVeigh into the realm of “guerrilla warfare”, i guess i could live with that, but please take some time to inform the media of your findings.
Stated as fact by you here, at the same time under heavy debate. As I’m sure you’re aware. You need to elaborate on what you mean by “facilitating”.
Depends on what kind of “progress” you are refering to. I see no reason to delay negotiations of a peace agreement by waiting for all hostilities to cease.
Well I’m not sure if I agree with your using of the term “terrorism” for these atrocities. I think “atrocities” is quite sufficient. Wimpy? You are aware that more civilian palestinians die in retaliative and preventive attacks from the Israeli army than Israelis from terrorist attacks?
How exactly did the Zionist leadership prove that? The Deir Yassin massacre where Irgun and the Stern gang killed 250 palestinians took place April 9, 1948. That’s one month before Israel was declared independent on May 14, 1948, and three months after the UN resolution calling for the creation of Israel November 29, 1947.
A few figures: there were two periods of strife pre-war of independance focused on Jerusalem, in the racial riots and tit-for-tat killings of 1920-1940 44 Jews were killed (during the main disturbance of 1929, though further 169 Jews were killed in Palestine outside of Jerusalem), in the same period 125 Arabs were killed in Jerusalem (100 by British troops and 25 by Jewish extremists), Just prior to the war of independance 296 Jews were killed in abushes an 302 Arabs were killed by Jewish terrorists and British troops (this period does not include the King David Hotel bombing).
(all information extracted from Jerusalem Illustrated History Atlas, Martin Gilbert, Martin Gilbert and The Board of Deputies of British Jews 1977).
Most Israelis (in my experince, anyway) accept the bombing of the King David Hotel as terrorism, also remember that many of the victims were Jewish themselves.
I’m not. They are very typical terrorist acts much like terrorist acts go. As far as I’ve understood it this is the position of Oliver as well, but i’m sure he’ll speak for himself.
I’m not familiar with these episodes so I require some elaboration, preferably with cites and links.
[On preview: It would seem to me that MCs post points in another direction then your claims]
And then my friend I do believe you have got a problem with you moral compass, since this kind of analysis from you:
do not mix well with your earlier proclamation that:
and
I’m sure there is some subtle difference in there that make history relevant in one case but not in the other, why absolutist moral judgements are called for in the one case but not in the other.
Alleged by the Israelis, but haven’t produced credible proof, despite confiscation of PAs archives by military force.
Assuming this as fact for the sake of argument: Then you would condemn all zionist leadership pre-Israel in this same way?
Hm “never sufficiently condemned” would have been more accurate. And I maintain that since:
The old leader of “the enemy of the jewish people” Menachem Begin was voted Prime Minister of Israel in 1977. And Sharon is presently the Prime Minister of Israel.
Check out these guys biographies on the Jewish Virtual Library and help me find where their shady past is condemned.
Menachem Begin: http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/biography/begin.html
Ariel Sharon: http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/biography/sharon.html
Yitsak Shamir: http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/biography/shamir.html
**
a)I am ignoring no such thing. It is, in fact, entirely irrelevant to my argumentation. The only thing that is relevant is what actions the current players have been engaged in. Your retroactive argumentation is merely a justification for eternal violence. By your argumentation, mass atrocities would be justified against the current population of Germany for the actions of their father and grandfathers.
b)I never said Palestinians ADOPTED anyone’s methods. What I am saying is that they are using the very means in their effort to get their state that Shamir used in getting his.
Sorry, but you are obviously highly ignorant of Israeli behavior. Unless, of course, you want to claim that Poland has been engaging in atrocities in the past. Israel has displayed a level of xenophobia against anyone and everyone that is simply testimony of a totally irrational course of action. Israeli governments have scoffed at decisions of their very own courts, and have displayed a behavior that would have been found revolting in any democratic nation, be it trying to strip as of yet unconvicted suspects of their citizenship, or granting ethnic majorities special rights over minorities.
And no, none of your arguments bears any relevance to Israeli adherence to international treaties and conventions it took the sovereign decision to sign.
