Terrorism: Cause and Remedy

[Leon]

Michael, here is another example of someone who is trying to display his 'hoplessness' and 'desperation' to the so called brutuality of the so called Israeli 'occupation:'


I don't want to die, says suicide bomb boy

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...939785957.html

Hussam called for soldiers to help him, saying he did not want to blow himself up. But they remained behind the concrete, shouting orders at the boy with the bomb.

After a struggle, Hussam cut free the vest. Then he was ordered to strip to his underwear.

"He's a frightened little boy," said an Israeli military spokeswoman. "Our interest right now is to find out who sent him."

Hussam's parents said he was in 10th grade, a poor student, a bit slow mentally, who often skipped school. "Hussam left home this morning to school, and this was the first we heard of what happened," his mother, Tamam Abdo, said.

"This is shocking. To use a child like this is irresponsible, forbidden."

No, no the Michael's of the world (PLO apologists) would disagree, after all the child (like all other budding 'marytyrs' before him) did such a thing of his own accord and free will - he was only responding to Israeli brutuality and was fully aware of what he was doing (he wasnt vulnerable and no-one pushed him into doing this).

[Leon]

Amnesty to Palestinians: Denounce use of children
By JPOST.COM STAFF

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...=1080188581200

Amnesty International issued a report stating that "using children to carry out or assist in armed attacks of any kind is an abomination. We call on the Palestinian leadership to publicly denounce these practices."

The report was published on Thursday in response to Wednesday's foiled attack, in which a 14-year-old Palestinian, Husam Abdu Hawara, was discovered carrying an explosive' belt while attempting to pass through Hawara checkpoint, near Nablus. According to the boy's account, he received NIS 100 to blow himself up near the soldiers, with the additional promise of being awarded 72 virgins in heaven.

Last week, Israeli soldiers discovered a bag of explosive in the possession of an 11-year old Palestinian child at the same checkpoint. The boy, who regularly carried bags for travelers from one side of the checkpoint to the other, was reported not to have been aware that one of the bags on his cart contained explosive.

"Amnesty International has repeatedly condemned suicide bombings and other attacks against civilians by Palestinian armed groups as crimes against humanity. Using children to carry out or assist in armed attacks of any kind is an abomination. We call on the Palestinian leadership to publicly denounce these practices," the report said.

"Palestinian armed groups, including Hamas, Islamic Jihad and al-Aqsa Martyrs's brigades, must put an immediate end to the use or involvement of any kind of children in armed activity," it said.

In its report, Amnesty accused Palestinian armed groups of putting pressure on families of those who have been killed while carrying out attacks, including children, not to condemn but to welcome and endorse their relatives' actions.

Over the years, Amnesty International has published annual reports condemning the violation of human rights by Israeli security services in the territories.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Good ol' Caroline Glick! The Jerusalem Post should do Israel a service and open up a separate free site, CarolineGlick.com, just to archive her articles. Here's this week's. Read it all the way through. Every word is gold:

Column One: Moving to Sept. 12
By CAROLINE GLICK

Speaking Tuesday to the congressionally mandated commission charged with investigating the policy failures that led to September 11, former US secretary of state Madeleine Albright said, "I do think, in all fairness, that 9/11 was a cataclysmic event that changed things."

Albright's statement tells the whole story. There was a world before 9/11. And there was a world after the 9/11. They are not the same world.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld concurred with Albright's assessment when he said, "Imagine that we were back before Sept. 11 and that a US president had looked at the information then available, gone before the Congress and the world and said, 'We need to invade Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban, and destroy the Al Qaida terrorist network.' Based on what little was known before Sept. 11, how many countries would have joined? Many? Any? Not likely."

The commission's hearings this week dwarfed all other news in the US. Even the IDF's successful strike against Hamas leader Ahmed Yassin was sidelined by the media's attention to the public accounting by top officials from the Clinton and Bush administrations for the decisions they made and did not make.

Commission members grilled these officials as to why they did not send in troops to attack Al Qaida and overthrow the Taliban before Sept. 11. Why did they not respond to the October 2000 attack against the USS Cole in Yemen? Why had they not killed Osama Bin Laden after the Al Qaida attacks on the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August 1998? Why had they not armed Predator unmanned aerial vehicles to kill Bin Laden in 1999? Why had they not intercepted the flight that took bin Laden and his top lieutenants from Sudan to Afghanistan in 1996?

Again and again, officials from both the Clinton and Bush administrations explained they did not believe it was reasonable or possible to take military action and, besides, they were trying to act in other ways. The Clinton administration attempted to engage the Taliban. They sent top diplomats to Afghanistan to meet with Taliban officials. Taliban officials were brought to Washington to discuss Al Qaida. Attempts were made to encourage the Saudis and the Pakistanis to pressure the Taliban to cease support for Al Qaida.

At the end of the day, it all goes back to the same thing. There was a reality before Sept. 11 and there was a reality after Sept. 11. And they are not the same.

Much of the attention paid to the commission's hearings revolves around charges of politicization. There is clearly much of that. The commission has an equal number of Democrats and Republicans. The Democrats grill Bush officials aggressively and are relatively mild toward Clinton officials and the Republicans take just the opposite approach.

Yet, in spite of their conflicting party loyalties, commission members are unanimous in their view that the US is at war against Islamic terrorism. So united, the message that emanates from their questioning is that they are all Americans first and foremost and as Americans they wish to work together to learn from past mistakes in order to prevent future attacks against the US and its interests around the world.

Perhaps the main reason that the hearings did not descend into partisan finger-pointing is because after Sept. 11 both sides of the political divide in America understood the new reality. The Bush administration stopped accepting excuses for the Taliban and instead brought down the regime by force. It then invaded Iraq and took down the enemy regime of Saddam Hussein. Congress authorized use of military force to combat terrorists and their state sponsors, passed the Patriot Act and created the new Department of Homeland Security.

