Israel continues to delude itself, and break international law

bugler · 08-08-2001 10:12pm #1

Israel has embarked on a fresh bout of assassinations again, which are outlawed by international law.Perhaps one of the few things remarkable about this bout is that it has been condemned not just by the huge majority(as usual) but also by the US.I don't really have the time now, I'm busy with exams, so I'll post this up for your perusal.Israel really needs to grasp the fact that force alone will not end it's problems, but make them worse.

How many more must die?

The mayhem continued in the Middle East yesterday – including an Israeli rocket attack on Palestinian police headquarters in the Gaza Strip, heavy exchanges of gunfire, and an attack by a Palestinian gunman that injured several people near the defence ministry in Tel Aviv. The Israeli government seems under the impression that the harder it hits back, the easier the problem will be to solve. In reality, the opposite is true.

There is something baffling about the way that otherwise intelligent politicians sometimes fail to understand the basics. Israel now has a policy of assassination of its opponents – "targeted killings", their government likes to call it, but we see no reason not to call things by their proper name. Israeli forces are ready to kill those who (Israel believes) are a danger to the state. On the face of it, that may seem logical. Get rid of those who cause the worst problems and – it seems – you get rid of the problem itself. Why bother with trivial details like legality? In some respects, it is a similar logic to that of the alleged shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland in the 1980s.

It is a morally defective policy, at best. If somebody has committed crimes, they should be brought before courts; murder is not the best way for a democratic government to conduct its business. In addition, it is painfully obvious that the innocent are as likely to suffer as the guilty. Civilians are the inevitable "collateral damage", to use the standard military euphemism. Two children died in last week's missile strike on the Hamas headquarters in the West Bank town of Nablus.

Even if we leave morality to one side, however, the policy is senseless. The Israelis insist that "we have to defend ourselves"; the Israeli government spokesman claimed yesterday that "no country finding itself in our situation would behave differently." But do Israel's leaders really believe that killing radical leaders is a way to neutralise the resistance? Violence tends to be Hydra-like: cut off the heads of one guerrilla leader, and he will only be replaced by two more. Deliberate killing redoubles popular anger, with predictable results. Sooner or later (and it is usually sooner) that anger inevitably explodes. When Palestinians threaten revenge killings, only the most foolish Israeli politician could take this to be mere bluster.

Israel's leaders make life dangerous for their own citizens, not just for Palestinians, by refusal to compromise. For, however threadbare the Middle East peace process may now look, it still makes sense for both sides not simply to write off all aspirations for change. The Palestinians, too, must see that those who are ready to kill – like the drive-by gunman in Tel Aviv yesterday – merely make things worse for all.

Both sides feel bruised. But that is no reason to turn backs on the prospects for a settlement. It is a reason to seek to understand the fears of the other side.

A senior Israeli army officer has described the current policy thus: "If a man comes to kill you, rise early and kill him first." That line sounds seductively persuasive. But it fails to confront the reality – that the dead man's brothers and sons and friends will then be doubly determined to kill you. If support for the killers is to be weakened, Israel will need to make a move. The insistence yesterday by Ariel Sharon, the prime minister, that there could be no international observers, and that there could be no compromise, "not now, and not in the future", is depressing, to put it mildly. Compromise – for example, halting the expansion of settlements – would not be a cave-in, but a courageous step. One day, both sides must accept that courage and compromise are not opposites, but two sides of the same coin.

- The Independent

Lemming · 08-08-2001 10:46pm

Just picking up on something I've heard many many times, and stated again in that quotation ...

Why are the Israelis so reluctant to allow internation observers monitor the situation. It smacks of trying to hide something. Granted, I know the palestinians are no angels, but doesn't it look a little odd when a recognised 1st world state is refusing to have impartial observers, and the terrorists are calling for them ??

Any thoughts on this boys and girls?

Xterminator · 09-08-2001 8:47am

I think terrorist attacks are deplorable, and find no excuse for them is possible.

Yet the attacks by Israel seem at time to be designed to provoke, to maim and to kill. Rocket attacks from helicopter gunships in crowded buildings can hardly be surgical strikes at terrorists.

On sky news i saw this a few weeks ago.

When asked to justify the shooting of palistenians who were throwing stones at soldiers, the Israel attiude was 'they shouldn't throw stones if they don't want to be shot?!'

I do believe the Israeli Pepole rejected peace when they elected Sharon.
This is just being reflected in the current actions of Israel.

Finally it may take a terrible reprisal on the people of israel to change the hardline opinion of the majority.

[This message has been edited by Xterminator (edited 09-08-2001).]

klong · 09-08-2001 10:15am

the reason, i believe, that Israel has this policy is because of their siege mentality, their mantra being on of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.
the very first Israeli nuclear weapon had the words "Never Again" welded to the side in english and hebrew.
they don't trust the arabs/palestinians etc and vice versa. i can't see the middle east at peace for a very, very long time....can anyone?

TwoShedsJackson · 09-08-2001 12:08pm

Originally posted by Xterminator:

Finally it may take a terrible reprisal on the people of israel to change the hardline opinion of the majority.

Because an act of 'terrible reprisal' will really soften a hardline attitude towards terrorists.

Xterminator · 09-08-2001 12:29pm

Originally posted by Castor Troy:
Because an act of 'terrible reprisal' will really soften a hardline attitude towards terrorists.

The Israelis commit atrocities toward the palistineans, and vice versa.
The chain will only be broken when both sides are sick of the carnage. When the majority of the population say enough!

Given the distrust and the worsening cycle of violence, I belive the situation where an atrosity so bad it will touch the hearts of these de-sensitised communitys is going to happen.
The death of 2 innocent children in Nablus last week was all but ignored by the Israeli media, considered to be acceptable collateral damage.

I liken Israels current policy of building new settlements to ethnic cleansing.

I shudder a what it will take, to make both sides, but particularly the Israeli's change their policy to accomidating their neighbours.

[This message has been edited by Xterminator (edited 09-08-2001).]

Canaboid · 09-08-2001 11:42pm

Originally posted by Xterminator:
I think terrorist attacks are deplorable, and find no excuse for them is possible.

Here's one - Give us back our Country and fu(k off.