Which largely exists in the statements by the Israeli propaganda machinery. But hey, I assume those Palestinians shot in shootouts between Hammas and Jihad activists and the PA were just as suicidal as the rest of them, huh?
Where is the devotion of the Israeli government to enforce Israeli laws?
Here’s part of a timeline on the relevant portion of the conflict, from mideastweb.org (you will find that it does not quite reflect the sort of tit-for-tat exchange that MC claims:
Feb - Mar 1920 Two Jewish settlements of Tel Hai and Metullah in N. Palestine attacked (Feb 20). Josef Trumpeldor killed in second attack at Tel Hai (March 1)
April, 1920 Musa Kazim al-Husayni, mayor of Jerusalem, is replaced by Raghib al-Nashashibi; clan rivalry grows.
April, 1920 Arab riots led by Haj Amin El Husseini and Aref El Aref in Hebron and Jerusalem. Forty Six Jews Killed.
May, 1921 Arab riots in Jaffa against Jewish population.
June 1920 Haganah, Jewish Self Defense, organized by Vladimir (Ze’ev) Jabotinsky.
Dec 1920 Histadrut, the General Federation of Hebrew Workers in the Land of Israel (Histadrut Haklalit Shel Haovdim Haivriyim Be’eretz Yisrael), was formed. Remained exclusively Jewish until 1960s, when it officially dropped ‘Hebrew’ from its name (1966).
July 24, 1922 British Mandate for Palestine; Official establishment of Transjordan as a separate state; Britain, in military control of Syria, allows French forces led by Gourand to retake Damascus by force.
August, 1929 Arab riots in Hebron, Jerusalem, Safed, Haifa, Motza and elsewhere. The Jews had set up a dividing screen at the Wailing Wall in Yom Kippur of 1928 to separate men and women worshippers, prompting rumors that the Jews wanted to build a synagogue at wall, which were spread deliberately by Haj Amin El-Husseini. Amid heightening tensions, a demonstration by Jews in 1929 and Arab incitement ignited violence and rioting again Jews. Thousands of Jews fled the ancient Jewish quarter in Jerusalem. The Hebron Jewish community was evacuated after 64-67 were killed in riots.
Oct 21, 1930 British Passfield White Paper proposes to limit Jewish immigration to Palestine.
1936-1939 Arab Revolt led by Haj Amin Al-Husseini. Over 5,000 Arabs were killed according to some sources, mostly by British. Several hundred Jews were killed by Arabs. Husseini fled to Iraq and then to Nazi Germany.
As to the Nazi-Palestinian link, there’s material in the book O Jerusalem about the founding of the state of Israel, and one can check out information like this.
**
If you check the early part of this thread, you’ll see that I condemned (rather curtly) the bombing cited in the OP as terrorism. I would extend that condemnation to any current Mideast leader who commits or condones terrorism, and to anyone who excuses or ignores current acts of terrorism committed on Israelis due to similar acts performed over a half century ago by some Zionists.
If that’s “moral absolutism”, I plead guilty.
Oh, and Oliver? If all you can do is jump up and down and shout “Not Relevant”, I fear there’s little to discuss with you.
Totally one-sided hatred directed at Israel is a major stumbling block to peace in the region, as I hope you’ll discover in time.
Jackmanii:
On pre WWII Palestine killings: I will check out this subject, your figures, and the link; and get back to you.
In the mean time I suggest you ponder on the more relevant parts of my last post that you so gracefully abstained from commenting on.
Feel free to singly out any relevancies that you feel I did not address.
This part (sorry for the rerun):
Oooops. And that was of course originally posted by me; not by you like my spastic fingers wrote when i didnt look
I can’t see what triumphant point it is that you think you’re making here.
Wrongful, terroristic or quasi-terroristic acts committed in the past by other nations do not disqualify them from weighing in on Mideast wrongs. However, a recognition of history should lead thoughtful people to avoid simplistic denunciations of one side or another.
And again, the only “absolutist moral judgment” I call for is the recognition that terrorist acts are evil. The fact that Israel is among the nations and groups denouncing current terrorism does not make those acts any less vile.
The claim that Arafat is totally without responsibility for terrorism deserves its own thread, not to mention an endowed chair in delusional psychology.