Today, all relevant US government resources are being used, both domestically and internationally ,to combat terrorism and to help and indeed force other countries to combat terrorism. Rather than hunkering down behind its oceanic barriers, US forces operate from the Philippines to Uzbekistan. US diplomats engage, cajole and threaten foreign leaders around the world to take action against terror cells. And while actively remaking Iraqi society, the US is laying the groundwork for more concerted action against Syria and Iran.

Osama bin Laden, while an important target, is no longer considered a singular problem by anyone. As Albright put it, "Al Qaida is not a criminal gang that can simply be rounded up and put behind bars. It is the center of an ideological virus that has wholly perverted the minds of thousands and distorted the thinking of millions more. Until the right medicine is found, the virus will continue to spread."

As an Israeli watching the proceedings, I was struck by all of this. I was impressed by what appeared to be an honest reckoning by top US policy makers with what they did and did not accomplish. I was struck by the commissioners' questions. They were intelligent if sometimes belligerent. They were well thought out and stemmed from a clear recognition that the US is at war and must win.

I was equally struck with the sense that Israel, in contending with the Palestinian terror war, is still, after three and a half years, on pre-war footing. Rather than marshalling our military and diplomatic resources to root out terrorists who threaten us wherever they are, we engage in an endless policy of containment geared toward enabling an ultimate Israeli retreat.

On Monday the IDF finally killed Hamas terror chieftain Ahmed Yassin. In commenting on the hit, Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz said that Yassin was "the Osama bin Laden of the Palestinian people." No doubt there is much truth to this statement. But what about Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian Mullah Omar? What about the Palestinian Taliban, the Palestinian Authority?

Before Sept. 11, the Taliban told the Americans and their interlocutors that they had no control over bin Laden and that anyway, he was not a threat to the US. Sanctions on the Taliban, although leveled, were ineffective because the Pakistanis continued to arm them and supply them with oil, the United Arab Emirates allowed them to bank and travel abroad and the Saudis continued to finance them. On Sept. 12, 2001, American tolerance for this state of affairs was over.

Yet here in Israel it seems that our tolerance will never run out. We continue to distinguish Hamas from the PA even as PA security forces participate in Hamas attacks and carry them out themselves. We willingly finance the PA even though we know that they use their money to finance terrorists, run schools where children are taught to murder, and indeed build an entire society around the cause of our destruction.

We talk about engaging the PA in negotiations when its leaders embrace Yassin and condemn us for killing him. We speak of easing restrictions on Palestinian travel at roadblocks when Fatah entices prepubescent children to commit suicide while committing murder at roadblocks with promises of virgins in heaven. We speak of "containing" terrorism, when the Palestinians openly declare that their aim is the genocide of Jews and call on the entire Arab and Muslim world to join their fight against us.

As I watched the commission hearings, I tried to imagine similar hearings taking place in Israel. It was impossible. Here we have all the stars of Oslo, from Shimon Peres and Yossi Beilin to Amnon Lipkin Shahak and Ami Ayalon still insisting after three and a half years that they were right and reality is wrong.

We have Prime Minister Ariel Sharon insisting that no concessions will be made in fighting terrorism at the same time that he insists on handing more territory over to terrorists and refuses to order the IDF to bring the sum total of its abilities to bear in destroying the Palestinians' ability to cause us harm.

No battle of ideas has been waged to capture Palestinian hearts and minds by our intellectual elites who still embrace Oslo and think that we are to blame for our mass murder. No sustained initiative to stop international support for the PA has been waged by our diplomats who still insist that at some future date we will wish to negotiate with our Taliban and give them sovereignty.

Describing this state of affairs this week, IDF CGS Lt. Gen. Moshe Ya'alon said, "When necessary – mainly following severe terrorist attacks – it is possible to change the nature of the campaign for a specific time period from a low intensity conflict in which the terrorists have a certain advantage, to a high intensity conflict in which it is easier for a regular military force to employ its power. However even such periods do not ensure a decisive victory."

Well of course not. If an offensive is not sustained until the enemy's forces and will to fight are broken, victory will remain elusive and the fight will go on forever.

This week OC Intelligence Maj. Gen. Aharon Ze'evi Farkash dismissed Hamas's threats of heretofore unseen attacks in retaliation for Israel's killing of Yassin. He noted that to date, Hamas has used all its resources to attack Israel and that there was no reason to believe that these resources will fundamentally change in the aftermath of Yassin's death. That is, everyday our terrorist enemies muster all their capabilities to kill Israelis anyway they can.

It has been said that in Israel, everyday is Sept. 11. The question is, when will our leaders finally take it upon themselves to marshal our resources and move us into a Sept. 12 reality?

[michael]

Originally posted by Leon

1. you completley ignore my point as to why Palestinian terrorism pre-dated 1967 (IsraelAdvocate had to bring it up as well).

2. Along with your past posts: ignoring certain points (e.g why it took Autsralia 69 years to grant aboriginies citizenship, not to mention the above point) and picking and chosing certain facts along with the regular misqoutes.

The origins of the conflict and the reasons for pre-67 violence can be admitted by some of the most committed Zionists as well as anti-Zionist Jews. Only for the ideologically disciplined is it a complete mystery.

“There is no example in history that a nation opens the gates of its country, not because of necessity…but because the nation which wants to come in has explained its desire to it”- David Ben-Gurion

Or Benny Morris, who has recently criticized the Zionist leaders for not doing the job properly in 1948 and expelling all the Arabs -
“The fear of territorial displacement and dispossession was to be the chief motor of Arab antagonism to Zionism”.

But the basic parameters of the problem were known well before that.

