Its Not Working

[droberts1958]

The current Israeli plan to counter suicide bombers is to try and take out the terrorists by WB and G incursions. As I understand the Jewish response is an eye for an eye. In this case the theory is make the retribution so great that no-one would want to be a suicide bomber for the pain they would leave behind for their families and neighbours. Having seen the interviews of families wishing familiy members fond fair wells before embarking on suicide bombing missions it seems to me that many families are not too scared of having their villages or suburbs eliminated.

So far it has not worked. Is it just a question of time ? Must the level of retribution simply be increased another notch. If there was a finite number of terrorists I would agree with the tactic. Bit by bit you would eliminate the terrorist element.

But it is not a finite number. Clearly the larger and more wide scale the retribution the greater the number of "innocent" people are harmed by the Israeli actions. Some of these people are becoming hard lined extremists who having lost so much, are prepared to then become suicide bombers themselves.

Vietnam taught us how difficult it was to fight guerila warfare. You are teaching us how difficult it is to fight this sort of suicide bombing. When the body of people forming the pool from which the suicide bombers are emerging have birth rates significantly higher than the Jewish population, as I am told is the case, it seems to me that the current tactics are never going to succeed.

The fear of going back to the pre 1967 borders is that it would be to easy for the Palestinians to wreak massive destruction on the remaining Israel because of the loss of "strategic land" or even threatens the viability of Israel at all.

All other things being equal clearly giving back all the land and independance would make it easier for the extremist Palestinian element to attack Israel and make its viability less certain. However all other things would not be equal because many and I certainly believe most Palestinians would want peace and would be more inclined to reign in the extremist hard line elements. The extremists would be marginalised and their support base would reduce.

The key question is whether over the next 2 or 5 or 10 or 50 years more Israelis will die if its governement attacks the extremist Palestinians by continuing or expanding on what it is now doing or instead trying to attack the extremist Palestinian support base by giving the majority something else to live for.

One is attacking the cause the other is attacking the symptom.

[Gatorade]

If the incursions are not working...

Alternatives Israel has to stop the terror acts

1) Negotiate to have them stop. Problem – Islamic Jihad and Hamas refuse to negotiate.

2) Just give the Palestinians a state unilaterally and hope that would marginalize the radical groups. Problem – It would appear terrorism brought success and this would more than likely bring more terrorism

3) Try to separate the Palestinian population from Israel with a fence so terrorist cannot enter Israel. Problem – people can dig under the fence. People can shoot over the fence. Also, this could easily be used by Arab propoganda as apartied type measure. And peaceful Palestinians who just want to work in Israel suffer.

4) Make suicide attacks more and more costly for the Palestinian people.

a)Take land that was given to the Palestinians back. Problem – Israel doesn’t want to be an occupying force for Palestinians. Israel doesn’t want to be responsible for education and other stuff for Palestinians. Also, Palestinians best weapon is world opinion and it does look bad when Israel comes in and takes Palestinian land and puts Palestinians under their control without making the Palestinians Israelis citizens. It would appear that Israel doesn’t have a true democracy. It would appear that there is a two class society in which only one group is given rights to vote and participate in democracy.

b) Kill and arrest more Palestinians than are killed by each suicide attack. This is already done but make the ratio something like 100 to 1 instead of the around 3 to 1 ratio. The underlying idea being that the Palestinians should fear the Israelis response more than the fear of trying to dismantle the terrorists. The argument that Arafat or anyone else is to weak to control the terrorist is a lie and if put to the test by fear of the Israelis response, the Palestinians would stop the terrorists. Problem - most Palestinians now support the terror attacks. Maybe some would change their opinion out of fear from Israeli brutal responses but many people think the hate for Israel is stronger and deeply embeded even moreso than the love of their own children. If a culture is willing to let their children die in attacking Israel, why would the threat of Israel killing more of their sons and daugthers change this opinion.

5) Kick the Palestinians out of the West Bank and Gaza. Problem – where do they go? Jordan is the most likely option but Jordan is one of the only two nations in the region that recognizes Israel and Jordan doesn’t want them either.

6) Keep the current situation and hope when a new leader or new political regime comes into control that things will change.

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by droberts1958




But it is not a finite number. Clearly the larger and more wide scale the retribution the greater the number of "innocent" people are harmed by the Israeli actions. Some of these people are becoming hard lined extremists who having lost so much, are prepared to then become suicide bombers themselves.





What exactly have they lost?

[sharonbn]

droberts1958,

If we want to "attack the cause" and try to end the wave of violence, we must try to figure out WHY did the Intifada started. IMO, there are two reasons:

1. The Intifada started as a result of the failure of Camp David summit in July 2000. Now, there are different reports on what did Israel and Clinton propose to the Palestinians. Israelis were informed by Barak and Shlomo Ben-Ami, as well as Denis Ross, that on the final days of the summit, Israel was talking above 90% of occupied territories (Clinton's plan on December 2000 was 97%), including parts of Jerusalem. Israel was unwilling to discuss Palestinian claim of "right of return". The Palestinians turned down all proposals. Furthermore, to the Israelis it seemed that the Palestinians did not show a relaxation of their initial standing that would indicate a willingness to move forward.

Now you have to ask yourself:
1.1 Why was the Israeli and American proposals turned down? Do 3% (or 5 or 10) worth the bloodshed? Is this the decision you expect from is the visionary leadership that is supposed to end a 100 years old conflict?

1.2 OK, the summit failed. Maybe it was prepared enough, maybe the gaps are still too large, maybe........ How does each side react to the failure of the summit?

