What does Isreal do now?

15 dead, 40 hurt (preliminary reports) in a very recent suicide bombing. within the last hour.

After pulling out and releasing Arafat seems they can look foreward to daily bombings. So do they go back in? Is their only “correct” response to unoccupy the territories right away to stop the bombings? Would that be feasable since much of the occupied territories are settled. Or do they do nothing until the peace talks strike some kind of deal.


Here’s the article: http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/05/07/mideast.explosion/index.html

Nothing to add, except :frowning:

Permanently enclose ‘Palestinians’ in the Cone of Silence.

Bah. Must not be a GD then. Guess I forgot to add my 2 cents and maybe it will get one started. Seems my comments always get good replys.

I think the UN should send a peacekeeping force into Palistinian territories right away, because Isreal is going to go right back in now and we are gonna go through the same thing we did last month.

I then think Isreal should call it’s own war on terror, and ask the so called “coalition” for help since they have “dedicated” themselves as anti-terror nations. I am sure most countries would back out but also pretty sure the U.S. will back Isreal and her close allies like Britain and Canada. We start going after all of the groups who claim responsibility for the suicide bombings liek we did the Al-Quiada. Hamas should be hunted down with no less ferocity. If Sharon has proof that Arafats Martyrs Brigade is responisble for attacks (they may have claimed responsibility but don’t remember for sure) then we demand the PA hand them over or we do with them the same we did with the Taliban.

I do know that we will no get them all, but if they are on the run like the Bin Laden and his group are then they will not have time to blow up kids in a pool hall. We go wherever we find them. If Iran are harboring them then we use the excuse to go in, against their soverignty if need be, And maybe turn them into another taliban.

Who knows. If we do it right and spank Hussiens butt at the same time we may give that region a chance at democracy, or at least scare the dictators over there enough that they will streighten up a little.

When I first saw that Israel was pulling out and had agreed to let Arafat and some people go my first thought was “I hope the PA doesn’t do anything to screw it up”. My hope ended when I turned on the TV and saw the attack.

I want peace in the middle east and Israel has attempted to bring about peace. The PA, and the countries that support the PA, only have one goal in mind. The destruction of Israel.

I believe it is time that the US tells Arafat that either you stop the violence or we hunt you down and kill you and your fanatics. The same should go for anyone supporting Arafat. If killing is the only thing you understand, then by GOD, we will show you what killing is all about.

I really don’t like violence. At the same time there are situations where it is required. Arafat has never lived up to his agreements. While talking about peace with Israel he continued to train kids to hate Israel and got them to strap bombs to themselves and kill innocent people. I think it is time to take Arafat out, just kill the scum.

And if the Arab countries object, well fuck em. If they disagree tell them that, by supporting Arafat, they are terrorists and that we will take them out. A low yield nuke will do them and then we can just walk right in.

In others words, stop the killing or die.


Hamas claimed responsibility for the latest atrocity.

The PA is not Hamas.

Arafat has condemned the bombing, for all the good that may do.

Arafat may be a weak/weakened/nogood leader, who has possibly operated revolving-door policies with regard to imprisonment of extremists and terrorists - but Arafat is not the leader of Hamas.

I am getting the impression that, amongst certain people, Sharon is winning the “if you repeat something often enough, people will believe it” campaign.

A “Defensive Shield” style operation in the Gaza Strip, since this is the place from which the terrorist came(quite surprising) and because “Defensive Shield” created a “lower limit” on the possible Israeli retaliations. No more pointless bombings of empty buildings, now reconquering and “cleaning” cities is the standart.

The Taliban was not Al-Quiada either. And we did not go after the Taliban for the attack on the US necessarily. I just think it’s time for people to put up or shut up. The unconscionable acts of sucide bombings need to be stopped immediately. Same goes for the oppression the palistinians are living in wheather it is from the Isrealis or their own government. The UN is nothing but a tank filled with hot air if all it does is condemn and sit back while everyone else does something.

If the bombings where happining in the US like they do in Isreal we would demand imediate action to stop them. hunt the terrorists down where they live and give them no place to hide. That is almost verbatum of the presidents speeches. So we must adress the issue in the same light. It is not like Isreal is a foreign country with totally different beliefs and ideals as ours who only wish to let them handle things on their own on this issue. They are practically begging for the rest of the worlds help at a time that the whole world has declared a war against the same acts that are inflicted on them.

the only thing the rest of the world can do is criticize Isreals actions when they are the only ones doing anything. Pretty damn hypocritical and it makes me sick.

But we would put up with invaders stealing our land and keeping us under the heels of an oppressive military occupation? I seem to recall another president who said, “It’s better to die on our feet than live on our knees”.

But why must you? Just because GWB says it, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s right. It’s not the only way to deal with terrorist atrocities. Yes, there are a few historical examples of a militaristic solution to terror, but there are examples of other approaches working too. While the UK government took a hardline approach, recruitment to the IRA was high. When negotiations persisted over years and years, and even after the ceasefires were destroyed a workable - if uneasy - situation has arisen.

I can’t help thinking that, even if Sharon’s policies work in the short-term, the amount of ‘blowback’ from Palestinian children today who are going to grow up to become terrorists, is going to be horrifying.

I wish Rabin were still alive.

“Dying on our feet”? That implies an honorable death.

Is that how you would describe last night?

You and the rest of us.

Cant we find anything we agree on?