“We are used to thinking of the Arabs as primitive men of the desert, as a donkey-like nation……. but this is a great error”, “Should the time come when the life of our people in Palestine imposes to a greater or smaller extent on the natives, they will not easily step aside.” (‘Letters from Palestine’ – 1891, from ‘The Complete Works of Ahad Ha’am, 1949, p.24)

And just a few years later Yitzak Epstein was harsly critical of settlement in Palestine because it was “overlooking a rather ‘marginal’ fact –that in our beloved land there lives an entire people that has been dwelling there for many centuries and has never considered leaving it” ,
and that what Zionists “forget, mistakenly or maliciously, is that Palestine belongs to others, and it is totally settled” (‘The Crises’ - Hillel Zeitlin , 1905.)

A clear motivation for attacks prior to 1967 was the froced expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians and the refusal by Israel to allow the majority of those who wished to return, to do so.

Can you provide a full account? Did Fretilin go around murdering Indonesian toddlers, school children and women?

The incident occurred in December 1977 ('Timor: A People Betrayed', - James Dunn. p 269)

Unfortunately Falintil did sometimes target civilians as documented by Human Rights Watch.

“The heavy military presence is one element that may be leading to increased support for the opposition to Indonesian rule and the intifada-like activities in East Timor's urban areas” – HRW 1997

“The months of May, June, and July 1997 seemed to mark an intensification of the conflict in East Timor, with guerrilla attacks on both Indonesian military targets and civilians in Dili”(ibid)

Which led HRW to make this call to Falintil to,

“• announce their full adherence to the principles of humanitarian law, particularly Common Article 3.
• announce an immediate cessation of the practice of executing civilian Timorese suspected of being informers or collaborators” (– 'Deteriorating Human Rights in East Timor', HRW, 1997.)


But there certainly were far fewer attacks against civilians in East Timor. That is something to applaud. Though comparing the 2 situations also leads to some disturbing possibilities. The ET resistence primarily attacked military targets which is what most sane people would consider reasonable.
What did it get them? One of the worst per capita massacres of the 20th Century (around 200,000 dead, almost 30% of the population). You could come to the very unsavoury conclusion that terrorism is helpful in limiting the worst excesses of a vastly superior force.

So while I disagree at a moral level with the use of terrorism, I (and I presume even Leon) understand why it occurred in ET, and just perhaps, we even find ourselves sympathizing, just a little, with those who committed these acts in the face of a cruel occupation and an overwhelmingly superior military force.

[michael]

Originally posted by MGB8
Many facts point to the idea that "the occupation" is NOT the cause of terrorism.

The facts include:

(1) Arab terrorism against Jews (including the people who are now called Palestinians) predates 1967, and in fact predates the founding of Israel.

See the post above (#19).

(2) Netanyahu tried linking terror attacks to increased settlement building - the idea that if each terror attack threatened land in the WB and Gaza, the Pal Arabs might stop terror. That tactic failed, miserably. In reality, the Fence, a defensive measure to stop terrorism, has drawn more ire than "settlements" in the heart of the WB. Neither of these jives if the "occupation" is the main problem.

That's an astounding piece of logic. If the Palestinians use of terrorism is caused by the loss of land, then losing more land will reduce terrorism.

If that was Netanyahu's thinking, it might also explain why he released the "arch-terrorist" Yassin from jail in 1997.

Something certainly doesn't "jive".

(3) The Arabs were offered 97% of the WB, all of Gaza, and half of Jerusalem, and rejected it.

Is this a reference to the UN Partition Plan? Funny how when someone offers to let you keep half of your house you might find it a little less than generous.

As David Ben-Gurion said - there is "no example in history" of such an offer being accepted.

(4) Post Oslo, 98% of the Pal Arabs lived under PA rule, with very limited checkpoints (some - but much less than in many war-torn countries and far less than now) and no curfews, but terror increased, and buliding infrastructure for terror increased, not decreased.

Yep 98% lived under PA "rule". But only on about half of the land. Isn't that a curious outcome?

Apparantly it took several months for Arafat to be convinced that the Oslo agreement hadn't actually created a Palestinian state. During 1993 there was little terrorsit activity, this at a time when there was some hope in the territories of a just outcome. But the rapid accleration of settlement construction post-Oslo, juxtaposed reality with Arafats pronouncements, and people chose to believe what they were seeing right in front of them. The first suicide bombings occured in 1994 and from there grew almost as fast as the settlements.

(5) In Arabic, the Arabs have been clear that the main problem is Israels continued existence, not the WB and Gaza.

In Arabic the PLO accepted a just 2 state settlement in accord with Resolution 242, in 1976.

So, Israel must simply raise the costs of terrorism and improve its security conditions. When it had done the opposite (Oslo), terrorism has INCREASED. When it has done what I suggested (recently), terror has actually decreased.

This has been the mantra for a long time and is most notable for its consistency in being wrong or very short lived. The invasion of Lebanon was meant to teach the PLO a lesson - and it did, one that lead to Arafats return to the Occupied Territories and Israeli in-principle acceptance of a Palestinian state. Each extra-judicial killing is meant to "sear Palestinian consciousness" - and it does, but only with revenge, - and increase security. Just like in Jan 1996 when Yahya Ayya was killed. A victory for the IDF and security? In the Feb and March that year, Hamas launched a series of attacks that killed 62 Israelis.

Hope of a just outcome increases the strength of moderate Palestinians while asassinations, land expropriations, more and more settlements, closures, curfews, incursions and the like, help to increase the popularity of Hamas and others who can tell the citizens of the territories - 'see what negotiations get you'.

Many on this foum, choose to see this as suppoort or justification for terrorism. It isn't, it's simply a commonsense approach to problem solving - why does something occur, what can we do about it?

The only person to say something intelligent or reasonable so far is IsrealAdvocate,
"Terrorism is not an acceptable way to address grievences, even if those grievences are legitimate.. Do we give absolution to a convicted murderer who kills his neighbor over a land despute? Ofcourse not! The murederer had a grievence, but that grievence is not a license to kill."

