Why do we tolerate Israel's strongarm tactics?

[Brutus]

*Originally posted by Jojo *

**

What do I mean by responsible? I mean that Israel should deal with the threat posed by the various terror groups in the most effective way possible and by using the least amount of violence possible.

The most effective means are not always the most violent. And the most violent means are not always the most effective.

**

You seem to assume that Israel is not using minimal violence right now.

lso, the most effective means may just be the most violent. Given that Israel is a democracy, I don’t think we will ever find out if that is true or not (in this case), but it may be true.
**

Palestine is not Afghanistan. The “bad guys” in Palestine live amongst the ordinary people not separated from them in easy-to-hit terrorist training camps.

The “bad guys” in al qaeda are fighting for an idea. The Palestinians are fighting to retain their land.

The al qaeda boys are not rooted to any one country, they were just using Afghanistan as a convienient staging post. Al qaeda terrorists are a different thing entirely to Palestinian terrorists.
**

Then the ‘ordinary people’ have a moral obligation to assist in their capture. The Palestinians cannot have it both ways; They cannot allow terrorists to live in ther midst and then somehow expect total immunity from Israeli actions.

And don’t think for a moment that Palestinian terrorism is somehow geopgraphically tied to just Israel. Hijackings, Olympic massacres, Achille Lauro (sp), and numerous other events prove that Palestinian terrorists can be just as cosmopolatin as their Al Queda buddies.

**

I don’t like the way Bush tries to use the “war on terror” as an all-embracing term, encompassing all kinds of terrorists. Sharon has gleefully seized this and used it to further his own ends.

Al Qaeda are different to Hamas. The end result may be similar - the deaths of innocent people, the tactics may be similar - suicide bombings and the anti-american, anti-jewish rhetoric may be similar. But, even so, despite all this, they are different things entirely.
**

If it looks like a duck, quacks like duck, then it’s a suicide-bomber duck, regardless of what goofy name their organization has.

The solution to dealing with terrorists, be they Al Queda or PLO is the same, so I don’t really in what relevant way they are different.

**

When this is all over, the Israelis and the Palestinians are gonna have to live with each other side by side. Israel needs to defend itself, of course. But it can do this by a variety of means including negotiation and concession where appropriate.

Erecting settlements on Palestinian land is not going to build any bridges (and Sharon is one of the chief proponents of this policy).
**

Concessions? Negotiations? Israel gave and gave at the Oslo Accords, but Arafat responded with Intifada II. Israel has no obligation to give anything, IMO. They entered into good-faith negotiations, and the current mess is the result.

Once there is Palestinan leadership that is not a collection of ex- and current terrorists, then there may be room for talk. Until then, it is a waste of breath.

**

Being responsible means using the minimum amount of force to achieve the main aim which is two secure independent countries which are at peace.

Each innocent civilian Israel kills creates ten future potential terrorists. These terrorists will then go on to kill Israelis. The fewer innocent people Israel kills. the less support there will be for Hamas etc.

The more responsible Israel is, the more responsible the Palestinians will be. Palestinians are very cultured people, ask any Israeli. This situation is not unsolvable despite what the extremists may have you believe.

All that’s required is a greater level of responsibility by the Israelis.
**

If you feel that Israel is a bunch of hooligans, and that the Palestinians were so cultured, they why don’t they begin to act responsibly? If your logic holds, then Israel will follow suite.

To a person with moral clarity, it is obvious that Israel does act responsibly. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the other side.

**

Oh and we need to get rid of Sharon (and Arafat). And create a UN buffer zone (in the short term). And also create a Palestinian middle class - the Gaza strip is an awful place, money needs to be poured into the area, a lot of money. Oh, and yes, some of those settlements are going to have to go. **

There are much poorer places in the world then the Gaza Strip. Poverty is not a prerequisite for terrorism; Fanaticism trumps finances. Hey, if the PA spent less on bombs and more on other stuff, maybe the people in the strip would be better off!

Finally, UN buffer zones tend to abject failures. Look at N.Israel for a ‘local’ example of that.

