Why do we tolerate Israel's strongarm tactics?

Great Debates
101

There are many areas of grey between those two viewpoints, Tristan.

Apos has summed it up perfectly in this thread. “It’s a no-brainer”. Of course we detest tyranny; of course we detest terrorism. However, I am irritated by certain people who are implying that the Sharon regime is blameless. This POV may be misinterpreted by people who are thinking simplistically.

Another analogy: if, at the height of the Troubles, the British government treated Northern Irish Nationalist civilians in the manner the Israeli government is treating Palestinian civilians now, I would expect and hope that all right-thinking people in the ‘free world’ would get on their soapbox to condemn it (hint: Bloody Sunday).

This condemnation is neither a pro-IRA stance, nor is it one that holds Nationalists to a lower standard of behaviour.

102
103

His post count shouldn’t make a difference if he’s not trolling

I personally equate like with like. Innocent civilians are innocent civilians no matter what nationality.

So we should be grateful that they don’t kill’em all in one foul sweep. WTF type reasoning is that? Why are Al Qaeda so demonised then when they could have done a lot worse than Sept. 11?

In the past the British in Ireland have tortured, killed innocents, tried to destroy the Irish language and culture, removed the vote for 1000’s of Catholics and gerrymandered the remaining, unfairly imprisoned people and even colluded with protestant terrorist groups with the intention of executing without trial suspected IRA men. Do all these incidents justify bombing and maiming of innocents in mainland Britain or in NI? No of course not. But the terrorists also don’t remove the fact that these incidents took place. Nationalists and Catholics have every right to complain and seek fair treatment under the administration that controls their lives. Palestinians have the same right and if their own leader are too inept or tied up with terrorists then the rest of the world should argue for them while also condemning the terrorist scum who are with Israels short sighted help controling events in the region at the moment.

104

Just to nail this matter down, from today’s www.opinionjournal.com

105

You have attacked sections of my post out of context, an act that is ethically doubtful.

Let’s add the parts that you left out, shall we?

What, no shallow retort for this? No saying “But nobody is disputing your right to self defence?” Sorry-- he was disputing our right to self defence and self-preservation.

I am familar with the history of Ireland. Not an encyclopedic familiarity, but enough to know the Irish are and were in a very different situation from the aggressor Islamic forces.

Notice the difference? Fighting back against the Palestinians is not immoral.

The Israelis are not trying to massacre the Palestinians. That’s my point! If they were, as you snidely insinuate, the Palestinians would have been dead ten years ago, darn it!
You are not supposed to be grateful that Israel doesn’t destroy the camps with artillery. You are supposed to be rational & ethical enough to recognise Israel’s restraint & right to self-defence.

If the Palestinians would lay off the bombs, the fighting from the Israeli side would end in a heartbeat!

106

But the occupation continues.

107

So what?

If an artillery piece is put into any elevated area near Israel, it can reach half the country. And in the past, it has! So startegicaly critical areas are occupied.

108

Why are some Palestinians going the road of terrorism? Is it just to have a fight with the Jews?

Ireland is not the Palestine I’ll grant you but there are similarities. At the end of the day both had a section of their society move towards terrorism to fight/right a perceived wrong. These terrorists created situations where the oppression of the people they were trying to fight for became worst than it had ever been. They both created situations were the opposing democratic country felt it was justified in going against long time conventions of treatment for civilians. Both administrations received support for these actions from some and condemnation from others.

Neither situation will be sorted out by aggressive actions. 30years in NI have shown that. Aggression breeds aggression. Israel will never be beaten by terrorists in the same way that the terrorists will never stopped by actions against them. There will always be more to follow and the harder they get hit the more anger the people will feel and the more terrorists will be created.

That’s the way it is AFAIC. Both sides need to change. It doesn’t matter who actually started it. If you ask either side you will get a different answer. This isn’t about making points or coming out with a moral victory. It should be about getting people to stop killing each other and sitting around a table with a agenda that is at least willing to see the other sides point. IMHO neither side are willing to do that yet. Israel is to blame for the situation as much as the Palestine’s. Neither side comes out of this smelling of roses.

109

yojimbo:

I’m sorry, but that’s just plain wrong.

Whoever started it is the one who had agression against the other. No truce will ever be successful unless that aggression is eliminated. Put a truce on paper but leave the aggression in place, and it will just start up again…just like the Palestinians started the Intifada again in October 2000 despite the fact that Israel was being peaceful under the terms of the Oslo accords.

It very much makes a difference who started it. Ignoring that fact is naive, and only leads to false hopes, cruelly dashed.

110

Exercise for you then, cmkeller: who started the Troubles in Northern Ireland?

111

My point cmkeller is that both sides will give you a different answer. They will both believe their answer.

There are two answers to the question.

What would you class as the start? The removal of the first Palestinians from their homes? The first Jew killed? etc

Chicken and the egg.

112

Re the “who started it” debate.

Most muslims think it was a bad idea to create Israel in the first place. You won’t find many muslims who support the existence of Israel.