Absolutely true. So in IA's scenario what do we do? Sensible individuals would try to solve the land dispute before any one else gets killed, as well as normal criminal procedures. Only an idiot would suggest blowing up the family home of the murderer as a solution.

One of the Palestinian negotiators (before Arafat got involved) observed that,

"the negotiations are not worth fighting about. The critical issue is transforming our society. All else is inconsequential....We must decide amongst ourselves to use all our strength and resources to develop our collective leadership and true democratic institutions which will achieve our goals and guide us to the future. The important thing is for us to take care of our internal situation and to organise our society and correct those negative aspects from which it has been suffering for generations and which is the main reason for our losses against our foes"- Haidr Abdul Shafi.

This is probably even more true now, than when he spoke these words in 1993.

[MGB8]

Michael,

You need to go back over your history, badly.

Pre-1948, the Partition, the Arabs were not sovereign over "Palestine", nor had they been for hundreds of years. It was the British, who had conquered the land from the turks.

Yet, as Jews moved into the area, joining the Jews who had remained in the land since biblical times (remember that Jerusalem, while never the arab or muslim appointed capital of the area, was ALWAYS majority Jewish), Arabs began a campaign of violence against the Jews, even as Jews legally purchased land from them and brought money and jobs, slowly changing the land from a third world hole to a modern state.

The British promised all of Palestine to the Jews, as sovereigns, but then gave 78% of that promise to Hashemite Arabs, as sovereigns.

They subsequently divided the remaining 22% again, giving the Jews sovereignty over an indefensible state only where Jews had already purchased and owned the great majority of the land and were the vast majority.

But the Arabs couldn't have even this, so they invaded - in violation of the UN charter, which they are still in violation of, trying to finish Hitler's job. They lost.

Part of the consequences of the Arab attempt at genocide was that they lost land and people were displaced. It happens in all wars, but the Arabs are unwilling to bare the consequences of their actions. Just as they are unwilling to take the consequences of declaring war on Israel today - that Israel wars back.

In 67 the Arabs instigated another war, Egypt declaring war but not firing first, and certainly Jordan firing first, while I believe that Syria did, also. Jordan lost the WB, Egypt the Sinai, and Syria the Golan.

The PLO, by the way, was formed well before 67, While JORDAN, not Israel controlled the WB, and they then stated that they accepted Jordanian sovereignty over the WB. They just wanted to destroy the state where Jews rightfully owned the land and were the vast majority, and kill all the Jews there.

On Yom Kippur in 73 the Arabs again invaded, and Israel reclaimed its lands by repelling the invaders.

As for the PLO announcing that it accepts a 2-state solution, they also renounced ALL VIOLENCE, and committed to preventing violence against Israel and Israelis. Meanwhile they, in Arabic, anounced that this was only a step towards the destruction of Israel , a trojan horse in the plan of phases towards the genocide of the Jews. Their schoolbooks and symbols show all of Israel as part of an Arabic "Palestine", and the "Zionist occupation" means all of Israel, not the WB and Gaza.

In Short, the Arabs LIE. As probably do you Michael, since chances are that you knew all this.

But, You most likely believe that, although there are dozens of Christian countries, and dozens of Muslim countries, that the Jews do not deserve ONE state of their own (certainly not one with borders that are militarily defensible), even where they are the vast majority of the population. You don't care that Jordan is 78% of Palestine, nor do you really care about the Pal Arabs having a state (because then you might consider and support a Pal State which includes land not from Israel - either from the heavily non-hashemite Jordan land, or the mostly unpopulated Sinai)- its only about them taking land from Israel.

Why? Because it appeases the much more populous overall and oil wealthy muslims, and only at the cost of Jewish blood - and who really cares if all the Jews died? Right Michael?

Oh - the fact of the matter is that Hamas and Fatah attacks have gone down since Israel has responded more forcefully, not up. Like facing any bully, when you first punch back, they don't just give up, they try a little harder at first, and only when they realize that the costs aren't worth it, do they stop.

You still try to deny the logic of cost and benefits. If terrorists see that violence is getting them what they want, they commit more terror - see the Lebanon withdrawal quickly followed by the pre-planned Intifada. Meanwhile, the US response to Al-queda's attack has led to no attacks in the US for the past 3 years! Sure, there will likely be an attack in the future, but even the Arab regimes do not support this, and are trying to prevent it, because they know that another attack on the US will lead to devestating consequences to the Arab world.

The real question, of course, is WHY you deny the logic of costs and benefits. Why do you ignore what the Arabs say in arabic, and what their symbols say, and repeat what they say in English even though it contradicts the other two? Why do you try to argue that the Arabs should not bare consequences for their actions - that when they war on Israel, Israel should not war back on them?

This is not about "occupation", its about Jews on land that Islam claims for itself - about Islamic imperialism and Jihadism - and the worst thing is that you probably know it and simply wish to advance their cause.

[Noam]

Brig Gen Shamni leaving the Gaza Command post had a nice interview in this Maariv weekend ed.
He mentioned this:

DIchter, the head of SHABAK (Israeli CIA) coined the phraze: "THERE IS a BOTTOM TO THE BARREL!"

When Israel Exterminates Yassin, Then Rantisi , then His replacement, then HIS replacement and at the same time liquidate some Lower Operatives of Hamas.... Gaza will become like Yesha--Hamas WITHOUT LEADERSHIP...Without DIRECTION...LOST.
Hamas that is WEAKENED. Then we Liquidate Arafat.

Then WHAT?

Then, AT LAST we will get to the BOTOM OF THE BARREL!!!

We will scratch its bottom...we get rid of most of the murderers and we CREATE A NEW SITUATION IN THE LAND!!!!

Watch Dahlan getting stronger. Watch more and more Palestinian getting it thru their SKULLS that this MAD TERRORISM is DECIMATING THEM (see the 70 "intellectuals" that just signed the petition to STOP TERRORISM)

THERE IS A BOTTOM TO THE BARREL. IT JUST TAKES TIME.