2. Another, more hidden reason to the Intifada was the way IDF withdrew from Lebanon. It was more of a haste retreat than an orderly withdrawal. The general assumption in Israel is that Arafat's line of thinking was "if the Hizbuallah managed to drive the mighty Israeli army out of their turf without any concessions, so can I"
This brings me to an important point in dealing with terrorism - if the terrorists see that they gain political achievements by carrying out terror attacks - they will go on doing so forever.
in the 70s, the Palestinians used plane hijacking as means to pressure the Israeli government to release their captive comrades. Israel never conceded to the terrorists demands. Eventually, the hijacking stopped. If the terrorists were given their demands - we would still be facing this threat to this day.
If Israel will do unilateral concessions - the Palestinians will only INCREASE the terror attacks - simply because they will see its an effective means to achieve their goal.

btw, I oppose the steps that Sharon is proposing (re-conquering of Palestinian land) but I do support military response to terror attacks (something similar to operation "Defense Wall") and I believe Israel should REFUSE to carry out any negotiations until the Palestinians cease their fire.

[MGB8]

You hit the nail on the head. If terrorism is seen as working, it continues. If its seen as failing, it will get more extreme for a time, until the users of terrorism are convinced that no-amount of terror will achieve what they want.

Its like opening a stuck door. First you give it a light push. If that fails, harder. If that fails, even harder Soon you run up and ram yourself against the door. Sometimes, the door will unjam open. Sometimes, you realize this tactic isn't going to work, and you might begin to look for another door, or at least another tactic.

Israel has yet to keep up one tactic for any period of time. This is a problem, because they don't test it to see if it has long term effects of the strategy. They need to pound the door a little more.

The Palestinian Arabs, OTOH, have been using the same tactic for quite sometimes. Sometimes it seems like the door budges, but, fortunately, Sharon hasn't really allowed it to move.

The first thing that needs to be done is the defeat of terrorism as a tactic. Only then can we move forward to discussing a Palestinian State.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by droberts1958
The key question is whether over the next 2 or 5 or 10 or 50 years more Israelis will die if its governement attacks the extremist Palestinians by continuing or expanding on what it is now doing or instead trying to attack the extremist Palestinian support base by giving the majority something else to live for.

One is attacking the cause the other is attacking the symptom.

Looks like the start of a good new thread, droberts1958.

Well, I agree with Sharonbn that it is important to understand the basis of Palestinian support for terrorism to find a solution.

Up until recently, it was mistakenly thought that Palestinian terrorism was a result of desperation or not "having something to live for," as you said. And so, in 1993, Israel withdrew from most of the Palestinian-occupied areas of Israel and the Palestinians were given control over their cities and their politics, education, etc. More than autonomy and civilian freedom, the Palestinians were presented with a clear roadmap for full independent statehood, including ultimately sovereignty over part of the Jewish capital. However, the continuing war of Palestinian terrorism did not stop for any amount of time.

And now, it is understood that the underlying cause of the Palestinian war of terrorism against Israel is not desperation at all, but rather a great national hope -- hope of ethnically cleansing the Mideast of any Jewish presence. This goal of the eradication of Israel is not just held by the large number of Palestinian terrorists, but by a huge percentage of the general Palestinian population, according to Palestinian-published polls.

Understanding that the Palestinians have no interest in independence or peace, unless it entails the complete destruction of Israel, new conclusions and new strategies should be implemented.

To this end, I also agree with Sharonbn that the present plan to indefinitely control the Palestinian-occupied cities is a bad idea.

IMO, it will not solve the Palestinian problem, unless their terrorist-supporting population is expelled. Otherwise, an open-ended military operation will only bog down the IDF and cause Israeli casualties.

The best course of action would be for Israel to decide unilaterally where an international border should be built. Then, some isolated Jewish settlements will need to be dismantled, and some Arab settlements will need to be dismantled as well, until a defensible international border can be built. By "defensible," I mean straight enough to be guarded electronically and visually, without too many curves and pockets.

Since the Palestinians began this war of terrorism, it stands to reason that Israel should determine borders that will ensure Israel's safety and transfer the Palestinian population to the newly-created Palestinian zone.

Even though it's not a popular idea, population transfer is a necessary element that has not yet been tried, and might very well turn out to be the key to peace in the Middle East.

Like two wrestlers entwined in battle, they need to be separated from each other before they can stop fighting.

Then a new peace process can be started and maybe the Palestinians will have hopes for a prosperous future.

[MGB8]

"Nothing to live for" is one of those great propaganda myths. A new Palestinian state, on its own, will cause the people more economic hardship than they had under Israeli rule. The terror attacks have caused enourmous economic collapse. Do you think that the Palestinian people expected Israel to NOT close its borders and put in more check points when they started this intifadah?

For the past 9 years (pre-new-intifadah) the Palastinian Arabs were given a vision of a state side-by-side with Israel. They knew that it could happen, and would happen if they did not continue terror attacks. They had a Palestinian flag, gained a voice at the UN, had their leader flying around the world meeting dignitaries. They had the most powerful man in the world, Bill Clinton, working Day and Night on their issue.

If you ask surviving attempted suicide bombers why they did what they did, they have consistently responded that it is not out of desperation, but out of love of martyrdom. PRIDE! Simple pride, self-esteem. They equate blowing up israeli kids with heroism. You have a bunch of "delusional-heroic-monsters."

As for any hope of coexistance, remember that they have been promised the WHOLE of Israel for the last 54 years. It is not an easy mental transition to make.

[Mediocrates]

It is not an easy mental transition to make.

Sure it is, just say no ;) The world doesn't begin or end in Ramallah.

[peacelover]

MGB8:

"You hit the nail on the head. If terrorism is seen as working, it continues. If its seen as failing, it will get more extreme for a time, until the users of terrorism are convinced that no-amount of terror will achieve what they want."

I disagree - unjust means do not deny the presence of a just cause.

The suicide bombs are a disgrace. But at the same time, the entire Palestinian population cannot be punished for them.

"The first thing that needs to be done is the defeat of terrorism as a tactic. Only then can we move forward to discussing a Palestinian State"

Would you be so patient if it was an Israeli state we were trying to bring into existence?

Don't forget, the Zionist groups used terror to establish Israel - King David hotel etc. Should we have responded to that by refusing to implement a Jewish state until the attacks ceased?