I think we were in a similar predicament but we did not go to Brtitain and bomb their women and children. There is no excuse ever to target innocent civilians and it must be stopped. You have to go to the source and wipe them out. If they have an injustice and cannot fight it militarily like we did then they cannot resort to the kinds of terrorist tactics. There is no way that isreal can give into the demands of the palistinians while there are suicide bombings and the like. Even if they wanted to they would just be sending the message that terror works and anytime you disagree just go out and kill some women and children to get your way.

I don’t want to sidetrack into a whole different debate, but do you really think Arafat would have been a better “partner for peace” with Rabin? Don’t you think that the same things that prevented him from taking Barak’s deal (whether it be extremists among his people or his own ego) would have prevented him from making a final deal with Rabin?

Zev Steinhardt

Israel is in desperate straits. Even an agreement with Arafat will not end the attacks from Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. Israel is in a struggle for survival.

From an economic POV Israel should punish terrorism, not reward it. I suggest a different kind of land for peace:

If you don’t give us peace, we’ll take your land.

Israel could respond to yesterday’s massacre, and each future atrocity, by militarily taking some land now belonging to the Palestinians. This approach would have two advantages:

  1. It would discourage terrorist behavior.

  2. It would give Israel more land, which they could eventually use to create a buffer zone.

Of course, the above is unthinkable. However, I’m not able to come up with a reasonable strategy for Israel that will work.

Of course it’s all speculation, alas, but I think Rabin would have been able to handle Arafat better. I analogise terrorism as an elemental force - given certain circumstances it will arise, regardless of who’s in charge of the rebellious movement; the government facing terrorism is the intelligence that has to work out how best to deal with this force. I think Rabin would have done a much better job. I think in all the support the Israeli people are justifiably receiving, people are forgetting just what sort of a man Sharon is. Maybe I’ve over-inflated my opinion of Rabin, but I feel he was a true statesman. Whereas Sharon is fanning the flames of future atrocities.

I don’t think there’s any historical precedent that indicates that this policy would do anything but the complete opposite of what you suggest.

What to say.

It is sad to see the bloody minded extremists drive the situation, but it is also typical. Look at Northern Ireland.

Now, as others have noted, PA is not Hamas --indeed for a long time Hamas and PA were at each others throats. It is the feeling of many observers --and I share this-- that events have driven the two to tolerate each other, they are not natural allies as the Taleban and al-Qaida ( there is not goddamned motherfucking u in there goddammit). They are fundamentally ideologically opposed.

PA includes Xtians Arabs, who have no love for Hamas – other than a shared hatred of the occupation.

The PA also includes secularists --Arafat is one, his wife is an Xtian and he himself was long said to be… not the most pious of folks-- who have no love and indeed fear Hamas.

The PA, however, does share with Hamas a feeling that Israel is screwing them (the Ps), expanding settlements while talking peace.

To answer the question if Rabin had not been killed, might it have turned out better? I think so. It could have. It is hard to describe the degree to which (I depend on here on personal impressions, as well as the general reading, derived from convos in Arabic with Ps over the past decade) the Netanyahu years poisoned the well. This is not to deny that Barak made a yoeman but flawed effort to rescue things, but the two faced policy of N boy had a very negative effect, as has general settlement policy in the WB and Gaza.

There are of course no guarantees, but in many ways perhaps the peace process was the walking dead post Rabin, who was a great man IMO. A truly great man.

Now, Israel’s policy going forward. Well, given Sharon’s history (Lebanon) and Arafat’s general stupidity, we can expect blood and more blood. Sharon will puruse a senseless policy of trying to destroy the PA and pick P leadership for a protectorate. We’ll see an Algerian 1952-1962 situation evolve no end of blood in the street.

However, an ideal world would have Sharon stop attacking the PA and cut a deal. Full withdrawal, Statehood and all the trappings for a full crack-down on Hamas. There would need to be guarantees, including an international interposition force. A major issue is neither side has much trust right now, and both have substantive reasons for the mistrust.

No, its not. That is an error. It is in a struggle to find a way to co-exist in the region. Non-coexistance means bleakness, else, a brigher future.


I suggest that you have no fucking clue about the Palestinian motivations.

Their overriding obsession is with land. Take more and you get more response. That’s one of the major reasons the Settlements have to go. My sense has always been that if Israel could give them Gaza and WB with some degree of a compromise on J-town, the moderates could contain the all or nothing crowd. But their sense --and this includes the most moderate elements-- is that they’re not giving up any more land. 1967 is a lot to them, it is their worst case, and even moderate Xtians are willing to die before going further.

Wonderful december, you’ve captured Sharon’s thinking.

He’s also wrong. So horribly, horribly wrong. Algeria. Short of mass-expulsion you have Algeria and endless horror.

As we’ve gone over before, any act of violence by anyone provides Sharon (in accordance with the Israeli gvt) with the excuse to do whatever he wants. Sharon has engineered it so that any single individual can derail the peace process.

Collounsbury, I am well aware that my “suggestion” wasn’t serious. It’s impossible for a number of reasons.

Seriously, I have little expectation that a the struggle will be settled in my lifetime. I expect a continuation of intermittant warfare.

As I see it, the second most likely scenario is even more horrible. Israel coyld be destroyed, but before losing the war they could use their nuclear weapons on the neighboring nations.

Given my pessimism, I would love to believe that you are correct when you write

What I see (from a pro-Israel POV) is that their Arab neighbors have attacked them consistently from day 1 in 1948 to today. Can you expand on why you believe that Israel’s neighbors would change a behavior that has existed for 54 years? It seems a lot to hope for, given the history.