[Leon]

Originally posted by michael
The origins of the conflict and the reasons for pre-67 violence can be admitted by some of the most committed Zionists as well as anti-Zionist Jews. Only for the ideologically disciplined is it a complete mystery.

“There is no example in history that a nation opens the gates of its country, not because of necessity…but because the nation which wants to come in has explained its desire to it”- David Ben-Gurion

Or Benny Morris, who has recently criticized the Zionist leaders for not doing the job properly in 1948 and expelling all the Arabs -
“The fear of territorial displacement and dispossession was to be the chief motor of Arab antagonism to Zionism”.

But the basic parameters of the problem were known well before that.

“We are used to thinking of the Arabs as primitive men of the desert, as a donkey-like nation……. but this is a great error”, “Should the time come when the life of our people in Palestine imposes to a greater or smaller extent on the natives, they will not easily step aside.” (‘Letters from Palestine’ – 1891, from ‘The Complete Works of Ahad Ha’am, 1949, p.24)

And just a few years later Yitzak Epstein was harsly critical of settlement in Palestine because it was “overlooking a rather ‘marginal’ fact –that in our beloved land there lives an entire people that has been dwelling there for many centuries and has never considered leaving it” ,
and that what Zionists “forget, mistakenly or maliciously, is that Palestine belongs to others, and it is totally settled” (‘The Crises’ - Hillel Zeitlin , 1905.)

Oh goody, quotes, quotes and more quotes.


Mind you, I previously neglected to mention that Arab terrorism well and truly pre-dated the creation of Israel in 1948 and the so called 'expulsion' of Arabs. Some highlights are the Hebron Massacer of 1929, the mass pogroms and riots of the 30's which left hundreds of Jews dead, not to mention blowing Jewish civilians up in buses and market places.

A clear motivation for attacks prior to 1967 was the froced expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians and the refusal by Israel to allow the majority of those who wished to return, to do so.

800,000 Jews were forcibilly removed from their native lands and had all their possessions stolen by the Arab regimes. Whilst there is talk of Israel granting Palestinian refugees compensation, Jewish refugees are somehow neglected. So why werent they motivated in blowing Arabs up?

The clear motivation here is the destruction of Israel by the Arab world.

Unfortunately Falintil did sometimes target civilians as documented by Human Rights Watch.

Sometimes target civilians? I asked you to provide a full account of how they went around murdering civilians, but instead I was greeted with a vague cut/paste source on the activities of Falintil and what that group was required to commit to. Any relevance?

Your conclusion was: They sometimes target civilians. Even if it was 'sometimes' it was nowhere near in comparison to PLO tactics - whose its entire war machine is aimed at innocent civilians.

The ET resistence primarily attacked military targets which is what most sane people would consider reasonable.
What did it get them? One of the worst per capita massacres of the 20th Century (around 200,000 dead, almost 30% of the population). You could come to the very unsavoury conclusion that terrorism is helpful in limiting the worst excesses of a vastly superior force.

You just unwittingly agreed to my point earlier - i.e there are people who are far more desparate and are far more aggrieved than the Palestinians, yet they dont resort to such barbaric tactics. East timorese are one example. Tibetians and Kurds (who live under Syrian and Iraqi occupaton) are another.

The difference b/w indonesia (which was under the dictatorship of Suharto at the time) and Israel, is that Israel is a liberal democracy. No matter what tactics are used against it, no matter how unconventional, every time Israel responds, it takes moral and humaniterian consderations - trying to limit civilian casualties as much as possible. If you disagree and were correct in saying the opposite than Palestinian civilian casualties would increase by 1000 fold.

Israel has the fourth strongest army in the world, where as the Indonesian army is nowhere near that rank. Israel can easily crush the entire PLO, without even lifting a finger. Yet humanterian restraints is what keeps it at bay.

And like Indonesia Jordan ranks nowhere near Israel in might, yet in less than a week managed to massacer 11,000 palestinians. Thats more Palestinians killed in less than a week by their brothers than Palestinians killed under Israelis in fifty years of conflict. Where is the outcry?

So while I disagree at a moral level with the use of terrorism, I (and I presume even Leon) understand why it occurred in ET, and just perhaps, we even find ourselves sympathizing, just a little, with those who committed these acts in the face of a cruel occupation and an overwhelmingly superior military force.

No Michael, when innocent civilians are purley and purposly murdered in cold blood, there is no sympathy from me.

[Kev]

I don't want to die, says suicide bomb boy

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2...9939785957.html

Just received an interesting email about this:


Canadians Help Advocate Israel

Subject: Action Call: Palestinian's advocation of child sacrifice!


Dear Friends,

As you are surely aware by now, the Palestinian boy who was wearing the bomb-vest has been much discussed in the press and even in the House of Commons.

In the House of Commons March 25, 2004

Hon. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): [ Mahoney.S@parl.gc.ca ] . . .

....Let me talk briefly about the experience that people are feeling in the community about the war in the Middle East. We have terrible tensions. We have assassinations. We have suicide bombings. How could anyone ever understand how a mother could wrap a bomb around a child and then send that child onto a bus to detonate that bomb and kill people? It is not an image that most Canadians could even come close to understanding, but it is reality.

Why does it happen? It happens because there is no hope. It happens because there is no sense that anyone is coming to the table to talk about how we can resolve the differences between the state of Israel and the state of Palestine.
WRONG. It happens because of the "death cult society" that has become the norm through the indoctrination of the Palestinian Authority.
This is indeed nothing new, here is an article about the teaching of kids to kill from Nov. 2000! (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=17707 )

NB>- Please note that we are sure that the above MP (who did lose his nomination and the above was part of his "swan song" final speech at the house) meant well and do not mean to disparage him as surely many have this incorrect understanding.