Chaos-Engine · 10-08-2001 12:47am

I'm in no mood to start a rant about a US puppet state.... Israel is just plain discracful... Gunship Vs a police barracks that did nothing and is under fire because some Arab blow himself up... I mean ffs.. that Arab may have even been an Israele citizen....

"Information is Ammunition"
Choas Engine
Email: choas@netshop.ie
ICQ: 34896460

Fidelis · 10-08-2001 1:12am

Sharon knows that by bombing the Palestinian infrastructure, he loses Western support. He doesn't care though. His country is between a rock and a hard place and he's using the force at this disposal to destroy the opposition.

Whether you guys agree with what he's doing is one thing, but you need to understand why he's doing it before you judge it.

My opinion anyway is that by using tanks and airstrikes in retaliation for lone snipers and suicide bomb blasts is despicable.

However, killing 18 teenagers while they have lunch isn't going to weigh support for the Palestinians either...

Chaos-Engine · 10-08-2001 1:27am

Originally posted by Fidelis:

However, killing 18 teenagers while they have lunch isn't going to weigh support for the Palestinians either...

Don't forget that every 2 weeks a Palestinian child of the age of less than 12 is SHOT dead (usually Headshot) by an Israele Soldier... MILITARY... Bombs kill without judging... Bullets kill what they r pointed at...
Kev that bomb blast was wrong but can't u see that the images of it will be on the tele for weeks were as those Palestinians children r already forgotten... PLease don't be another popular culture victum to Mass Media Histaria...

"Information is Ammunition"
Choas Engine
Email: choas@netshop.ie
ICQ: 34896460

TwoShedsJackson · 10-08-2001 8:14am

Chaos-Engine, will you learn some more about the situation there before you spout $hite - and try not to use 3l33t-speak all the time, it makes you look cretinous.

Israel is just plain discracful... Gunship Vs a police barracks that did nothing and is under fire because some Arab blow himself up... I mean ffs.. that Arab may have even been an Israele citizen....

So if he was an Israeli citizen he should be allowed blow himself and others up? Is that your point?

... Bombs kill without judging... Bullets kill what they r pointed at...

You seem to be implying here that it's better to use a bomb to kill someone.

PLease don't be another popular culture victum to Mass Media Histaria...

That makes no sense whatsoever - please tell me what the hell you mean by that.

Chaos-Engine · 10-08-2001 8:40am

Castor Troy

I don't condoen ANY sort of violence, Did i not make it clear enough. As regards to the Israele Military. An Army is Supposed to be controlable... A Terrorist Organisation like Hamaz is practically not... If a soldier in a supposably controlable army SHOTs a child. Which happens far too often in Israel and is all but forgotten by the time the bulletin is off the air.... I HATE the discrimination in whats worse... THEY R ALL SICK

But what makes me even sicker is the fact the Western society chooses to focus on the Middle East only when Israele Jewish kids r killed... Not the systematic(yes it is regular) killing of Palistinian Children....

Excuse given: "He had a rock".... "He was in a pram. I though it was a bomb"... ffs

Castor Troy stop lashing out at me and being a 1337 ****er yourself.... "your not nearly as 1337 as me is not something i care much for. If u think so u be your 1337self and don't critise me cause u think i want to be a MOD like u all 1337... No thanks. IN my opinion most of the MODS r pure 1337est muppets"

Just to make it clear
ALL KILLING IS WRONG

"Information is Ammunition"
Choas Engine
Email: choas@netshop.ie
ICQ: 34896460

[This message has been edited by Chaos-Engine (edited 10-08-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Chaos-Engine (edited 10-08-2001).]

TwoShedsJackson · 10-08-2001 8:22pm

'Lashing out at you' ahhahahahahaah, what are you on? Using '2' and 'r' makes you look like a fool, stop doing it.

A) I didn't say that you do condone violence.

As regards to the Israele Military. An Army is Supposed to be controlable... A Terrorist Organisation like Hamaz is practically not...

That still makes it sound like you think it is more legitimate for Hamas to kill someone than the Israeli Defence Force.

C)

Which happens far too often in Israel and is all but forgotten by the time the bulletin is off the air.... I HATE the discrimination in whats worse... THEY R ALL SICK

Deaths on both sides can be forgotten that fast. There was a documentary on TV about two months ago calling for Ariel Sharon to be prosecuted for war crimes over the massacres in the Sabra & Chatila camps in 1982 - just slightly after the bulletins ended.

D)

Excuse given: "He had a rock".... "He was in a pram. I though it was a bomb"... ffs

I ask you this - if you lived in an area where violence was the norm, would you consider it a good idea to hurl a rock or any other object at an occupying army's soldiers or security forces? What do you think they're going to do? Sit there and get hit in the head? Particularly the IDF, who are well known for their shoot first and ask questions later policy.

E)

Castor Troy stop lashing out at me and being a 1337 ****er yourself.... "your not nearly as 1337 as me is not something i care much for. If u think so u be your 1337self and don't critise me cause u think i want to be a MOD like u all 1337... No thanks. IN my opinion most of the MODS r pure 1337est muppets"

I'm not sure what to say to this monumental pile of drivel. How about this - respond in plain English stating proper reasons for what you believe in and don't just type out the first load of rubbish that enters your head.

bugler · 10-08-2001 8:33pm

Originally posted by Fidelis:
he's using the force at this disposal to destroy the opposition.

Whether you guys agree with what he's doing is one thing, but you need to understand why he's doing it before you judge it.

The morning after I wrote this I got up late and went to the car to go sit my exam, in Galway.About half way there, the news came on.One of the headlines was that a suicide bomber had blown himself up and killed some people, wounding many more.As it turns out the final count was 15/16 dead and 90 wounded.Destroy the opposition indeed.

Am I the only one who thinks that the more 'retaliation' Israel dishes out the more suicide bombers there will be? Anyone who thinks that Israels enemies can be destroyed is failing to understand that Israels enemies are not just a regular army, and that they have an infinite pool of willing volunteers.The reason it is infinite, is because Israel is trying to 'destroy' them.

Israel retaliated today, again.Hitting a police barracks with rockets.When the next suicide bomber blows himself up, and who knows how many Israelis, I hope Sharon sits back and considers how well his efforts to destroy his enemies are going.