"Israel has yet to keep up one tactic for any period of time"

I disagree. I think they've been responding militarily for quite some time now

"As for any hope of coexistance, remember that they have been promised the WHOLE of Israel for the last 54 years. It is not an easy mental transition to make."

You're right - the thought of accepting that somebody who has lived on the other side of the world can move into your old home, but you're not allowed back just because you're not the right ethnic group must be toough to take.

From a neutral perspective, we know that this is necessary in order for Israel to survive, but often there is a lack of empathy as to who it night be so difficult for Palestinians to accept an Israel in their old home.

I can't remember the exact figure - I justposted it on another thread - but the most recent polls found that around half of Palestinians support a two-state existence (JMCC poll) and a similar number of Israelis supported the transfer of Palestinians out of the territories.

So it would appear that they're not too far different in their perspectives of two state solution or not.

"Nothing to live for" is one of those great propaganda myths"

Either way, it's no excuse for blowing up people whose only crime is to live in Israel.

BUt don't forget that Palestinians don't have their own legitimate army liek Israel does. I think it's a case of they think no one is listening nobody cares - just look at the way Bush blamed the whole thing on Arafat the otehr day - and that violence is the only way to make people sit up, and take note that the Palestinians won't be fobbed off by 22% of historic Palestine.

OK, we know they're doing their cause more harm than good, but unfortunately, the groups they work for feed them with **** which they start to believe.

This deals with newsguys' points:

"And now, it is understood that the underlying cause of the Palestinian war of terrorism against Israel is not desperation at all, but rather a great national hope -- hope of ethnically cleansing the Mideast of any Jewish presence. This goal of the eradication of Israel is not just held by the large number of Palestinian terrorists, but by a huge percentage of the general Palestinian population, according to Palestinian-published polls.

Understanding that the Palestinians have no interest in independence or peace, unless it entails the complete destruction of Israel, new conclusions and new strategies should be implemented."

I also disagree with the following statement:

"Since the Palestinians began this war of terrorism, it stands to reason that Israel should determine borders that will ensure Israel's safety and transfer the Palestinian population to the newly-created Palestinian zone"

I think who started this conflict is all about individual perspective - certainly the Palestinians think the war was started by Israel, who is after all the occupying power. If we are to be fair, we must conclude that the conflict is the result of mistakes by both Palestinians and Israelis.

As for Israel determining the borders - no.
An international commitee should do that, seeing as Israel's Knesset has voted against a future Palestinian state, if one ever comes, are we to trust Israel to be reasonable about borders?

My personal views on how to stop the violence:

I agree with the building of a fence - this isn't really fair on the Palestinians en masse, but I'd ratehr they had this inconvenience as a temporary measure than that more schoolchildren were blown up. Also, unlike the military responses, I find it is a genuinely defensive measure, made to defend, and not to exact revenge.

But what I think is truly central to peace in the middle East, is for the Palestinians to start teaching peace and harmony with Israel to the children in schools. At the end of the day, I don't see how there can be peace unless people want it.

[Mediocrates]

The suicide bombs are a disgrace. But at the same time, the entire Palestinian population cannot be punished for them.


You complain about the broad brush yet you have tarred yourself with one. By what standard is this statement accurate or true. By what standard is the fact that in nearly 20 years the PLO has refused to develop their proto state and instead has embarked on a cynical and evil terror campaign a responsibility of Israel?

The end result of that, for the Palistanians has been there is no economy, development, infrastructure across the whole of the land. And therefore when the only economic opportunity open to them is sweat labor on the other side of the Green Line, they of course suffer.

BTW in all of these arguments I hear over and over and over again everyone conventiently ignores the damage to the Israeli economy. You might want to feel less bad about it because it's a fairly modern middle class country but that would be disingenuous of you if you did. In lieu of eliminating 80% of the day labor through the Green Line, an action in and of itself some label oppressive, racist, zionist claptrap the Israelis found a solution to that problem by importing labor from SE Asia. How is it that in nearly a quarter century, more if you count the mythical '1967'. Palestinians have managed to develop nearly zero economic partnership with their own Arab neighbors in Egypt and in Jordan?

The reason is twofold.

1) They don't want them and can't be bothererd dealing with their own alien underclass.

2) It's never been about cooperative development or building anything resembling a proto state. It's about victory from Tel Aviv to the banks of the Jordan. It's about establishing not a state or a nation or a national identity, instead it's about establishing base camps from which to wage war.

Do you know why the PLO doesn't build an infrastructure and has no interest in forming an actual functioning civil apparatus? Because they can't do it and don't want to. It would get in the way of their warmaking and their message that all their problems are not only insoluable but are also someone else's fault?

Build an economy? How can we we're oppressed. Establish post offices, currency, commercial communications, an economy? How can we when the tanks are responding to the lastest mass murder? Build a government? How can we when all decisions are micro managed by Arafat personally in order to become the new Saladin in his own mind. Help our own 'refugees'? How can we, that's the UN's problem.

The PLO can never admit even partial success because its very rationale for existence is total victory. It can't for one moment accept or even suggest any plan or alternative because that would imply they have given up on their primary goals of:

1 A unified Palistanian state from Egypt to Jordan.
2 Complete unifed control of all of Jerusalem.
3 Arafat's place in the pantheon of Arab strongmen as both the founder/father of Palistan AND as the man who recaptured Jerusalem from the infidels.

When those 3 goals are met that is when you will have a Palistanian peace.

[peacelover]

mediocrates:

"By what standard is this statement accurate or true"

PLease clarify what you mean by that - do you deny that Israeli reprisals constitute collective punishment?

"A unified Palistanian state from Egypt to Jordan."

The PLO has twice revoked the clause in its manifesto wich called for Israel's total destruction.

And by the same token - is Ariel Sharon, Israeli PM, the same Ariel Sharon who has consistently advocated the expansion of Israeli territory?

BTW I have never denied that the PA doesn't help the refugees because of its own political gain.