We are including a special report from PMW as they have done very good research on this topic for several years. Please take a few points from their information and write to the PM and FM as well as your MP to ask that Canada take a role in stopping the incitement to violence that is endemic in Palestinian society. Please also use a form of that letter in contacting your local media outlet to have them cover the story to a greater extent and with the proper context.

Shabbat Shalom

Canadians Helping Advocate for Israe (CHAI)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


For addresses of MPs go to: http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/ab....asp?Source=SM
Insert your postal code and the contact information for your MP will appear.

The Right Honourable Paul Martin
Email: Martin.P@parl.gc.ca

The Honourable Bill Graham
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Graham.B@parl.gc.ca


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Toronto Sun
editor@tor.sunpub.com

The Globe and Mail
letters@globeandmail.ca

The Toronto Star
lettertoed@thestar.ca

The National Post
letters@nationalpost.com

[Oh Jerusalem]

There are Canadians and then there are Canadians.

[michael]

Originally posted by MGB8
Michael,

You need to go back over your history, badly.

Pre-1948, the Partition, the Arabs were not sovereign over "Palestine", nor had they been for hundreds of years....

I think you’ve done quite enough of “going over.., history badly”.

MGB8 outlines the basic position first put forward by Israeli diplomat Abba Eban in defence of Israeli actions in 1967. However, other opinions and facts exist that provide a rather different view of the events of 1967.

Serious historical accounts tend to congregate around 2 positions on 1967. One,that Israel was mostly to blame for what happened and two, that Israel and the Arab states were equally to blame.

You can’t really blame Eban though, that’s his job – to gain the best possible advantage for his state on the diplomatic front. If you prefer to believe this version, that’s your right. But for anyone who would like to get a broader view, taking in the views of others including independent observers, a slightly different picture to MBG*’s standard fare emerges.

The most glaring anomaly is the claim that the Arab states commenced hostilities in June. Certainly Eban maintained that, but it’s all a bit laboured when Israeli Generals such as Ezer Weizman were quite happy to publicly ridicule this idea, and admit that Israel launched the first attacks. The more common proposition is that Israeli launched a pre-emptive strike in the face of an eminent Egyptian, is the sensible option. This has the distinct advantage of at least being a defendable position.

The other 2 main pillars of this argument are the Egyptian ‘blockade’ of the Straits of Tiran and the Egyptian request to withdraw the UNEF.
That Eilat only received around 6% of Israeli port traffic; that Egypt had proposed an international court adjudication on the legality of this move (Israel declined), combined with the fact that it wasn’t total blockade but one that continued to guarantee ‘free and innocent’ passage to all vessels, including Iraeli flagged ships, just slightly undermines the oft-expressed notion that the ‘blockade’ was an ‘act of war’.
The UNEF withdrawal, again is meant to show clear Egyptian aggression. Possibly. But the UN offered to reposition the UNEF inside Israel, but was refused. The argument is apparently that the UNEF would interfere with defence. If that is accepted than it is at least as possible that Egypt wished it removed for the same reason. Egypt also suggested to re-start the EIMAC, which Israel had unilaterally abandoned in 1956 so it could participate in the British-French attack on the Suez Canal. Israel refused this as well. Strange behaviour from a country threatened with destruction.

So while MBG8 offers a pretty cut-and-dried summary, add a few inconvenient facts and a less certain scene emerges.

[michael]

Originally posted by Noam
Brig Gen Shamni leaving the Gaza Command post had a nice interview in this Maariv weekend ed.
He mentioned this:

DIchter, the head of SHABAK (Israeli CIA) coined the phraze: "THERE IS a BOTTOM TO THE BARREL!"

When Israel Exterminates Yassin, Then Rantisi , then His replacement, then HIS replacement and at the same time liquidate some Lower Operatives of Hamas.... Gaza will become like Yesha--Hamas WITHOUT LEADERSHIP...Without DIRECTION...LOST.
Hamas that is WEAKENED. Then we Liquidate Arafat.

Then WHAT?

Then, AT LAST we will get to the BOTOM OF THE BARREL!!!

We will scratch its bottom...we get rid of most of the murderers and we CREATE A NEW SITUATION IN THE LAND!!!!

Watch Dahlan getting stronger. Watch more and more Palestinian getting it thru their SKULLS that this MAD TERRORISM is DECIMATING THEM (see the 70 "intellectuals" that just signed the petition to STOP TERRORISM)

THERE IS A BOTTOM TO THE BARREL. IT JUST TAKES TIME.

Yes, but just one problem - it’s all been said before.

An article in Haaretz last year pointed out that in the previous 2 years , the army claimed to have cut the head off the Hamas in Hebron 5 times. Each time it was meant to be the “bottom of the barrel”.

This reminds me of the definition of a fanatic – someone who redoubles their efforts even after they have forgotten their goal.

The former head of Shin Bet was under no illusions as to how successful a strategy this might be,
“ Israeli society, top to bottom, is sinking into confusion. There are no reference points. People mask this reality with swaggering slogans: ‘We will vanquish terrorism!’ At a colloquium, the army chief of staff declares: ‘We are winning’; he evokes the ‘superiority of Tsahal’-- the Israeli army -- and his ‘feeling that the nation is finding its strength’. Then he adds ‘there are today more Palestinian terrorists than a year ago’ and says there will be even more tomorrow! If we are winning, how come terrorists are multiplying?” - Ami Ayalon (23/12/2001)

[MGB8]

One of the problems with Israelis, particularly the military, is their arrogance, which leads them to put their feet in their mouth, which is then turned around and used by jew/Israel haters like Michael for the creation of revised history.

Serious historians, as michael puts it, note that many Israeli generals admitted that the military campaign was pre-planned.

What does that mean? It means that Israel had prepared for an Arab attack and were ready for it.

This doesn't change the basic facts:

Michael -

Did Egypt blockade the Straits of Tiran, cutting off Israel's oil, before Israel's first shot? Yes or no, michael?