[SuaSponte]

*Originally posted by december *
**I both quoted the article and provided a cite. What happened was that BBC’s omission of “alleged” was pointed out on Friday by OpinionJournal.com: BBC News subsequently became aware of their error. Perhaps they read Opinion Journal, or maybe some reader contacted them about the problem. In any event, they eventually amended their on-line article, so it now reads what you copied, rather than what I copied.

Sua, by ignoring the obvious possibility that BBC News had changed their article, you misled posters like Jojo into thinking that the BBC had done nothing wrong.

If you have a rational explanation for your conduct that absolves you from a deliberate attempt to deceive your fellow posters, I’m all ears. **

All I see in the Opinion Journal piece is the same allegation you made (shocking) and the same link you provided.

You assert that BBC changed the article. Do you have evidence of that? I’ll accept your word that you read the BBC article on August 1 and the word “alleged” was not included as evidence. Did you?

Sua

[december]

Sua, the fact that Opinion Journal made the same accusation is evidence of what the BBC News article originally said. It would be quite surprising if Opinion Journal had mis-read the BBC article and criticized them wrongly. They are a pretty careful web site. If they make a mistake in criticizing other people’s mistakes, they would look like a horse’s ass.

It would be a totally unbelievable coincidence if Opinion Journal had made that error, and then I purposely doctored that same article on this thread. You may not agree with my opinions, but I do not falsify cites.

Of course I was teasing you by throwing your quote back at you. However, I was a bit surprised that someone as smart as you overlooked the possibility that BBC News had made a correction.

I may be particularly familiar with this process, because I’m a fan of various web logs, including www.andrewsullivan.com and www.instapundit.com . It’s not uncommon to see a reporting error corrected after some blogger points it out. IMHO the blogosphere’s real-time discussion and analysis of news reporting is helping to produce more accuracy and fairness.

[december]

This may be a current example of the impact of a blogger. AndrewSullivan.com criticizes National Public Radio letting using Edward Said’s recommended readings on Islam.

Saturday, August 03, 2002

BIASED? WHO US?: From NPR’s home-page this morning, the following reading suggestions:
EDITOR’S PICKS:

Ray Charles
A Web-only extended interview with the music legend.

Reading Up on Islam
Columbia University’s Edward Said recommends books about Islam.

NPR Reviews
Music, book, movie and theater reviews.

• 2:14:49 PM

However, if you look at the NPR link now, Ray Charles and NPR Reviews are still there, but Said has been removed.

[boyohboy17]

several quotes from jjimm:
the Palestinian terrorists are targeting civilians. Your point?

My point is that Palestinians are targeting civilians, therefore Israel should work to minimize the bloodshed to its own population.

I presume you will concede that these civilians were in fact killed by the IDF (and in the minority, armed settlers)?

I certainly will. It’s difficult to kill a man without damaging his sheild. Terrorists hide among civilians, making it difficult for the IDF to operate without some collateral damage.

You are making the classic mistake of confusing “the Palestinians” with “Palestinian terrorists”.

I’m sorry if I gave you that impression. If terrorists exist within Gaza and pose a threat to Israel then it is the responsibility of the Palestinian government to arrest them and either hand them over to Israel or dole out justice themselves. The Palestinian government has failed to accomplish either, therefore, Israel must act for herself.

jjimm, you seem to be confused about the Palestinian claims to the land. Israel conquered that land from Jordan, Syria, and Egypt. Egypt requested the Sinai Penninsula back and Israel happily complied (asking for nothing but peace). Syria still poses somewhat of a threat to Israel and does not deserve such an agreement. Neither Jordan nor Egypt has requested the return of the Gaza strip or West Bank, therefore I would not call them “Occupied Territories”.

Palestinians do not have a claim to the land. However, I do support the creation of a Palestinian state. But only when Israel’s security is assured as well.

Ask yourself: would Rabin be doing what Sharon is?

Rabin already attempted to make peace. He conceded to many Palestinian demands in return for absolutely nothing. Unfortunately, Arafat has yet to learn the word for “compromise” in Arabic. (maybe after he learns the word for “peace”).