But this thread is about Israeli reprisals, which I maintain are unacceptable and saw nothing in your post to warrant a change of opinion.

I won't reply with a sarcastic rant from the Israeli perspective about their view of their own predicament, but suffice it to say, I vehemently disagree with your opinion of how Palestinians see their predicament - unless of course, you meant it literally :D

Seriously though, I'm not an economist, so I can't go into the economic arguments - I'll leave that to somebody else and concentrate on the areas I have researched.

I just want to respond to:

"When those 3 goals are met that is when you will have a Palistanian peace."

Because, with Israeli reprisals and occupation, would an end to suicide bombings constitute peace?

Or would it constitute peace for Israelis ?

[Mediocrates]

By what standard do you assume collective punishment, collective destruction. Before the Oslo War Palistanians on both sides of the Green Line enjoyed a standard of living at or above the norm or mean for many people in many Arab nations across the whole of the middle east. There was, before 9/2000 little difference between the househould income of households that worked/lived in the disputed territories vs. those that worked on the other side of the Green Line. Since the beginning of the Oslo War clearly that is no longer the case and the incomes and lifestyles of Palistanians has slipped. But clearly there was and still is a middle class. 3/5ths of Palistanians have cell phones, about 40% have cars, most have a television, the student led uprisings come from the universities where many young people go to university. To me that is evidence of a middle class. Why is this significant?

It's significant because those are the people who:

1) Clamor the loudest for internal reform and see their only course to lie in that reform. These are the people who's small businesses were damaged by the war. These are the people screaming the loudest to remove Arafat and the PA from power.

2) Understand that an improvement in their lot in life can only come from within and that it's not tanks that destroyed their country so much as the utter thievery, warmongering and theft committed by the PA.

3) Do not see themselves collectively punished by the fighting so much as by 20 months of non results from the PA. What have they got to show for it? Some knocked down buildings, some sound bites and the world is falling over itself to help the 'refugees' whose rubble strewn lives haven't gotten much worse anyway.

[Mediocrates]

Because, with Israeli reprisals and occupation, would an end to suicide bombings constitute peace?

Or would it constitute peace for Israelis ?

I don't know if that's a loaded question. And end to bombing would signal the end of any reponse to bombing. Clearly this is the case. Do you think that the suburbs of Tel Aviv would suddenly be evacuated and all the Jews moved back across the Green Line? Do you see a Palistan utterly vacant of all Jews as a recipe for peace? Well they do - it's just not entirely clear what the permiter of that Jew free area is. Is it the 67 Border, a modified one with equal parcels reversed to the Israelis in exchange? Is it some of Jeriusalem? Most of it? All? Does it contain the Golan which doesn't have any Palistanians to begin with? Does it contain all of Israel under the aegis of right of return?

And when we arrive at that Jew free state will the West and the peace movement and the left and all God's Chillun suddenly find that there is something wrong with the equation that created a monoethnic society on one side of the line 'for peace and fairness' and created a multicultural cum purely arab state in Israel (over time) on the other side of the line 'for punishment and fairness'? Or will the West and the peace movement and the left and co. suddenly decide there is yet another list of demands to be imposed on Israel in exchange for alleviating yet another threat of violence from the peaceful peaceloving people of peace of Palistan?

Clearly at that point, with an independant Palistan we will see the emergence of terrorism as a bona fide instrument of foreign policy just as we do today. What will all the peace movements do at that point? Wring their hands? Beg the Israelis to give in? Threaten someone? I suspect they will do nothing having already moved on to some other downtrodden group like the Cocaine Cartels of FARC or the unemployed Iraqi weapons designers, or the IRA, the PKK, Shining Path or the nascent civil war brewing in Mexico.

[elke]

Don't forget, the Zionist groups used terror to establish Israel - King David hotel etc. Should we have responded to that by refusing to implement a Jewish state until the attacks ceased?

Faulty argument. You were not fighting for your survival. The Jews did not blow up women and children in Trafalgar Square.

When Hitler tried that tack, you had no trouble whatsoever bombing him and his women and children - and YOU WERE RIGHT TO DO SO!

[droberts1958]

Gatorade and MGB8

"Just give the Palestinians a state unilaterally and hope that would marginalize the radical groups. Problem – It would appear terrorism brought success and this would more than likely bring more terrorism "

No surprise this is my choice.

I do not accept a second that giving a state would "more than likely bring more terrorism"

You give Palestine their state and then say right you have want you want. If you continue to attack us we will have the weight of world opinion on our side to respond much more definatively than ever before. Maybe they have a UN peace keeping force in place until the local police force can operate effectively.

I think in the shortest term there would still be Islamic extremists wanting to eliminate Israel and still practising terrorism. But the amount would be much less than now. It would also reduce over time.

Your other options have problems as you point out.

You can simply try more of the same or use a bigger stick. It seems however for the reasons I put that this will not work.

At what stage do you try something else.


Lamplighter.

They have lost their freedom, their control over the land, they have curfews, their security..... Need i go on.

[MGB8]

No droberts, the world would still protect a terrorist Palestine, because of Arab oil.

And make no mistake, it is almost a certainty that a Palestinian state would be a terrorist state, or at minimum harbour terrorist groups.

For the same reasons that Arafat does not act against the groups now, so would any government not act against them then.

The problem is that these groups would be MUCH stronger because of uncontrolled borders and opportunity to get weapons of mass destruction.

Your "solution" is no solution at all, just an invitation to a much wider and more lethal conflict.

[peacelover]

I think there needs to be a Palestinian state, but that they will need help building their own economy, and developing medical provisions and education etc

There definitely needs to be some international involvement to supervise this:

a) Arafat (or whoever) spends his money on building a state, not buying weapons

b) The education system teaches peace with Israel, not hatred

c) But also to give advice, because the Palestinians haven't exactly made a great state so far

I realise they'll resent an international presence, but I really do think it's necessary, not only for peace, but for their own future state to be successful

elke:

The Zionist use of terrorism was nothing like the second world war.