You try to say one blockade is different from the other, and the idea of adjudicating the dispute at the UN, with 59 Islamic countries, while the blockade continued, is ridiculous. You accept the Arab positions, disregarding the key facts - there simply was a blockade on ships of Egypts choosing in the Straits of Tiran. Your arguments don't pass the laugh test.

Did Egypt expel the peacekeepers from the Sinai and move in their tank batallions into the demiliterized zone before Israel fired a shot? Yes or no, michael?

You try to make excuses for the expulsion, except that the Sinai is a much bigger barrier from Egypts population centers than Gaza is to Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, no? You also ignore the constant Arab threats, not to mention the fact that the Soviets prevented an earlier invasion by the arabs in '67. Oh, and there is the fact that Israel was surrounded by more populated Arab nations which didn't accept its right to exist... hmmm..

Dividing the Arab countries into separate countries, is it true that Syria and Jordan fired (shelled) Israel before Israel fired back, meaning that even if there is a question because of the pre-emptive strike on Egypt's airforce, that certainly the other two nations could have not fired on Israel and could have avoided going to war?

The bottom line, michael, as much as your jew/Israel hating instincts hate to admit it, is thatg serious historians when interviewing the Arabs got them to admit that thier actions caused the war, and that they were planning to invade (with the expection of Jordan, which made its decision at the last minute).

Had the Arabs not blockaded Israel, had they not kicked out the peacekeeprs, had they accepted Israel's right to exist, the 6-day war would not have happened.

Of course, Michael will also argue that Israel caused the Arabs to invade it on Yom Kippur, too.

Michael, your attempt at revising history is weak, and, ultimately false. The question, of course, remains, WHY do you lie about the history, denying the most basic facts about what events happened and when. I think you just hate Israel, want it destroyed, and the Jews either killed or otherwise ethnically cleansed. That would give you a lot in common with Hitler, like most of the Arab nations today.

Originally posted by michael
I think you’ve done quite enough of “going over.., history badly”.

MGB8 outlines the basic position first put forward by Israeli diplomat Abba Eban in defence of Israeli actions in 1967. However, other opinions and facts exist that provide a rather different view of the events of 1967.

Serious historical accounts tend to congregate around 2 positions on 1967. One,that Israel was mostly to blame for what happened and two, that Israel and the Arab states were equally to blame.

You can’t really blame Eban though, that’s his job – to gain the best possible advantage for his state on the diplomatic front. If you prefer to believe this version, that’s your right. But for anyone who would like to get a broader view, taking in the views of others including independent observers, a slightly different picture to MBG*’s standard fare emerges.

The most glaring anomaly is the claim that the Arab states commenced hostilities in June. Certainly Eban maintained that, but it’s all a bit laboured when Israeli Generals such as Ezer Weizman were quite happy to publicly ridicule this idea, and admit that Israel launched the first attacks. The more common proposition is that Israeli launched a pre-emptive strike in the face of an eminent Egyptian, is the sensible option. This has the distinct advantage of at least being a defendable position.

The other 2 main pillars of this argument are the Egyptian ‘blockade’ of the Straits of Tiran and the Egyptian request to withdraw the UNEF.
That Eilat only received around 6% of Israeli port traffic; that Egypt had proposed an international court adjudication on the legality of this move (Israel declined), combined with the fact that it wasn’t total blockade but one that continued to guarantee ‘free and innocent’ passage to all vessels, including Iraeli flagged ships, just slightly undermines the oft-expressed notion that the ‘blockade’ was an ‘act of war’.
The UNEF withdrawal, again is meant to show clear Egyptian aggression. Possibly. But the UN offered to reposition the UNEF inside Israel, but was refused. The argument is apparently that the UNEF would interfere with defence. If that is accepted than it is at least as possible that Egypt wished it removed for the same reason. Egypt also suggested to re-start the EIMAC, which Israel had unilaterally abandoned in 1956 so it could participate in the British-French attack on the Suez Canal. Israel refused this as well. Strange behaviour from a country threatened with destruction.

So while MBG8 offers a pretty cut-and-dried summary, add a few inconvenient facts and a less certain scene emerges.

[michael]

Originally posted by Leon
Sometimes target civilians? I asked you to provide a full account of how they went around murdering civilians, but instead I was greeted with a vague cut/paste source on the activities of Falintil and what that group was required to commit to. Any relevance?

First, it’s faint derision “Oh goody, quotes, quotes and more quotes” that I provided information, followed by petulant demands that I must do more! - “provide a full account”.
It would be nice if I had the time to spoon feed Leon, but alas, no. It was obviously too hard to look up the reference I provided.

Relevance?? If I’m not mistaken it was Leon who introduced ET to the discussion, as an example of how occupation doesn’t lead to terrorism. It’s certainly true that it doesn’t necessarily do so, but in this case it did as the HRW reports show, and as I said in “far fewer” cases.

Does Leon perhaps believe that the Falintil killing civilians had nothing to do with “occupation and desperation”? They killed, like Palestinians terrorists, just because it’s their way, or it’s in their blood maybe?

You just unwittingly agreed to my point earlier - i.e there are people who are far more desparate and are far more aggrieved than the Palestinians, yet they dont resort to such barbaric tactics. East timorese are one example. Tibetians and Kurds (who live under Syrian and Iraqi occupaton) are another.

No matter what tactics are used against it, no matter how unconventional, every time Israel responds, it takes moral and humaniterian consderations - trying to limit civilian casualties as much as possible. If you disagree and were correct in saying the opposite than Palestinian civilian casualties would increase by 1000 fold

Unwittingly agreed? If I’d said anything contrary to that, you might be making a point.