-Stu

[SuaSponte]

*Originally posted by december *
Sua, the fact that Opinion Journal made the same accusation is evidence of what the BBC News article originally said. It would be quite surprising if Opinion Journal had mis-read the BBC article and criticized them wrongly. They are a pretty careful web site. If they make a mistake in criticizing other people’s mistakes, they would look like a horse’s ass.

50/50 split. Either BBC made a mistake or Opinion Journal made a mistake. No evidence either way.

It would be a totally unbelievable coincidence if Opinion Journal had made that error, and then I purposely doctored that same article on this thread. You may not agree with my opinions, but I do not falsify cites.

Well, you actually did falsify a cite. You stated as a quote something that was not a quote from the article you linked. I withdraw the accusation that you did it will ill intent, but you still did it. If you plan to do it again, you really should state upfront what you are doing.

Of course I was teasing you by throwing your quote back at you. However, I was a bit surprised that someone as smart as you overlooked the possibility that BBC News had made a correction.

Again, an assumption. I am not particularly familiar with web news procedures, but my belief is that the norm is that a news site, when it corrects a story, notes that it has done so. The link had no such indication.
But anyway, I’m surprised that someone as smart as you overlooked the possibility that, if BBC had omitted the word “alleged,” that they had made an innocent error in the writing, editing or proofreading process. Instead, you went straight to an accusation of bias.

Your post on NPR demonstrates jack shit. First, NPR and BBC are not the same people. Second, there is no proof of causality between Sullivan’s criticism and NPR’s action. Quite frankly, I’d be surprised if it there were - the bias accusation by Sullivan appears to be absurd.
From a brief Web search, it appears that Said is a supporter of the Palestinian cause. Had NPR posted Said’s recommendations on books about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, then yeah, a bias charge would have been appropriate.
But Said was recommending books about Islam. How did NPR demonstrate bias by asking him for recommendations on a different issue?

Sua

[Neurotik]

*Originally posted by boyohboy17 *
**Neither Jordan nor Egypt has requested the return of the Gaza strip or West Bank, therefore I would not call them “Occupied Territories”.

Palestinians do not have a claim to the land. However, I do support the creation of a Palestinian state. But only when Israel’s security is assured as well.**

That’s because Jordan and Egypt ceded the territories to the Palestinians. So, they are no longer Jordan’s or Egypt’s to request, they are the Palestinians. So yes, they are “Occupied Territories.”

** Rabin already attempted to make peace. He conceded to many Palestinian demands in return for absolutely nothing. Unfortunately, Arafat has yet to learn the word for “compromise” in Arabic. (maybe after he learns the word for “peace”).**

Indeed he did. And so were the Palestinians at the time. And you know what he got for his efforts? And do you know who gave it to him? I’ll give you a hint, it wasn’t a Palestinian.

[december]

*Originally posted by SuaSponte *
50/50 split. Either BBC made a mistake or Opinion Journal made a mistake. No evidence either way.

If you think this is 50-50, it’s a good thing you’re a lawyer, rather than a statistician.

Well, you actually did falsify a cite. You stated as a quote something that was not a quote from the article you linked.

No, my quote was directly copied from the article I cited at the time that I copied it. BBC News subsequently amended the article.

I am not particularly familiar with web news procedures, but my belief is that the norm is that a news site, when it corrects a story, notes that it has done so.

They ought to do so, but they often don’t. Your point has actually been discussed on one of the blogs some time ago.

But anyway, I’m surprised that someone as smart as you overlooked the possibility that, if BBC had omitted the word “alleged,” that they had made an innocent error in the writing, editing or proofreading process. Instead, you went straight to an accusation of bias.

Actually I found their discussion offensive, even with the word “alleged.” They were repeating one of the crudest anti-semitic accusations, with obviously no basis in Jewish religious practice. I’d have felt better if the article had made it clear that this allegation was preposterous, not just alleged.

Your post on NPR demonstrates jack shit.

It illustrated the fact that organizations may change what they have posted on their web site and that they may not note that a change has been made.

…the bias accusation by Sullivan appears to be absurd.

You’re entitled to your opoinion, but the fact is that NPR did remove the reference to Said.