And Kev, if Israel is the one between a rock and a hard place(a country will the aid and support of the most powerful country in the world, and is also pretty much impervious to international law), then how would you describe the displaced Palestinians?

TwoShedsJackson · 10-08-2001 8:41pm

Who is 'Kev' in this thread??

Am I the only one who thinks that the more 'retaliation' Israel dishes out the more suicide bombers there will be? Anyone who thinks that Israels enemies can be destroyed is failing to understand that Israels enemies are not just a regular army, and that they have an infinite pool of willing volunteers.The reason it is infinite, is because Israel is trying to 'destroy' them.

OK, hypothetically, if you were Prime Minister of Israel right now, how would you react to this suicide bombing?? Bear in mind that if you sit back and do nothing, the fragile coalition which most Israeli governments since 1948 have been based on will collapse, dumping you out of a job, and power.

I really would like to know what you would consider an appropriate response to an atrocity like this bombing.

bugler · 10-08-2001 9:06pm

'Kev' is Fidelis.

I presume Castor, that following any one of the IRA's bombings in London or anywhere in the UK, you would have thought that bombing Derry's bogside would have been appropriate? Considering that you can't let them get away with that type of thing.The local SF office would be a good place to start, I suppose.

Castors (unwittingly) ingenius post has highlighted the exact problems of Israel, that anyone who might attempt to bring closure to the problems by negotiations is liable to wind up like Rabin, dead.The Israeli people need to understand (some of the jewish peace groups e.g www.junity.org have their heads screwed on right, and can see what the problem is) is that force is not going to make Israel secure, but insecure.And that killing Palestinians for killing Israelis because Israelis killed Palestinians who Israelis say killed Palestinians is only going to make more dead Israelis and more dead Palestinians.

I really would like to know what you would consider an appropriate response to an atrocity like this bombing.

Stopping the setting up of illegal settlements, withdrawing from areas which you have illegally occupied, and dropping the policy of illegal assassinations might actually remove the need to respond to atrocities like this.

People who have seen too much sometimes try to change things.They try to break the cycle. Their not idiots, who think that by bombing a PLO office and maybe killing a few women and kids is solving their problems.

I'd really love for you to tell me how this retaliation is helping Israel, or making it more secure, Castor.

TwoShedsJackson · 10-08-2001 9:22pm

Originally posted by bugler:
and dropping the policy of illegal assassinations might actually remove the need to respond to atrocities like this.

And what about Hamas' policy of illegal bombings - I don't think any of the fourteen people that were killed in that pizzeria was exactly a legitimate military target.

I'd really love for you to tell me how this retaliation is helping Israel, or making it more secure, Castor.

I'm not saying it is helping Israel, but the reality of politics in the Middle East, as in most other regions of the world, means that neither side can back down.

If a government did buckle under a terrorist campaign that would be direct political suicide. Bear in mind that the right wing nationalist school of thought in Israel lays claim to all the land from the Mediterranean to the river Jordan i.e. what they have now.

is that force is not going to make Israel secure, but insecure.

If you consider that Israel is surrounded on all sides by countries whose stated aim was (until various peace agreements from 1979 to 1994) was to destroy Israel utterly, then they do need a level of force to defend themselves.

And that killing Palestinians for killing Israelis because Israelis killed Palestinians who Israelis say killed Palestinians is only going to make more dead Israelis and more dead Palestinians.

Draw a parallel with the North - it's just as stupid, and just as pointless. But if you have a solution that all sides can accept, I'm sure they'd love to hear it right now.

bugler · 10-08-2001 9:41pm

You dodged practically all the questions I asked.I did draw a parallel with the North, I asked you would the British government have been justified in bombing the bogside after a bombing in London?

And what about Hamas' policy of illegal bombings - I don't think any of the fourteen people that were killed in that pizzeria was exactly a legitimate military target.

Yes, what about it? Hamas are a terrorist organisation.They kill civilians, I don't like it, or them.Are you suggesting that because Hamas do it then Israel can too? Very good argument...

If a government did buckle under a terrorist campaign

But all the things I asked for would be demanded under international law, who was talking about giving in to terrorists? It is not Hamas who say that the occupation of these areas is illegal, but the overwhelming majority of the world.It isn't just Yasser Arafat who claims these assassinations are illegal, they are illegal under international law.If this is what it has come to, claiming that governments shouldn't have to obey laws or human rights when it doesn't suit them then it's a sad time indeed...

I forgot that paying the displaced Palestinians compensation as was ordered might help matters too.

If you consider that Israel is surrounded on all sides by countries whose stated aim was (until various peace agreements from 1979 to 1994) was to destroy Israel utterly, then they do need a level of force to defend themselves.

I see! Bombing offices of your enemies and innocent people in areas that you don't even have a legitimate claim to is now what passes as self-defence.This is the same defensive type action that saw Israel illegally invade Lebanon in 1982, and annexe parts of it."A level of force"? Clarify that please? Israel has plent of military equipment to defend itself with, so I can only assume that you mean Israel needs to carry out these illegal bombings/assassinations/annexations in order to 'defend' itself. Defend itself from suicide bombers.Thats right, as long as Israel does these things, the rate of suicide bombers will decrease, and Israels people will be safer, yeah? A good, sound defensive plan there.

I never claimed that I had a plan to olve the problems.This thread was started to illustrate that Israel is merely digging more graves for its own people and the people it has displaced, not to mention flouting international law.If you want to brain storm ideas for how to solve the problem feel free to start your own thread.

TwoShedsJackson · 10-08-2001 9:56pm

Christ, you're a real reactionary aren't you?

Yes, what about it? Hamas are a terrorist organisation.They kill civilians, I don't like it, or them.Are you suggesting that because Hamas do it then Israel can too? Very good argument...

Hamas and Israel ARE doing it oh Prince of Sarcasm. I have not said at any point that either side are justified. What you seem to be stating so far is that Israel should just sit back and take these attacks without doing anything, a political impossiblity as you must know.

It isn't just Yasser Arafat who claims these assassinations are illegal, they are illegal under international law

I believe blowing up innocent people is also illegal under international law - you're quick to condem 'assassinations' but you don't seem to bothered about terrorist acts by Palestinians.