I was watching an anti-Israel march through London the other week and, in amongst the muslims, were, believe it or not, some ultra-orthodox Jews who also don’t support Israel. I think they believe that Israel shouldn’t be created until the messiah comes and the third temple is built.

Anyway, all this talk of where the borders should be and what should happen to Jerusalem is kinda beside the point.

The real debate (I think) is that we need to convince the muslims of the world that Israel should be there in the first place.

This argument is easier than you might at first think. I know quite a lot of muslims and I’d like to think I’ve convinced quite a few of them to change, or at least rethink, their kneejerk reaction to the question of Israel (but then I can be an argumentative sonofabitch - maybe they just agree with me to shut me up).

The arguments in favour of Israel are ultimately stronger than the arguments against Israel. And in real life (just as on the Straight Dope) the stronger argument usually wins in the end.

We just have to get this argument out there and for this we will require the co-operation of Arab governments. This is unlikely to be forthcoming whilst these Arab governments are in their current totalitarian states.

But the change of attitude may be helped by a freer media in those countries. And that’s why I kinda like al jazeera, the only independent TV station in the region. They are based in Qatar and all the neighbouring governments hate them, which is why I like them. Bush also hates them, which is also why I like them.

They are, by no means, a supporter of Israel but Arabs all over the middle east watch al jazeera because it’s so different to the state TV they are used to.

They’ve given airtime and interviews to British and Israeli politicians. Whenever Osama sends us one of his little love messages he always uses al jazeera because he knows thats the channel everyone’s watching.

When we created Israel, we just went ahead and did it as though it was a done deal. But it’s not a done deal, we still need to convince all the muslims that it’s a good idea.

113

Jojo, what a lot of people on this board seem to forget is that Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia pitched this very panacea - full recognition of Israel’s sovereignty by all Arab nations in exchange for Israeli fulfilling UN mandates - to the Arab League back in February and March. Clearly Israel would be unlikely to accept it in toto, but it was a starting point, and a lifeline for both sides. It was ignored due, IMO, to Sharon’s short-termism. Like him or hate him, Abdullah’s been extremely proactive in seeking a long-term solution.

As an aside: in a worrying development, Al Jazeera has been banned from Jordan because speakers on a talk-show on the station criticised Jordan’s less-than-anti-Israeli stance.

114

But ‘full recognition’ is not what Israel desires; an end to terrorism is Israel’s goal. I don’t see how the Arab-backed ‘peace’ plan that was making the rounds a while back addressed Israel’s terrorism concerns.

115

Granted it wouldn’t cure terrorism, but it would pull the rug out from under Hamas et al., and thus possibly reduce it to a more ‘manageable’ level.

The oft-stated reason for lack of withdrawal from the OTs is that Israel needs a ‘buffer zone’ due to hostile neighbours. The peace plan follows from there.

At the root of most of these conflicts are always larger issues. Arab lack of recognition of Israel is a biggie.

116

Both sides would have to buy into the agreement. Real pressure is then put on the terrorists from both sides. The general public starts to believe that an agreement can be actually reached through peaceful means and they start to redraw their support for the terrorists.

The terrorist keep striking but their strength is gone.

This may seem pie in the sky to you but it’s how NI worked out. Remember the Palestinians have an agenda as well. For them to turn away from terror they will have to believe their point of view has a voice in any future talks.

The IRA called a ceasefire in connection with their political wing being involved in Government, all terrorist prisoners in prison were released on bond, the police force was revamped and many many many changes. This is the kind of thing needed to stop the killing not ultimatums

117

I lied.
I bowed out of this debate, but…could…not…resist…urge when I saw two glaring quotes unanswered.

Noely said

and Jojo said

Color me stupid, but wasn’t Israel (and the stillborn Paestinian state) created by a United Nation resolution rather than a unilateral force of arms, as Noely claims? At one point someone posted a map of the proposed boundaries. It might be instructive to repost them. Also, I remember reading (Paul Johnson, A History of the Jews; can’t give a page number off the top of my head) that the US was not particularly crazy about the formation of a Jewish state on Arab lands, anticipating the shitstorm which we have been witness to for the past 54 years. Joe Stalin, however was an ardent supporter. For exactly the same reasons.

Lastly, What ever happened to Blalron?

118

Yeah, Bizzwire, that annoys me too. First we fought the Brits to a standstill, forcing them to wash their hands of the whole region; then we beat the Palestinians after a long, bloody fight, despite the fact that they outgunned us; and finally we beat off the combined armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and - I believe - Libya. All the while, of course, the only support we received from anyone was of the moral variety, which is nice, but not very useful.

And people say that our state was imposed? Israel was formed despite the international community, not because of it.

119

This is a so long thread that I have to answer in parts.
(Been away for a month, so I hope You do not mind if I begin from the very beginning.)

Blalron wrote:
“What if, instead of arresting Timothy McVeigh, we bombed his apartment complex and killed 15 other people?”