[boyohboy17]

Originally posted by Neurotik:
Jordan and Egypt ceded the territories to the Palestinians.

Interesting. Jordan and Egypt ceded the Palestinians territory that they (Jordan and Egypt) had lost in war and didn’t want back. Tell me that they’re not just trying to cause trouble for Israel.

Regarding Rabin: “And you know what he got for his efforts?”

I certainly do. But let me remind you that Arafat spit on his peace plan before Rabin was murdered.

-Stu

[Neurotik]

Originally posted by boyohboy17 *
** Interesting. Jordan and Egypt ceded the Palestinians territory that they (Jordan and Egypt) had lost in war and didn’t want back. Tell me that they’re not just trying to cause trouble for Israel.*

Maybe they are, maybe they are not. But given the fact that the territory was ceded, do you agree that the Palestinians have a claim on the land and that it is, in fact, an occupied territory?

I’m not saying they have to give it back right away, but at least admit reality.

**Regarding Rabin: “And you know what he got for his efforts?”

I certainly do. But let me remind you that Arafat spit on his peace plan before Rabin was murdered.

-Stu **

Do you have a cite for that? Because I don’t think that’s true at all.

[Alessan]

Rabin would not have let the situation reach the point its at right now.

However, if he had been elected after things had already gone to hell - as Sharon was - then he would have acted in much the same way. Remember, he was able t make peace because everyone knew he was capable of war. This was the man who conquered the Territories in the first place.

[SuaSponte]

*Originally posted by december *
Actually I found their discussion offensive, even with the word “alleged.” They were repeating one of the crudest anti-semitic accusations, with obviously no basis in Jewish religious practice. I’d have felt better if the article had made it clear that this allegation was preposterous, not just alleged.

Sorry they didn’t make you feel better, but “alleged” as the correct term.

Anyway, I think you have finally said that when you first read the BBC article, the word “alleged” was omitted. OK.

Sua

[Jojo]

december

I said the BBC were unbiased, I didn’t say they were perfect.
As regards the suggestion that Saddam may be about to recruit Palestinian terror groups into his service, you said:

There must be “some evidence” in order for the article to be written, but less than a certainty. Unfortunately, when dealing with a threat of this magnitude, one cannot safely wait for certainty.

One cannot safely wait for certainty?

We don’t even know it’s true, it’s just something said by some prick in the Pentagon. Mindless speculation. The Palestinian terror groups have enough on their plate right now without doing Saddam’s dirty work for him.

And anyway, what are you suggesting? That we nuke any country that we even think may possibly be a threat?

And we base this action on what? The latest whacko assessment to come out of the mouth of some Washington hawk?

I think you really need to stop taking things you read so literally, december. (This applies to the BBC debate too).

Brutus

Then the ‘ordinary people’ have a moral obligation to assist in their capture. The Palestinians cannot have it both ways; They cannot allow terrorists to live in ther midst and then somehow expect total immunity from Israeli actions.

Yes but the “ordinary people” over there have sympathy with the cause of the terror groups (if not necessarily with the means). Opposing Israel is becoming almost a rite of passage for these people in the poorer areas.

The “terrorists” are their sons, brothers, fathers. It’s a complex situation. They are in need of good leadership (from their own leaders, from the Israeli leaders and from the US leaders) not more bombs.

Concessions? Negotiations? Israel gave and gave at the Oslo Accords, but Arafat responded with Intifada II. Israel has no obligation to give anything, IMO. They entered into good-faith negotiations, and the current mess is the result.

I’m not sure this is quite true.

Didn’t they fudge the issue of Jerusalem? And the settlements?

These are the two areas which are most important to the Palestinians and yet they are the two areas Israel fudged.

So Israel didn’t “give and give”. They quibbled over the most important points. And then Sharon took a walk past the holiest Palestinian site surrounded by 1000 troops.

In the end Arafat couldn’t sell the deal to Hamas. Remember Hamas are very popular in Gaza - they build schools and hospitals etc and will probably wind up being an official opposition party to Arafat’s party once this is all settled and things have calmed down.