I see! Bombing offices of your enemies and innocent people in areas that you don't even have a legitimate claim to is now what passes as self-defence.This is the same defensive type action that saw Israel illegally invade Lebanon in 1982, and annexe parts of it."A level of force"? Clarify that please? Israel has plent of military equipment to defend itself with, so I can only assume that you mean Israel needs to carry out these illegal bombings/assassinations/annexations in order to 'defend' itself

READ. COMPREHEND. POST. Israel is entitled, as are all other countries in the world, to a standing army to defend itself from aggressors. My original post that you quoted did NOT SAY that they were entitled to invade Lebanon in 1982. By contrast, the Arab League were not entitled to start two wars with Israel in 1948, and 1973.

My objection to your pathetically one sided postings are that you are leaving 100 hundred per cent of the blame on Israel's doorstep and seem to be pretending that the Palestinians and the Arab world in general are a bunch of peace loving hippies who would like nothing better than to live peacefully in co-exsistence with Israel.

bugler · 10-08-2001 10:21pm

I said that these acts of force were not going to do any good, and you responded saying that Israel needs a level of force to dfend itself.Very good.Next time someone posts a remark about how terrible bloody sunday was or on British Army collusion with loyalists I presume you might pipe in with 'Britain needs a level of force to defend itself'.If you don't want to be picked up wrong, then please stick to the point.

What you seem to be stating so far is that Israel should just sit back and take these attacks without doing anything

I didn't say that.What I'm suggesting is that maybe an internationally recognised government (not a terrorist organisation) should obey international laws and human rights.And if it doesn't then maybe the international community should act, like they did when Saddam Hussein broke international law.

I believe blowing up innocent people is also illegal under international law - you're quick to condem 'assassinations' but you don't seem to bothered about terrorist acts by Palestinians.

The usual "the other side also does bad stuff too" argument.I'm quite bothered about the killings of Israelis, it is every bit as bad when an innocent Israeli is killed as when a Palestinian is.However, perhaps they should have looked a bit closer at who they put in power, and contemplated what lay ahead.I remember seeing the Guardians front page the day Sharon was elected, I think it read to the effect of "Israel vote for war".Israel, as a country, has to accept certain facts.One is, if you allow yourself to be manipulated and dragged around by Ultra Orthodox Jews then you are heading for a world of trouble.Just because you read in some book that you are entitled to land doesn't mean you can just claim it as you please, with no regard for the original occupants or natives.

I think your point is best summed up by asking what should Israel do when under threat of these attacks? Well what did the British do when under threat of these attacks? Did their helicopters fire rockets into SF offices in Belfast? Did they drop bombs on Dublin? I would not glorify the British approach in N.I at all, but if we remove the collusion aspects plus instances like the Dublin/Monaghan bombings then how it was handled was more befitting of a democratic government.There is a world of difference between defending yourself and trying to ensure safety and security, and promoting murder and mayhem under the guise of protecting oneself.

Edit: To add this article: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=87957

[This message has been edited by bugler (edited 10-08-2001).]

TheAuditor · 10-08-2001 10:34pm

I'm getting sick of Bugler excusing terrorism, be it in Ireland or the Middle East - all terrorism is wrong - there's no justifying bombing pizza parlours, even though the Israelis act like total Nazis in their dealings with the Palestinians.

I'm sure Bugler would be delighted if 18 of his friends (assuming that he has friends) were blown up whilst enjoying a meal in a pizzaria.

Moriarty · 10-08-2001 10:42pm

Originally posted by bugler:

I think your point is best summed up by asking what should Israel do when under threat of these attacks? Well what did the British do when under threat of these attacks? Did their helicopters fire rockets into SF offices in Belfast? Did they drop bombs on Dublin? I would not glorify the British approach in N.I at all, but if we remove the collusion aspects plus instances like the Dublin/Monaghan bombings then how it was handled was more befitting of a democratic government.

Before i start, i may aswell say that i certainly dont have as big a problem with the way Israel and the IDF have acted/reacted to situations in the middle east over the past year or so as Bugler obviously has. I think that they have had to act in this manner, for various reasons that would prolly take too long to get into here, and i really dont think they are too far out of line.

The situation in the middle east and the situation in NI is different, with different circumstances and a different political / social climate. You have been using many examples of NI in your previous posts, and up to a point they are valid, but after that they bare little signifigance to the situation in the middle east.

Moriarty
mrmoriarty@eircom.net

[This message has been edited by Moriarty (edited 10-08-2001).]

TwoShedsJackson · 10-08-2001 10:43pm

Next time someone posts a remark about how terrible bloody sunday was or on British Army collusion with loyalists I presume you might pipe in with 'Britain needs a level of force to defend itself'

Please don't presume any such thing about me. I could presume that you might pipe in with 'the IRA needs a level of support from civilians in the North and Eire to carry out a war of terrorism'.

However, perhaps they should have looked a bit closer at who they put in power, and contemplated what lay ahead

Would you care to canvas the corpses from the pizzeria bombing and ask them how many voted for Ariel Sharon? Your points are so facile and vague that it's actually hard to respond to them in a sensible manner.

I think your point is best summed up by asking what should Israel do when under threat of these attacks?

Which you have not yet answered - what do you think they should do in response to these actual attacks or threat thereof? I ask you again - if you were Prime Minster of Israel right now, what would you do?

swiss · 11-08-2001 4:50pm

bugler - you've argued your case very competently and convincingly. I certainly agree that the way in which the constitutional defence forces of the country is lowering itself to thuggery by believing they have a mandate to bully their opposition is despicable.

Castor Troy - phew. Do you believe that bugler was inferring that the terrorist acts that precipitated this latest escalation in the conflict were in any way justified? I certainly didn't get that impression. Of course, I condemn unequivocally all the violent acts that have taken place. Extremists on each side will of course claim that their COA is warranted to fend off attacks from the other side. It's a petty circle of tit-for-tat killings that was mirrored in the North (and will once again be mirrored if the IRA & UDA boy's return to violence).
Israel is justifying it's reprisals by saying that it cannot give in to terrorists - which could sound laudable - if this rhetoric did not mask an utter contempt towards the Palestinian settlers. Of course, one can say the Palestinians are no better.