They used the terrorism because they wanted their own state, not because anyone had attacked them, or because they had declared war on anybody.

Besides, terrorism is either wrong, or it's not.
To say there's no excuse for suicide bombers, but there is for Zionist groups such as Stern and Irgun is hypocritical.

"You were not fighting for your survival"

I don't understand your meaning, what do you mean by 'you'? Britain? And when weren't we fighting for survival?

If you could clarify that, I'll answer it.

Mediocrates:

It was not a loaded question, but if the suicide bombs stopped tomorrow, Palestinians would still be occupied, still have their human rights contravened by Israel (deny it if you want, but you're dismissing a hell of a lot of reports) and still not have their own state.

If the suicide bombs stopped tomorrow, Israelis would have the majority of what their demands would be from any negotiations: peace and security.

BUt do you think the first situation constitues peace for those who live like that?

basically, with an end to terrorism, the Israelis would be OK, Palestinians wouldn't. That's what I meant.

As to the rest of your post, of course I don't see a Palestine free of Jews as a recipe for peace, and i think the media grossly exaggerates Palestinian public opinion, and panders to this idea that Israelis all want peace, and palestinians all want to fight.

I disagree with this notion.

But MGB8

If you don't want a Palestinian state, what do you want?

A complete sacrifice of everything the palestinians want, and most people acknowledge they deserve, just for Israel's sake?

That's no kind of compromise.

You cannot oppress Palestinians entirely just because it's the only way israel will have peace - it's not fair on them.

Likewise, suicide bombs aren't fair on Israelis.

That's why we need compromise

[Mediocrates]

They used the terrorism because they wanted their own state, not because anyone had attacked them, or because they had declared war on anybody.

Against military officers of the UK and after the UK began backing out of prior agreements to create a Jewish state and after their maps suddenly took the land that was divided 50/50 and changed it to 25/75 in the Jordanians favor and after the UK declared that all Jewish immigration to Palistine was illegal and ships bringing Jews to Haifa could be borded even sunk with all aboard.

It's odd really the way the peace camp believe all force is abhorrent unless it's unleashed against Jews. Then it's Manifest Destiny.

[peacelover]

Actually mediocrates, I think force unleashed against Israelis is 'abhorrant' and I have said so.

Please read my posts before accusing me of having opinions which I do not have.

As for the British, well my grandfather was N irish, but worked over in Palestine for Britain. I don't think it was OK for Zionists to target him.

I assume you meant the Balfour declaration - what about the British promise to the palestinians of sovereignity if they supported the end of Turkish rule?

I don't see that they had any more right to break that agreement than they did the one to the Zionists.

[elke]

The Zionist use of terrorism was nothing like the second world war.

They used the terrorism because they wanted their own state, not because anyone had attacked them, or because they had declared war on anybody.

Besides, terrorism is either wrong, or it's not.
To say there's no excuse for suicide bombers, but there is for Zionist groups such as Stern and Irgun is hypocritical.

"You were not fighting for your survival"

I don't understand your meaning, what do you mean by 'you'? Britain? And when weren't we fighting for survival?

If you could clarify that, I'll answer it.

OK, here we go:

The Zionist use of terrorism, as I said before, did not express itself in blowing its members up in Trafalgar Square in London, taking innocent women and children with them. Have the Palestinians limited themselves to the IDF targets, preferably minus the people, it would be valid to compare them with Irgun and Stern Gang ideologically. As it is, it's a faulty comparison.

Moreover, unlike Arafat, Ben Gurion saw them as almost an enemy force. He actively refuted them, again and again. No leader can control 100% of its population 100% of the time, but rule of law is indispensable to a good leader. Ben Gurion was such a leader, whereas Arafat is not.

Let's also discuss how the British treated the members of these organizations, when caught. They were tortured and hung. So much for "clemency".

You really need to learn to read better. What I said was:
"When Hitler tried that tack - i.e. bombing London , you had no trouble whatsoever bombing him and his women and children - and YOU WERE RIGHT TO DO SO!" I never said anything about the Jews or the British declaring war against each other. I can't figure out where that came from.

The British fighting in the Middle East was not related to their survival. These battles never made it within a 1000 miles of London. Nobody, not the Arabs and certainly, not the Jews, ever dreamed of taking over London for their own. So, the British in the Middle East were fighting for their imperialistic aspirations, which have nothing to do with existential survival. Got that?

OK. Now, look at Israel. At best, the distance between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv is what? 12 miles? Something like that. Having a hostile enemy this close is bad enough, but having them capable of cutting you in half within 1/2 hour tank action would be pretty foolhardy to agree to. You also have to consider the other parties: There is Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, just right around "ring around a Rosie". There is Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Lybia, Morocco, etc. etc. - all 100,000,000 of them, vs. 6,000,000 of Israelis, including the Arab Israelis.

Just a word of advice: before you type the answer, READ THE QUESTION.

[droberts1958]

This thread started with a vision of futility in the existing methods being used by the Israeli's in combatting suicide bombers.

It is nice to know that even if most did not agree with with my views that the present tactics are encouraging further suicide bombers, at least some one did.

" while the [Isralie Defence Force] is carrying out these necessary actions, the operations themselves ecome a hothouse that produced more and more suicide bombers" " The military actions kindle the frustration, hatred and despair and are a incubator for terror to come"

Does anyone know who the quote is from ?????

A clue. You will have a hard time calling him anti-semetic.

[Mediocrates]

The only way out is up the chimney.


Any idea who said that?

[elke]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
The only way out is up the chimney.


Any idea who said that?

I know! Santa Claus! :D (or Hanukkah Harry, if you prefer ;) )

[Mediocrates]

Josef Mengele

[elke]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Josef Mengele

Like I said: Santa Claus! :rolleyes:

[elke]

I agree with the building of a fence - this isn't really fair on the Palestinians en masse, but I'd ratehr they had this inconvenience as a temporary measure than that more schoolchildren were blown up. Also, unlike the military responses, I find it is a genuinely defensive measure, made to defend, and not to exact revenge.