If you feel that Israel is a bunch of hooligans, and that the Palestinians were so cultured, they why don’t they begin to act responsibly? If your logic holds, then Israel will follow suite.

I don’t think Israel are a bunch of hooligans. Just over-zealous in using all their cool toys sometimes.

Israel need to be the ones to begin acting responsibly because they hold the balance of power in the region.

Remember Israel have their own range of nutjobs. Check out the Jewish Defence League website, it was one of these types that shot Rabin. And because of Israel’s electoral system (proportional representation), these minority religious parties hold disproportionate influence over the Knesset.

To a person with moral clarity, it is obvious that Israel does act responsibly. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the other side.

To a person who is drunk/stoned/insane it might seem like that but to a person with moral clarity it seems that Israel wouldn’t know responsibilty if it came up and bit them on the ass.

Finally, UN buffer zones tend to abject failures. Look at N.Israel for a ‘local’ example of that.

UN buffer zones do not “tend to abject failure”. Look at Cyprus for an example of one that works pretty well. They just need to be done properly.

[Fang]

*Originally posted by Jojo *
Didn’t they fudge the issue of Jerusalem? And the settlements?

Palestine would have had total sovereignty over Palestinian neighborhoods in the north and south of Jerusalem, along with civil administration rights in East Jerusalem.

Only the major Jewish settlements in the West Bank would have been annexed, leaving the Palestinian gov’t with control over 90% of the West Bank (94% if you don’t count Jerusalem). The Gaza Strip would have been totally under Palestinian control.

You must have a strange definition of “fudging”.

And then Sharon took a walk past the holiest Palestinian site surrounded by 1000 troops.

So one member of the parliament, who is not even a member of the Cabinet at the time, goes by a Palestinian holy site (which also happens to be a Jewish holy site) on a Jewish holiday, and nearly two years of constant violence against Israeli civilians is the result? How can you negotiate with somebody who thinks that way?

In the end Arafat couldn’t sell the deal to Hamas. Remember Hamas are very popular in Gaza - they build schools and hospitals etc and will probably wind up being an official opposition party to Arafat’s party once this is all settled and things have calmed down.

If whatever leader there will be of a Palestinian state has to ask Hamas every time he wants to take a piss, I think that in and of itself is reason enough to not have such a state.

Just because the Mafia runs a day-care center doesn’t mean the Mafia has a right to exist.

**

UN buffer zones do not “tend to abject failure”. Look at Cyprus for an example of one that works pretty well. They just need to be done properly. **

I’d say the failure of UNIFIL to prevent Hezbollah rocket attacks over the border, despite the total Israeli pullout from Lebanon (which even Kofi Annan himself says was in accordance with the legitimate border of the two states), and the ongoing Syrian occupation of Lebanon, proves that UN forces in the Middle East are not going to be effective in enforcing a peace. Especially when part of their mandate includes protecting Israel from terrorism.

[noely]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor *

Israel’s long struggle is courageous, and I for one admire their valor.

yours is just the kind of ignorant war mongering attitude that has this whole world messed up in the first place.
If you got your news only from the television, you would have no idea of the roots of the Middle East conflict, or that the Palestinians are victims of an illegal military occupation. News and current affairs programmes seldom, if ever, remind viewers that Israel was established largely by force on 78 per cent of historic Palestine and, since 1967, has illegally occupied and imposed various forms of military rule on the remaining 22 per cent.Having long ago recognised Israel’s “right” to more than two-thirds of their country, the Palestinian leadership has contorted itself in order to accommodate a maze of mostly American plans designed to deny true independence and ensure Israel’s enduring power and control. When ordinary Palestinians cried “enough!” and rose up in the second intifada, armed mostly with slingshots, they were put down by snipers with high-velocity weapons and with tanks and Apache gunships, supplied by the United States.
when i hear news reports of 4 year old palestinian girls being shot by tanks, the word valour does not spring to mind.
as for the americans and their so called “war on terror”. destroying a whole country and murdering countless of its inhabitants, most of them anti al- queda/taliban(and who probably scorn the american government for putting them in charge in the first place),if thats not terror i dont know what is.