However, and this (as I gather) is the thrust of bugler's point.
Israel is installed in the region, as a democratic government, accountable to it's people. This implies that it is accountable, as are other countries for various actions it undertakes - especially those having defence or security implications. It also assumes that the government holds a modicum of responsibility - after all, it has a responsible position. Thus the Israel army, being the constitutional defence force of the region, also assumes the responsibility of being such - if it is to be acceptable to it's people.

Hamas and various other organisations are the refuge of terrorists. Terrorists have no mandate to carry out their actions - save that which they give themselves. They are rightly reviled by those seeking an alternative to conflict. Thus, since their actions are completely illegal, they will always bring upon themselves the burden of condemnation by world government, business leaders, and constitutional armies who are entitled to pursue them and bring them to justice.

However the Israeli armies are not justified to use any and all means at it's disposal to hunt down these killers. As constitutional armies, it is their responsibility to ensure that innocent civillian casualties are avoided, thus immediately differentiating themselves from the murderous militants that deign to be justified in their attacks. It is clear, however, that the Israeli army is failing in that responsibility, and since a government is responsible for the operation of it's army - that is where the ultimate blame lies for the Palestinian civillian casualties.

Bugler already suggested some alternatives to another bloody spate of killings. Admittedly, they are very difficult - particularly in the current climate where attitudes are becoming increasingly hardline. But when one considers the bloody alternative - one feels that they are - at least - worth trying.

Fidelis · 11-08-2001 5:12pm

Bugler, I realise that they have the support of the U.S. but if they really had nothing to lose then they'd have invaded the West Bank with everything, not just a pair of Merkava's and some troops. If Sharon wanted this thing over by tomorrow, he could do it.

I don't doubt that Mossad has everything there is to know about the Palestinian uprising leaders etc. Enough to clatter them in a few hours and also give a stern warning to Syria.

I'm not about to justify Israel's actions or it's ownership of the country, but they're surrounded by 6 nations that want to blow it away, so far they're still around, they're not going anywhere simply because some suicidal Palestinians have an agenda...

Nil Desperandum

Moriarty · 11-08-2001 5:36pm

Originally posted by bugler:
I'm also assuming that you have no problem with torture, or demolition of peoples homes, right? If you would like to explain to me(don't worry about how long it will take) why Israeli soldiers needed to shoot stone throwers(children included), or needed to demolish Palestinian homes or needed to torture prisoners then I'd be very grateful.

Mkay. I have a problem with torture in almost every case, but it really, honestly, wouldnt bother me in the slightest if i was living in isreal, and the IDF captured an operative/whatever from hamas etc and tortured him with the objective of getting information out of them. You may not even have a problem with that if you lived there you would also like the IDF to do whatever they could to try and protect you, your family and your friends.

The demolition of peoples homes is not necessary by my point of view, and i dont agree with it.

Stone throwers are not peace loving hippies. They throw stones at the idf troops (aswell as petrol bombs, and the occasional small arms fire) regularly. Now, stones can also be lethal, or cause serious injury. I honestly think that the reaction the IDF give to stone throwers etc are entirely appropriate. Lets get things straight - they arent out there to deccorate the streets with stones, they are there to try and injure / kill IDF troops. _Everyone_ that throws a stone over there at the IDF knows that they are risking their life for the sake of doing it. The IDF response is to shoot back at the stone throwers.

The deaths of children in these situations - although i dont like it, not even in the slightest - is almost entirely the fault of the parents that allow their children into such danger in the first place. The parents drag their children off to these riots, pushing them towards the front. The palestinians fully realise that they must gain the support of the world media, and an injured/killed child looks far more dramatic than same adult. Dont be so naive as to think that they somehow 'fall into' this situation. They are put there by their parents who are also at these riots.

If i missed something, its cuz i missed something rather than didnt answer it.

Moriarty
mrmoriarty@eircom.net

bugler · 11-08-2001 7:01pm

Right well we better get this wrote into the UN charter then: "Torture is allowed if its done by security forces to gain information".

Torture, and I don't give a damn who is doing it to who, is reprehensible and disgusting.Its uses are very limited too.In many cases all it will cause even more stubborn resistance.It dehumanises everyone, the torturer, the victim, the whole society that has to live under the threat of such treatment.All I can say is I hope someday you realise why torture is so disgusting, it can be funny how things like that work out.

I'm impressed that you know that those Palestinian kids are dragged out to throw stones by their parents.Those palestinians, they don't give a crap about their kids! They want them to be killed do they? In run down areas where there is little to do except laze about, of course kids are going to throw rocks when a riot starts up.It's exciting, especially for young kids.

Have a look at this, its an account of Israeli soldiers being forced to kill a child who is a severe danger to them: http://www.guardian.co.uk/galleryguide/0,6191,377275,00.html

Note the parts that show they were crouched behind a barrel, and that they found a group of 15 shots behind where they lay.

Also look at this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,376639,00.html

It's the full account of the death of that 12 yr old boy.

By the way Moriarty, how many Israeli soldiers have you seen killed by rocks or stones?
As for you hinting that the world press is on the Palestinian side, that almost caused me to fall off my chair.A bit of wide reading would not astray on the topic at hand.

Fidelis, you're living in the past.Egypt and Jordan have solid peace agreements with Israel, and Israel is bordered only by 4 countries, the others being Lebanon and Syria.Just to establish this in case anyone is unaware, Gaza was seized from Egypt and the West bank was seized from Jordan.They are not parts of Israel.I'm not sure how killing Palestinians is securing Israels position...?

Swiss your post was most welcome, and it was comforting to hear that someone can see that I am certainly not belittling the suffering of the Israeli civilians, nor trying to blame one side completely.The fact remains, it is Israeli expansionism and recklessness that causes all this strife and death.If it gave up its stolen land and did not allow the Ultra Orthodox Jews to do as they please then things could be worked out perhaps.Until that day arrives, and so many more will die, at least the apologists of torture and reckless acts of violence will have plenty to crow about and support.

Moriarty · 11-08-2001 9:08pm

Originally posted by bugler:
Right well we better get this wrote into the UN charter then: "Torture is allowed if its done by security forces to gain information".