Or what if Mc Veigh would have been hiding among 10.000 cows in Texas? Do You think that they would have tried to separate the cows from him? Or just blasted off, cows flying high in the sky?
But Palestinians… they can fly as they choose… Or what is the logic in the Israeli Army?

Dear Blalron, I am glad that You took up this issue, because now everyone that has been written about how Palestinians are killing women and children, will write about how wrong it is to kill Palestinian women and children.
Naturally they will, naturally it is (wrong condemnable).

Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor wrote:
“Due process refers to arresting a criminal by the police.
Israel is at war.”

There seem to be two different views on this: retailing and war.
I also think it is a war when one country is occupying another country.
So, is it morally right now that I send the under-dog some money, so that they can buy weapons to fight against their enemy? (I think, at war, the other side is always an enemy).
From this site I have read that it is forbidden for the Palestinians to buy weapons with the money they get from EU, USA and elsewhere.
I want that my money goes to buying weapons. They can’t just be supposed to lay down in a war, can they? Not a very patriotic thing to do.
I think they would be traitors of any army, if they did.
And if they do not have an army, should they not found one?

Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor wrote further:

”They are fighting an implacable enemy that has never and does not now admit that Israel even has a right to exist.”

Well, that was some time ago, now it looks more vice versa.

Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor wrote further:
”The motivation of the Palestinians is not a desire to have their own nation.
Rather, their motivation is religious fanaticism & intolerance.”

Bullshit.
**Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor:
“Israel’s long struggle is courageous, and I for one admire their valor.

And I know that blowing up a building is not brave. But bitch out the Palestinians for the many buildings that they have blown up.”**

So, if Hitler built some concentration camps, we can also do it?
Or needed some “lebensraum”, any other country can also need it?
It’s just enough to point out what the bad guys did.
How convenient!
Just open the history book or some archives and choose what and why You can do - whatever.
Nice!

Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor:
Israel is engaging in counter-terrorism, rather than anti-terrorism. Ugly, but it may be necessary for America to consider something similar. And perhaps soon.

Yeah, bomb Iraq, Libya and all the countries with “evil”, and look where You find Yourself.
pldennison wrote:

“Er . . . without defending this particular action by Israel, I have to point out that this “alleged terrorist” spent eleven years in prison in Israel and in the Palestinian territories for terrorism. You did know that, right? He wasn’t just a “suspected” terrorist – he was the military commander of Hamas. Hamas has publicly claimed responsibility for many of the suicide bombings that have taken place in Israel. I think it can be assumed by most reasonable people that if Hamas admits responsibility, and he was the military commander of Hamas, that he was, well, responsible, no?

Obviously a non-repenting criminal.
Criminals You take to court.

Even Hermann Goering (the Luftwaffe-guy, II WW) was taken to court by the Americans.
But, of course, the Americans are a rightful people…

Alessan wrote:
”Uhhh… did the U.S.A.F. even indict the Taliban troops thew carpet bombed last fall? Because I don’t really see a difference. Israeli targeting killings never take place on Israeli soil - only in the Territories, which I’m sure you’d claim are not part of Israel. It’s not “extrajudicial killing” if it’s an act of war in a foreign country.”

So can I send the Palestinians some weapons, (when they now seem to be at war). Is it morally right?

“Only in the Territories” - that was a new one for me. It sounds like “only in the desert”.
Unfortunately it was an apartment building with many floors, and one of the most crowded places on earth.

Alessan wrote:
That may be true, perhaps, if Israel knew before hand that civilians would be killed. However, the IDF claims - and I believe them - that intelligence indicated that the building was empty and that surrounding buildings would be undamaged (most of the casualties were from surrounding shacks which they failed to take into account).
Yeah, I also believe that the most effective intelligence (Mossad), who informed IDF, did not know that there are usually living many families in a multi-apartment house and that the children around the world are sleeping at home in their beds at nights.

And I believe in tooth-ferries.

Alessan wrote further:
Remember, this is the army that didn’t bomb Jenin from the air.

Nice point. No, they just lowered some 40% of the city to the ground and “just shot people”.

Sofa King wrote:
Can you imagine if Osama was hiding out in Mexico? Say… Tijuana. And Mexico was uninterested in giving Osama to America. And the Mexican population was, according to at least some polls, largely in favor of the continuation of Osama’s terrorist tactics, the ultimate objective of those tactics being the destruction of the United States and the removal of all Americans from United States territory…

And the US army would be occupying Mexico…, and because the people in the occupied Mexico was against that the US would take bin Laden to an US-court, the army would rather bomb a building than hurt the feelings of these people?
How utterly thoughtful!

120

Simply put:

  1. The Israelis are in the Palestinians’ land (West Bank at least)

  2. The Palestinians do not want them there

  3. It is recognised internationally that the Israeli occupation is illegal, particularly in terms of settlements

3b. If the Israeli settlements are there for “security reasons” - whey are they putting civilian settlements there? Are these settlements intended to be temporary? If not basically, Israel is illegally, deliberately and permanently annexing the land.

  1. The Palestinians are therefore at war with an invading army

  2. Why then can I sell the Israelis weapons but not the Palestinians?