But what I think is truly central to peace in the middle East, is for the Palestinians to start teaching peace and harmony with Israel to the children in schools. At the end of the day, I don't see how there can be peace unless people want it.

I just almost fell off my chair! As far as I can tell, this is the first - and only - reasonable thing I've seen you write!

Like I said in another thread, I find it extremely difficult to plow through your posts in one sitting.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by droberts1958
A clue. You will have a hard time calling him anti-semetic.

Right. But Fuad's lack of vision makes him a very questionable as a Defense Minister.

The watered-down military operations in which the IDF fights with one hand tied to its back are a problem and have historically caused problems to every nation engaged in these kinds of half-hearted military operations. The U.S. was defeated in Vietnam, the Russians were defeated in Afghanistan, and the list goes one. Israel needs to launch an all-out military strike on its Palestinian enemy to get real results.

As for Israel's self-defense creating more suicide bombers, that is a silly statement. By way of analogy, can we conclude that punishing murderers in our criminal system creates more of an urge to commit murder? Maybe. I really don't know, but I would not recommend stopping to punish murderers just because it may piss them off.

In the case of the Palestinians, at this point, I say who cares if Israel's self-defense creates more resentment.

50 years ago, Palestinian anger was blamed on the creation of the State of Israel. Then, it was blamed on a so-called "occupation." Then later it was blamed on poverty and hopelessness. Then it was blamed on incitement and Islamic religious duty to mass murder infidels. Then it was blamed on Israel's offer of 97% of the West bank as being insufficient. Then it was blamed on not granting the Palestinians a bizzare "Right of Return." Then it was blamed on Israeli self-defense against Palestinian suicide bombers. Then it was blamed on Israel assassinating the organizers of Hamas and Hizbullah. The list of excuses for the Palestinians to create more suicide bombers to massacre Israelis goes on and on. So I say, who cares what the excuse du jour is?

The fact is that the Palestinians launched an all-out war of terrorism with the goal of committing genocide against the Jewish people. They are already shooting missiles into Israeli suburbs daily. They are already sending suicide mass murderers apparently armed with chemical and biological agents into Israeli population centers. What else will the Palestinains do if they get REALLY pissed off at Israel's war against Palestinian terrorism? Nothing more is left at this point.

So, if the Palestinians are angry and more suicide bombers are "created," then so be it -- there will be more targets for the IDF to shoot on sight. The Palestinian goal of ethnically cleansing the Jews from the entire Mideast is about as bad as it gets and the number of suicide bombers will not change that. For example, all it takes is one Palestinian suicide bomber to detonate a dirty nuclear weapon in Tel Aviv. Fuad might not like to talk about this publicly, but he knows that it is not the sheer number of Palestinian mass murderers that is the real issue.

Israel should keep right on course, trying harsher and harsher methods of breaking the Palestinian threat. Sooner or later, it will work, although not as quickly as one would like. And, in any event, it would go a lot quicker without interference from Ben Eliezer and Peres.

[droberts1958]

Newsguy.

You call it Faud's lack of vision. Most would call it a sense of reality. True the Americans would have won Vietnam, Russia - Afganistan etc etc etc. All they would need to do is employ bigger and more weapons till all their opposition was dead. Then they sit back and say look in the end Justice prevailed. Dead wrong.

When you punish murderers do you take out their family home, neighbourhood and subject the total community to constant harrasement. Not where I come from.

"who cares if Israel's self-defense creates more resentment" I would say that the next Israeli family who loses a family member because some Palestinian became so enraged that they became a suicide bomber may care even if you don't. Maybe you cannot make them happy with you but you can work with them in such a way that in the short term they don't want to blow themselves up just to take a few of you along at the same time. This is the point. No one expects there simply to be a happy couple living side by side any time soon but surely if you can stop the desire to take your life along with their own this is a big step forward.

"Fuad might not like to talk about this publicly, but he knows that it is not the sheer number of Palestinian mass murderers that is the real issue" I don't agree. The repeated suicide bombers certainly appears to be the main issue for most Israelis.

"Sooner or later, it will work" Yes if you kill them all and all the Arabs in the neighbouring countries who will take up their task when you have killed all the Palestinians, you will be right. This will not happen because America will tell you to back off and will not be the blind supporter that Bush has so far proven to be. Equally Sharon was elected to secure peace and security. He will be thrown out just as quickly as Barak was when he has failed even more excessively.

The sooner Ben Eliezer and Peres and other moderates are back in power the sooner you will have lasting peace.

[alexbmn]

More Bs from the peace loving camp.To compare this conflict to either Vietnam or Afghanistan is ridiculous.Both of those countries contained tenths of millions of people,rough, rough terrain and were suported by rival super power. In this conflict Israel could wipe out the Pals in a day.Ben Eliezer's idea has an element of truth,yes half assed attempts at war ,both fail to pacify the enemy,and win his resentment and contempt.For the enemy to be discouraged from attacking he must be defeated utterly and completely.But untill recently Israel hasnt even attempted to do this and has been resorting to half assed measures mostly due to efforts from Fuad's Labor party.

[sharonbn]

Originally posted by droberts1958
The sooner Ben Eliezer and Peres and other moderates are back in power the sooner you will have lasting peace.

Amen. I even prefer Peres without Ben Eliezer (maybe with Beilin?)

[Vic]

Originally posted by sharonbn
Amen. I even prefer Peres without Ben Eliezer (maybe with Beilin?) With due respect to Peres' moderate views - isn't he a bit foolish? (And maybe a bit old too). Just an impression of mine ;)

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by droberts1958
When you punish murderers do you take out their family home, neighbourhood and subject the total community to constant harrasement. Not where I come from.[

You must come from a place where where there are no Palestinian suicide bombers then. How many dozens of high-school students have been bombed in the past month in your neighborhood?