Heh, its a pitty you dont live in the real world. Isreali (and many other security forces around the world) use torture quite often. Some/most of the time it is for far less intollerable offences than suspected terrorism. The way i see it, if somone was going to run around shooting/blowing people up they get whats coming to them if their tortured for information. They do not deserve to be ****y-footed about with, they lost the right to that when they decided to kill / injure other people.

Originally posted by bugler:

Torture, and I don't give a damn who is doing it to who, is reprehensible and disgusting.Its uses are very limited too.In many cases all it will cause even more stubborn resistance.It dehumanises everyone, the torturer, the victim, the whole society that has to live under the threat of such treatment.

Walking into a restraunt at lunch time with a few pounds of explosives stuck to you and detonating yourself with the hope of maximum carnage, murder and maiming is not reprehensible and disgusting? If it is, why do people that fail in their attempt to do this deserve every right that other people are given? Rights, like trust, should be earned. If people commit such 'reprehensible and disgusting' acts, why do they deserve the rights that other people are given? They dont, they gave those rights away when they decided to stap those explosives to them, or to a bus, etc etc.

Originally posted by bugler:

All I can say is I hope someday you realise why torture is so disgusting, it can be funny how things like that work out.

So if i dont agree with you i deserve to be tortured? I'm sorry, i shouldnt have disagreed with you..

Originally posted by bugler:

I'm impressed that you know that those Palestinian kids are dragged out to throw stones by their parents.Those palestinians, they don't give a crap about their kids! They want them to be killed do they?

Did i say that all palestinians want their kids shot dead? No, i did not. I said that some bring their kids to these riots, that they teach them to throw stones, attack and despise the IDF. As a result, some get killed. If they were not there in the first place, they would not be shot at, never mind killed. If their parents were responsible, they would not let their kids get involved with the hate mongering. I know, there are probably lots of examples of the IDF shooting dead people and it turns out they were completely innocent. It happens in every war.

Originally posted by bugler:

By the way Moriarty, how many Israeli soldiers have you seen killed by rocks or stones?

Not many. On the other hand, how many isreali soldiers have you seen with their brains blown out after their cars being attacked while they were on their way home, or the medical crews litterly walking around car bombs mopping up body parts from IDF soldiers that were killed in the blast. The IDF is taking heavy casulties from the terrorist campaign / interfada happening. Although the camera crews are mostly kept away from such scenes, they do happen. All too frequently. Attemping to stop the rioting is a necessary part of the idf's task, they cant let terrorists/etc run amok in the streets.

Originally posted by bugler:

As for you hinting that the world press is on the Palestinian side, that almost caused me to fall off my chair.A bit of wide reading would not astray on the topic at hand.

I didnt 'hint' any such thing. I was merely saying that the palastenian terrorist organ know that the more televised funerals they can show, the more their cause will be highlighted in the world press. I am not suggesting that the world press are on the palastinian side, im merely saying that they know how to control the media for their own purposes.

Originally posted by bugler:

Fidelis, you're living in the past.Egypt and Jordan have solid peace agreements with Israel, and Israel is bordered only by 4 countries, the others being Lebanon and Syria.Just to establish this in case anyone is unaware, Gaza was seized from Egypt and the West bank was seized from Jordan.They are not parts of Israel.I'm not sure how killing Palestinians is securing Israels position...?

You negelcted to mention that they siezed this territory after a failed attempt by Egypt & Syria to iradicate the country of israel. Egypt & Syria began the military action, but they were soundly defeated and pushed back into their own territories before the IDF decided to call a halt. I guess that Egypt & Syria were the agressors just slipped your mind. "Oops".

Moriarty
mrmoriarty@eircom.net

bugler · 11-08-2001 10:57pm

Wow another staggeringly ignorant opinion, what a surprise.

I'm all too well aware of the use of torture by security forces, and it doesn't change my mind that those who do it are pathetic, sadistic cowards.It's nice to see you think that if you decide to hurt people then you deserve to be tortured, you're such a hardáss! I presume that you'd support the torture of child molestors, muggers, and hey, lets throw in the soldiers involved in bloody sunday too? Torture em all! It's the best way to handle things is it? As a side note, apparently a good number of suicide bombers are victims of Israeli torture. What do you make of the Khiam torture jail in South Lebanon? All you had to do to earn a place in there was be a Palestinian or other Arab.Did they deserve that? Did those Lebanese who dared attack invaders of their country deserve to be tortured? I think we can all agree that you are quite a charming fellow, I'm sure people will have the utmost respect for you now.

how many isreali soldiers have you seen with their brains blown out after their cars being attacked while they were on their way home, or the medical crews litterly walking around car bombs mopping up body parts from IDF soldiers that were killed in the blast.

Tell me.Please, Moriarty, tell me how many IDF soldiers have been killed during the intifada? Are you even remotely aware of how the statistics for deaths pander out? Go off and find out how many IDF soldiers have been killed in the intifada, I'd like for you to see it yourself.

The IDF is taking heavy casulties from the terrorist campaign / interfada happening

Really? What intifada is this? Are we talking about the same intifada? Heavy casualties? If you haven't even got a remote clue what you are talking about, might I suggest you toddle off back to wherever you came out of and leave those of us who actually have an interest in these matters to get on with it?

Heres some more 'riot' control, Israeli style, from the Guardian:

Two facts are not in dispute. One is that a Palestinian schoolboy, Khalil al-Mugrabhi, 11, loved football more than anything else in life. The other is that on Saturday evening an Israeli soldier shot him through the head. /Four shots were fired, and three children were hit. As well as Khalil, the casualties were Ibrahim Abu Sousin, 11, who is still in hospital awaiting a second operation, and Suleiman Turky Abu Rjal, 13.

To most news organisations the incident did not merit much coverage. The killing of Palestinian children has become so commonplace that it has long ceased to generate the kind of forensic investigation that accompanied the early deaths in the intifada, especially the child whose final minutes were caught on camera/Khalil is 510 on the list of Palestinian dead since the intifada began in September, a disproportionately high number of them children.