[december]

*Originally posted by noely *If you got your news only from the television, you would have no idea of the roots of the Middle East conflict…

That statement makes it sound like you are an expert on Middle East history, noely. OTOH your “facts” sound like propaganda talking points from some anti-Israel organization.

So, here’s my question:

noely, what is your source?

[Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor]

for a man with 5 posts you are mighty bold.

If we are terrorists for fighting back, what is a justifiable response to 9/11?

You list Dublin as your home. I am aware of, and sympathise with, Ireland’s tragic history & its long struggle for freedom.

But I suspect you are annointing the Palestinians as saints in the misguided belief that they equate to the people of the Irish Nation. They do not.

Ireland was, and in part is, held by the British. But Ireland never attacked England first.

The Israelis have fought war after war against their Arab neighbors…after the Arabs attacked.

If the Israelis are such fiends, why not kill all of the Palestinians in the refugee camps? They easily could. With modern artillery & air power, it could be done in 5 or 6 hours.

But the Israelis keep trying limited responses. If they are so evil, I wonder why they bother.

[Neurotik]

*Originally posted by noely *
News and current affairs programmes seldom, if ever, remind viewers that Israel was established largely by force on 78 per cent of historic Palestine and, since 1967, has illegally occupied and imposed various forms of military rule on the remaining 22 per cent.

Uh-huh. Just out of curiosity, who started all of those wars that resulted in Israel owning most of the area? Give you a hint, it wasn’t Israel. That’s one hell of a spin you are putting on the facts.
**

Having long ago recognised Israel’s “right” to more than two-thirds of their country, the Palestinian leadership has contorted itself in order to accommodate a maze of mostly American plans designed to deny true independence and ensure Israel’s enduring power and control.**

Cite?

Contorted themselves how? What demands, exactly, has the Palestinian leadership compromised on?
**

When ordinary Palestinians cried “enough!” and rose up in the second intifada, armed mostly with slingshots, they were put down by snipers with high-velocity weapons and with tanks and Apache gunships, supplied by the United States.**

Right. Armed mostly with slingshots? What were the others armed with? Oh yeah, sniper rifles and AKs. Israeli soldiers should just sit there and let Palestinian snipers use them for target practice and never shoot back.
**

when i hear news reports of 4 year old palestinian girls being shot by tanks, the word valour does not spring to mind.
as for the americans and their so called “war on terror”. destroying a whole country and murdering countless of its inhabitants, most of them anti al- queda/taliban(and who probably scorn the american government for putting them in charge in the first place),if thats not terror i dont know what is. **

Does the word valor come to mind when you read about Palestinian bombers blowing up nightclubs, cafes, buses and markets and how Israelis resume their normal life after? Or do the “news sources” you read not report those?

As for American actions…just what is the count of civilians killed by American actions? As for destroying a whole country…I must have missed the part where everything was in great condition before the American actions.

Anyways, do us a favor and come back with some facts to back up your little rant. Or move it to the BBQ Pit.

[Mandos]

Let me remind you all of a little bit of important information. The terrorist groups behind these attacks do not care about peace with Israel, do not care about whether or not Israel pulls out of Gaza. The goal of these terrorists is to drive the entire Jewish population out of Israel. That is their stated goal. Now, the only question is how much support groups such as Hamas have among Palestinians. If a large percentage of Palestinians support them, Israel could completely disregard the issue of civilians because it could reasonably assume that most Palestinians were only interested in the banishment of Jews from Israel.

[Tristan]

*Originally posted by jjimm *
**Not really.

Though I’d have to query what you mean by “sides”. I don’t want to “push the Jews into the sea”. I just want Sharon to stop making things worse for everyone.

Big difference. **

the two sides

Side a- “the IDF are bad guys, Sharon is a bad guy, and if they would ease up, all would be well. Shame on them.”

Side b- “The PLO and it’s sub-groups are bad guys, Arafat is a bad guy, and if they would ease up, all would be well. Shame on them.”

The answer lies somewhere in the middle on this one. But the extremes on either side are too busy trying to lay blame to try to fix the problem. that’s too bad.