It is interesting to consider why terrorism might arise in some situations and not others. Some suggest that there is a ‘middle ground’ where terrorism can arise. At one extreme, massive military slaughter, ala Indonesia, and extreme powerlessness may inhibit the ability to organize sufficiently for terrorists to operate. At the other end, sufficient operating democracy may allow for a political solution, blunting terrorists ability to garner support. This ties in with Hannah Arendt’s thesis that terrorism tends to arise when there is a block in political processes. Superficially, Ireland seems to go against this. The IRA operated in a reasonably democratic society. However, under the Thatcher Govt. committed to pursuing a military solution, the IRA thrived. Under Blair, with a plan of negotiation and co-operation, IRA terrorism has ceased.

As for the fact that there have been, and are, other conflicts with far worse crimes than those committed by Israel, – so what? If my point was that Israel was uniquely evil, Leon would be spot on, but I didn’t and never have suggested that. The discussion was about causes and responses. Is this the lesson that Leon proposes- that might is right, so suffer the consequences? Gen Suharto would agree I’m sure.
Some on this forum seem to lean towards this Indonesian approach, urging further military escalation. It may be worth remembering, that if indeed the overwhelming military approach can have results, that it may take mass slaughter and large scale atrocities of the kind that destroy a society.

What seems to underlie Leons response is a common conflation, perhaps deliberate, that somehow suggesting the existence of legitimate grievances in a conflict amounts to approval of terrorism as a response. Discussion of causal factors, such as occupation, is clearly separate from the issue of whether the responses are legitimate or otherwise.


It's most curious how my original point is no longer so interesting.
Richard Crossmans comments were derided as “moral bankruptcy”, “morally reprehensible” etc when the responders thought it referred to Pal terrorism. Since discovering his “low level of consciousness” was in relation Jewish terrorism, the change is dramatic. No discussion of how others were “far more desperate….more aggrieved” than the Jews, but didn’t “resort to such barbaric tactics”.

Israeli “moral and humanitarian considerations” are often lauded in this context. The rationale is usually pretty thin as Leon demonstrates. His point, crudely put, is the relativist argument. Countries like Indonesia have done far worse, so what is done to Palestinians is reasonable. No doubt Hamas would be quite content to argue that other terrorist actions in other places have been much worse, therefore what they do reflects relative “moral and humanitarian considerations” . Rubbish of course. It’s reasoning at the same level as the child who, in defence of their wrong-doing, cries “But someone else did something worse ”.

The relativist argument is often put forward in defence of appalling actions. So it’s worth remembering why it is that terrorism is rightly condemned and applying those principles to the response to terrorism. Doing so might suggest something like this,

“This right [of the innocent not to be killed] is violated in the most radical way when the terrorist intentionally kills or maims them in order to achieve his or her aims. But it is also violated in a morally unacceptable way when their death …..is not brought about as a means, but as an anticipated side effect, if the harm they sustain is out of all proportion to the aim achieved, and those who do the killing and maiming refuse to take any chance of being harmed themselves in the process. The latter is not terrorism, and is less repellant, morally speaking, than the former. But not much less.
If this is granted, it means that terrorism may not be fought by terrorism. Nor may it be fought by means of a strategy that does not amount to terrorism, but must be condemned on the ground of the same moral values and principles that provide the strongest reasons for our rejection of terrorism.”

[MGB8]

Michael,

Why do you ignore Arab-Islamic Imperialism - called Jihadism or militant Islam by some, or Pan-Arabism in earlier generations?

Just like Nazi-ism and Communism, these expansionist philosophies are based mostly in a perverse form of pride and a utopian-like vision.

Terrorism happens when a group has political desires and can't
achieve them through traditional political or military means.

Islamic terror is the attempt to achieve Islamic-Imperialist political goals through terrorist means, because the other means aren't available.

It just so happens that with Israel, the political desire of the Pal-Arabs is, as reflected through their speeches in Arabic, their symbols, and their actions - the destruction of Israel and genocide of the Jews - the same goal which the Arabs as a whole have anounced and acted upon for the past 50 years.

You, of course, make every excuse to avoid this reality - which leads me to believe that you are nothing more than a simple Jew hater. It could be that you simply haven't thought about the consequences of your positions and the false version of history that you spout.

The Arabs attacked the Jews for just IMMIGRATING and living to/in Israel pre 48.

They attacked again in 47-48 in overwhelming numbers.

Israel did participate in Britain and France's attempt to control the Suez - which is understandable considering that Israel thought that the act of friendship would be reciprocated, and it did gain them a demiliterized Sinai - a bufer from Egyptian aggression.

It was an Israeli/British/French act of aggression, although there were attacks coming from the Sinai pre-56, another reason which Israel went along with the plan.

To '67:
Nasser had announced his desire to wipe out Israel, a war of anhialation, and actually would have struck first had the Soviet Union not intervened.

They did blockade Israel, even if you make excuses and qualifications - they were stopping ships which were transporting supplies, including military equipment to defend against attacks, and oil, needed to run the military.

but you, michael, seek to esculpate them from the consequences of their actions.

Egypt did expell the peace-keepers and move in their troops.

Syria and Jordan did fire first, after Israel pre-emptively struck their pan-Arab ally, Egypt - but still, they fired first on Israel, nation wise.

Again, why do you try to help the arabs avoid the consequences of their actions?

Finally, the Arabs did support continued terrorism against Israel (including the Olympic massacre, but also other bombing and hijakings and shelling from Lebanon) and then invaded on Yom Kippur, the holliest day of the Jewish year, in another attempt to kill all the Jews of Israel - because, like most still do, they did not accept the existence of Israel in the mideast, or of Jews on land that they claim for Islam.

Why do they hate Israel? Because - as the Arab/Islamic Imperialist saying goes, Dar al Islam must never revert to the ownership of infidels/barbarians.

BTW - Some minority Arabs commited acts of terror against Arab countries, including Egypt, Syria and Jordan. That doesn't happen any more. The reason it doesn't happen is not because those governments negotiated with the terrorists...its because those countries are not held to the unique standard which Israel is held to, and thus could anhialate those groups without care to collateral damage or anything of the sort.