An Israeli army spokesman in Jerusalem, Jacob Lefkovits Dallal, was adamant: "No Israeli soldier is going to sniper-fire at children sitting in the middle of nowhere. I cannot prove it empirically but that sort of thing just does not happen." [Course not, Israeli soldiers shooting innocents? Surely not!]

He said it was difficult to verify what happened, because they could not go to the Palestinian side. The children could have been injured elsewhere and taken to the dunes, and a lot of what the Palestinians presented as evidence was hearsay, the details often fuzzy and conflicting. Ibrahim's account is not hearsay. He is one of the boys who was shot. Lying in bed in a drab, dirty ward in the Nasser hospital in Khan Yunis, which is near Rafah, he is still too traumatised to say much. He insisted that there was no demonstration that day. He admitted that earlier the children had been throwing stones at a tank, an act of which he is inordinately proud. But they had not been involved in anything like that at the time of the shooting.

"The tank went away and, after a while, there was no one to throw stones at," he said.

"Then, the Israelis started shooting from the tower. Other kids began running and I went running with them. I remember being shot. It hurt so bad. Other kids carried me and put me in a car."

Before Khalil, four children had been shot dead from the same spot since December.

Why then did children play there? "I have 15 children," Mr Agha said. "This is my land. Where am I supposed to put them? These kids have friends. There is nowhere else in the camp to play."

What was the Israeli soldier who shot them thinking? Was he in a black mood because Israeli soldiers had been injured earlier by an explosive device? Did he see the children shouting and cheering on top of the dune at their pals playing football below and mistake it for a demonstration? Did he mean to fire above their heads to scare them, and miscalculated? There is no way to find out: the Israeli army has investigated, declared itself satisfied and closed the case.

You negelcted to mention that they siezed this territory after a failed attempt by Egypt & Syria to iradicate the country of israel. Egypt & Syria began the military action, but they were soundly defeated and pushed back into their own territories before the IDF decided to call a halt. I guess that Egypt & Syria were the agressors just slipped your mind. "Oops".

Really? Or have you just made an áss of yourself...oh yes, thats it! If you are not sure of your facts, then you really shouldn't come out with tales like that, it leaves you open to embarrassment at the hands of cruel men like me.

History lesson time: As I'm sure you know(well maybe not you, but most people) the seeds of discontent began with the huge numbers of Jews heading towards Palestine, which was under British control. Understandably enough, this didn't go down with total racial harmony.The local Arabs were not happy at this massive influx, and skirmishes between Jews and Arabs occurred.

In 1947, the British basically ran off, deciding that they didn't like where this was going.The UN stepped in, suggesting 2 separate states, one jewish and one arab. The Jews were all for the idea, after all they had nothing and were now being offered a whole country of their own.As you might expect the Arabs were not so pleased, having land taken off them for seemingly no other reason than having let refugees in.1948, Ben Gurion declares state of Israel regardless.
You almost got this part right.The surrounding arab countries 'invaded' (depending on whether or not you think there was a country there in the first place) and were beaten back.At the end of this impressive showing by the Israeli army, they had actually expanded beyond what was given in the UN suggestion never accepted by the Arabs/Palestinians.They had not, I repeat not seized the West bank, Gaza, or Jerusalem, or the Golan heights, the current "contentious" areas.

In 1967, tensions were high in the region(nothing new there), and Israel decided to begin the six day war.They were the aggressors.I await your acknowledgment of the massive mistake you made as regards this matter.So following minor skirmishes, Israel pushed into the surrounding nations and captured the Sinai from Egypt, the Golan heights from Syria, and the West bank and Jerusalem from Jordan.

To finish, a few small points:

I am not suggesting that the world press are on the palastinian side, im merely saying that they know how to control the media for their own purposes.

My god, manipulation of the media by those currently in conflict, whatever next?

Walking into a restraunt at lunch time with a few pounds of explosives stuck to you and detonating yourself with the hope of maximum carnage, murder and maiming is not reprehensible and disgusting?

And here we have the attitude displayed to great effect earlier in the thread.They did it too etc.Are you expecting me to argue with the fact that blowing up civilians is disgusting? I agree with it completely.

So if i dont agree with you i deserve to be tortured? I'm sorry, i shouldnt have disagreed with you..

I didn't say that.I said I hoped that someday you might realise what torture is never a desirable or acceptable thing to do.

No, i did not. I said that some bring their kids to these riots, that they teach them to throw stones, attack and despise the IDF

Actually, I think that these kids despising the IDF would come naturally enough, on account of them being the ones who have forced them out of their family homes, and are occupying their areas.Never mind maybe having killed/tortured/humiliated their family.Or indeed shoot at them from their watch towers.

I hope your next post won't be full of either lies or ignorance, because at the moment your opinions are costing me time and money to reply to, neither of which you are worthy of in this thread.

bugler · 11-08-2001 11:16pm

I'm not arguing with the fact that the Israeli government is in a difficult position, and it may face downfall if it does the following, but this is what is needed if there is to be peace in the region:

Withdraw from the occupied areas, and coupled with this stop Ultra Orthodox jews spreading to wherever they like and setting up illegal settlements.Stop bulldozing Palestinian homes and orchards to facilitate the aforementioned expansion.Establish a proper "Israel" if you like, give up the contentious areas that were annexed, get a secure border up, those who still choose to live in illegal settlements should not be considered to live in Israel any longer obviously.Israel needs to finally declare its ultimate borders, stop the tinkering.Withdrawing from the contentious occupied regions will see the intifada run out of gas, there will be no fuel for hatred. The fact that right wingers are now in a very powerful position is a huge obstacle to peace, dare I say its unattainable.It's hard to believe people have learnt little or nothing over the last half-century.

Please don't presume any such thing about me. I could presume that you might pipe in with 'the IRA needs a level of support from civilians in the North and Eire to carry out a war of terrorism'.

This started by you stating Israel needs some level of defence, did I doubt that? You made that remark in response to me stating that it should stop illegal killings and occupation.I never said Israel should disband its defence forces.

Would you care to canvas the corpses from the pizzeria bombing and ask them how many voted for Ariel Sharon? Your points are so facile and vague that it's actually hard to respond to them in a sensible manner.