"who cares if Israel's self-defense creates more resentment" I would say that the next Israeli family who loses a family member because some Palestinian became so enraged that they became a suicide bomber may care even if you don't.

First of all, it won't work for you to misrepresent what I said, nor to quote me out of context.

Second, the next victims of palestinians terrorism will not be killed out of "outrage," but out of great hope -- hope that the Palestinian mass murderers will succeed in ethnically cleansing the Jews out of Middle East.



I don't agree. The repeated suicide bombers certainly appears to be the main issue for most Israelis.
Right, and that's why the suicide bombers and their families need to be dealt with by all means necessary to stop the violence. But again, everyone in the Middle East knows that it is not the sheer number of suicide bomber candidates, but rather the Arab terror machine that is the problem. I gave an example that all it would take is one single Arab terrorist to set off a "dirty" nuke in Tel Aviv to change the entire character of the Mideast conflict.


"Sooner or later, it will work" Yes if you kill them all and all the Arabs in the neighbouring countries who will take up their task when you have killed all the Palestinians, you will be right.

Again, you prefer to misrepresent what I wrote instead of responding to it. There is a completely different solution other than killing. It is called expulsion of the Arab terrorists and their supporters, as a deterrent.



The sooner Ben Eliezer and Peres and other moderates are back in power the sooner you will have lasting peace.

I am always amused by Arab apologists looking back fondly on the Labour government as the key to peace. It is really a joke, because the reality is completely different:

1. Rabin himself (now viewed as the saint of Israeli peace) was not at all in favor of a Palestinian state under any circumstances. Rather, he said that he was willing to entertain "something more than autonomy, but less than a state." While shaking hands with arch-terrorist Arafat, the suicide bombings and bus bombings of Israeli civilians continued all the time.

2. Peres, briefly following Rabin, also ordered a severe IDF crackdown on Palestinian terrorism, when confronted with the Palestinian strategy of mass murder.

3. Barak, who followed Netanyahu, was willing to go even further than Rabin, but again was rejected by the Palestinians. He was shamefully voted out of office when the Palestinian terrorism exploded to a new level, demonstrating the futility of land concessions to the Arabs.

He was replaced by an overwhelming vote of the Israeli people, by none other than Sharon, who therefore (whether you like it or not) represents the Centerist Israeli society, i.e., he is a moderate himself ruling by coalition agreement with Peres and Fuad very instrumental in making policy.

So, if the good old days of the Labour party were so appealing, why didn't the Arabs stop their mass murder of Jews at that time?

Because contrary to the pro-terrorism apologies you offer, it never made a difference who was in the Israeli government, becasue the Arab goal of ethnically cleansing the Mideast of its Jewish presence was always the same.

[Mediocrates]

The sooner Ben Eliezer and Peres and other moderates are back in power the sooner you will have lasting peace.

Is that damning with faint praise? Is that a wish? Do you know this or is it desperation in light of Sharon's presence? You had to face Labor governments for most of the history of Israel, did you get what you want and did you meet with success and meet your goals?

Let's say for the sake of argument that the 2003 elections put Netanyahu back in power, will that be better for your goal of Palistinian hegenomy? Probably not. If Peres gets the vote do you think you will be offered something substantially different from what he had already proposed. Are you hoping for collapse?

It's been the experience of history that if your strategy includes the unilateral surrender of your opponent then you are sadly mistaken. Look at it this way; in the era of Margaret Thatcher the IRA escalated terrorism. It did not dislodge her. But when she was replaced by John Major and then Tony Blair did the IRA get the Brits out? No. What they got was to partially lay down their own arms in exchange for a process that has taken painfully long and has not yielded significantly more benefit to the IRA than anything else attempted either. So who's the better off?

The PLO can wait for the return of Peres but what do you and they hope to gain? Do you seriously entertain the fantasy that Peres will pack up the WB and Gaza and go home? Do you think that Peres will give up Jerusalem or the right of return? The PLO and Arafat will come to realize that they have been outfoxed and that they will have to give up on at least one and perhaps 2 of the 3 guiding principals of the existence of the PLO and reason for the struggle thusfar. At best what they will get is a modified version of the Clinton plan and that's it. Or they can continue the terrorism and Peres will be forced to react much the same way that any other Israeli PM has been forced to act. Except this time they won't subsidize the creation of a 30,000 strong PLO 'police force'.

This is the great blindness of Arafat. He honestly believes that because he wants and believes something it will come to pass simply because HE sees no other way. It's called paranoia.

[peacelover]

elke:

if you don't like my posts, don't read them, and if you can't help getting personal, please don't reply to them.

[alexbmn]

SharonB you are an Israeli and you desire a governement run by Shimon Peres? Is that really what you meant to say? And possibly supported by Beilin?

[elke]

Originally posted by peacelover
elke:

if you don't like my posts, don't read them, and if you can't help getting personal, please don't reply to them.

What was that all about? I can read whatever I want, and reply to it. I am not sure where you believe I got "personal". Please clarify.

[sharonbn]

Originally posted by alexbmn
SharonB you are an Israeli and you desire a government run by Shimon Peres? Is that really what you meant to say? And possibly supported by Beilin?

I fail to see why is this a big shock for you. what did you think? all Israelis are like Efi Eitam and Uzi Landau?? The Israeli left wing, although weakened in the last two years, still account for 35-40% of the Israeli population. This is hardly a neglected minority. We simply do not make such load noises as the Israeli extreme right with their "death to Arab" shouting.

however, Israeli left has demonstrated its strength in the past, like Sabra and Shatila, and the peace rally where Rabin was assassinated (some 250,000 attended that rally).

I believe in Peres and Beilin and Yossie Sarid. I place myself somewhere in the middle between the center-left (Ben Eliezer, Ramon) and extreme left (Uri Avneri). I believe some 15% of Israeli Jews hold similar opinions (Meretz voters, some of the Labour voters and some of Shinui and Merkaz party voters)

[peacelover]

"I just almost fell off my chair! As far as I can tell, this is the first - and only - reasonable thing I've seen you write!

Like I said in another thread, I find it extremely difficult to plow through your posts in one sitting."

I'm not saying you cannot read my threads, I just ask that you understand that if you do, then you choose a,d therefore please don't start slating the way I write them. If you don't like them, then you have the choice not to read them, so if you choose to read them, don't then complain about them.

I just think remarks along the lines of I almost fell off my chair cos you said something reasonable are a bitsaracastic and unnecessary. you rightly point out in another thread (extremist mindsets) that it is impossible to tell much over the internet. If my points here are largely pro-Pal, it's because I am largely responding to pro-Israel posts. On boards where the opinion is largely pro-Arab, I am usually sticking up for the Israelis.

[Mediocrates]

here are largely pro-Pal, it's because I am largely responding to pro-Israel posts. On boards where the opinion is largely pro-Arab, I am usually sticking up for the Israelis

Good lord, why?

[Vic]

Originally posted by peacelover
On boards where the opinion is largely pro-Arab, I am usually sticking up for the Israelis. Could you provide us with some samples? Just curious.

[alexbmn]

So sharonB who is your prefered choice for a peace partner? Hamas or islamic Jihad? i personally recomend Al aqsa Martyrs Brigades who are secular, progressive and allow women to be suicide bombers.A perfect partner for the deluded leftists who after two years of carnage and 558 dead still believe that Palestinians want to make peace with them.

[peacelover]

Vic:

soundofegypt.com

They had probs with their server, but they should be sorted soon. I'm Rosie on there.

I have also been part of the campaign against the boycott of Israeli acadmeics, and supported the Britsh university jewish societies through the 'Zionism is racsim' debates, which would have closed the societies down.

This latter point is hard to prove.

But I'd rather spend my time on baords where I don't have to continually justify my presence.

Mediocrates: despite being only 18, I'm matuer enough not to make grammatical critiques of your language and style, but I'll just say that when I was assessed for my clarity and ability to form arguments at my trial for Oxford uni, it was good enough to get me in for law. I also have straight As in English all through school. I think I'll get over the fact that you would rather slag off my style of writing than actually engage in a debate on the ME.

[Mediocrates]

I don't care about your language or your style - I don't even notice. I care about the somewhat haphazard organization of your thought. You need to focus on or two topics per post else it's just a jumble no matter how clear YOU think it is.

[xcaliber]

The Palestinians will not stop with the occupieds. They are trying for that now because they can sway world opinion as the defenseless people without a home, even though Jordan could have given them the West Bank between 1948-1967. Why didn't they? Because Arabs we're stating that Israel was on their land when they did not have the West Bank. If they we're given the West Bank then the Arabs would not have a reason to kill the Jews, so they didn't!

If they get the West , they will have a nation, the bombings will continue, and when Israel invades, the leftist E.U. and U.N. will back the Pals as victems because the Pals will say it was rougue bombers not us, (We all know Arafat is a man of peace-HAHAHA-uh sorry) and the Arab nations will jump in, America will side with Israel and we strangely have a scenario that sounds like the last book of the New Testament!

[sharonbn]

Originally posted by alexbmn
So sharonB who is your prefered choice for a peace partner? Hamas or islamic Jihad? i personally recomend Al aqsa Martyrs Brigades who are secular, progressive and allow women to be suicide bombers.A perfect partner for the deluded leftists who after two years of carnage and 558 dead still believe that Palestinians want to make peace with them.

As was shown in 1996, the Palestinians are capable of stopping the terrorist groups if they so desire. They can do it better than any Israeli army.

As for me, I prefer to be deluded than facsist.

[alexbmn]

oh man arent we forgetting something? After a series of devastating suicide attacks IN 1996 the Israelis elected Nataniahu and dumped Peres,and thats when terror stopped. I've just read an article on Haeretz that the left is unhappy with Bush's speech.It seems that they are more of a fifth column then Israeli Arabs could ever be.After all who armed Arafat with modern weapons and let him loose? Thank God they are being marginalized to nothing.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by sharonbn


As was shown in 1996, the Palestinians are capable of stopping the terrorist groups if they so desire. They can do it better than any Israeli army.

As for me, I prefer to be deluded than facsist.

I'm not surprised you think those are the only choices.

That's what 'being deluded' means.

[MGB8]

First, yes checkpoints and closures ARE a form of "collective punishment."

On the other hand, we all get screened and have to wait before boarding an airplane...isn't that "collective punishment" in your definition, to the acts of a MUCH SMALLER minority.

The bottom line is that checkpoints and closures are the LEAST intrusive way to stop terrorists, who's admitted goal is to destroy Israel and who have said they will continue regardless of a Palestinian Arab state, from killing people.

In other words, there really isn't much choice if you are not willing to sacrifice the lives of innocents.

As for the "give them what they want..." the problem is that many, the majority, want MORE. And they will continue to want more, and will have a safehaven to build and attack from, and it will require another war...and guess what, to terrorists, world opinoin means squat. Do you think that Hamas cares what world opinion of THEM (as opposed to Israel, because they can harm the enemy that way) is?

[MGB8]

BTW - 27 Palestinians, including 10 wanted terrorists, were found being smuggled in 2 red cresent ambulances over the weekend.

Action...reaction.

[Vic]

Originally posted by MGB8
BTW - 27 Palestinians, including 10 wanted terrorists, were found being smuggled in 2 red cresent ambulances over the weekend.To be exact:

Also in Ramallah, Israeli troops stopped two Palestinian ambulances and found 27 people packed inside — ten of them suspected of involvement in shooting or bombing attacks, a military source said.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020630/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians_5270

Ambulances again... Is it some specific tactic, designed to lead Israelis to attack them for the sake of a big show, should innoncents suffer (cf. Jenin)? Or do the Palestinians just honestly lack other "safe" transportation means?