Unfortunately, Israel as a people made their choice of leader, and lets not forget he swept into power very easily.The tragic thing about it is that the large picture has to be looked at, the Israeli people elected Sharon, Sharon brings war and terror.As for my points being facile and vague, what was that you said about Israel needing 'some level of defence'? At least my points look like they belong on this thread.

Auditor: Seen as you havent bothered reading what I think of suicide attacks, and continue to claim I support terrorism I won't bother responding to you in much detail, especially as your post was as inspiring and insightful as usual, i.e 'killing and violence is bad, eveyone is bad!'.

Moriarty:

and i really dont think they are too far out of line.

Whether or not you have a problem with stone throwers being shot by troops(including children lets not forget), and the shelling/bombing of civilian areas (not to mention refugee camps) is your business. As it said in the article I linked to in an earlier post from The Independent

No wonder President Bush could do no more last night than use the State Department's weariest cliché and call for an end to the "cycle of violence". The Israelis have rejected this phrase – at least when journalists use it – on the grounds that there is no "cycle", that Israel merely "responds" to aggression. But since Israel does not regard the seizure of Arab land as aggression, since it does not see Jewish settlement building on occupied land against international law as aggression, since it does not believe that the demolition of Palestinian homes or torture in the Russian compound interrogation centre – only a few hundred yards from the scene of yesterday's atrocity – is aggression, it's not difficult to see why many Israelis fail to comprehend what this terrible war is about.

I'm also assuming that you have no problem with torture, or demolition of peoples homes, right? If you would like to explain to me(don't worry about how long it will take) why Israeli soldiers needed to shoot stone throwers(children included), or needed to demolish Palestinian homes or needed to torture prisoners then I'd be very grateful.

Can I be presumptious, and state that some of you are of the opinion that what Israel is doing is wrong, and is making the Intifada stronger, and making the bitterness more prevalent, and is contributing to an increase in the already appalling suffering of both sets of people, but it just has to do 'something', and its better than doing nothing at all ? How do you figure? If they did nothing at all, as in they didn't retaliate, the suicide bomb that will probably go off before the end of the weekend may not have killed X amount of people.If they did nothing at all, as in stopped their form of quasi-colonialism on behalf of the Ultra Orthodox settlers, then there may not any suicide bomb attacks at all.

bugler · 11-08-2001 11:18pm

I know there is alot to read, but you might also be interested in how the peace movement in Israel is being treated: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=88166

Moriarty · 11-08-2001 11:51pm

Originally posted by bugler:
It's nice to see you think that if you decide to hurt people then you deserve to be tortured, you're such a hardáss! I presume that you'd support the torture of child molestors, muggers, and hey, lets throw in the soldiers involved in bloody sunday too? Torture em all! It's the best way to handle things is it?

Mkay, its sounds like youve got what i was trying to say wrong, or i didnt express it well or somit. What i was trying to say was that i didnt see all that much of a problem with the IDF using torture as a method of getting information out of terrorists that they had arrested. That dosent mean that i would condone torture just for the heck of it, or for anythin other than where many other peoples lives may quite possibly be at risk - when the captured person wont cooperate -, that could be saved with the information the captured person has. No, i wouldnt agree with torturing any of the others above mentioned - it wouldnt be necessary, or right. I just believe that if other people may die because somone will hide behind a wall of silence, its not acceptable.

Originally posted by bugler:

All you had to do to earn a place in there was be a Palestinian or other Arab.Did they deserve that? Did those Lebanese who dared attack invaders of their country deserve to be tortured? I think we can all agree that you are quite a charming fellow, I'm sure people will have the utmost respect for you now.

No, of course people dont deserve to be picked off the street like that. I was speaking about people the mossad knew to be terrorists, or people they had captured with decent proof.

Originally posted by bugler:

Actually, I think that these kids despising the IDF would come naturally enough, on account of them being the ones who have forced them out of their family homes, and are occupying their areas.Never mind maybe having killed/tortured/humiliated their family.Or indeed shoot at them from their watch towers.

True, but it would also be better if the parents didnt encourage this, but instead discouraged it. Im not saying that its all the palastinians fault, it certainly isnt - i know that. I just feel that that israel, and the IDF in particualar are getting too hard a time in a very, very tough situation. I believe that if people were in their situation they wouldnt be so quick to slam everything they do. I know they have done wrong, but its not all one sided, and it is very tough for them to see any other way of dealing with it.

Moriarty
mrmoriarty@eircom.net

[This message has been edited by Moriarty (edited 12-08-2001).]

Von · 12-08-2001 4:18am

Yeah what's wrong with torture? Nobody gets arrested unless they're guilty of something. FACT.

_CreeD_ · 12-08-2001 6:27am

Personal oppinions aside, Bugler well done. Excellent points, each backed up by solid proof, arguments handled logically and refuted without the usual repetition that hits such posts when they drag on.
The same cannot be said for those who have tried to argue the alternative view. I'm suprised at normally intelligent people dodging questions, and repeating the same illogical hypocritical points over and over again.
Pretty much everything I'd like to say has already been handled here, I just wanted to voice some support for the way this topic was presented and defended.

bugler · 12-08-2001 12:39pm

Cheers, Creed.

Maybe just to finish off my input into this thread for now, I'll wind up with a few more words.

The allegations that I'm very much Pro-Palestinian.This isn't really true. I had/have great sympathy for the Palestinian people, on account of what they have lost and been subjected to.They have lost their homes, their land, and largely their identity. No-one cares about the Palestinians.The Arab leaders of the Mid-East pay lip service to them, but in the end they only really want whats best for their country.Perhaps Jordan with 50 percent of its people Palestinian is different in this regard.All the recent negotiations have centred around a return to pre-1967 borders.The talk of smashing Israel and giving the Palestinians all of the land on which they once lived is gone.It's not going to happen, everyone knows it, and the only ones who say otherwise(or maybe even believe it) are the most extreme of Islamic militants, drunk on their own rhetoric. Unfortunately, the fate that has befallen the Palestinian people, refugees in their own land, has done terrible things to them. Dancing and rejoicing after news of 15 civilians(including children) being blown up is not a characteristic I find endearing. How could such an attitude manifest itself? The answer lies in the last half a century.

The excellent Robert Fisk wrote this article for the Independent today: http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=88315

I won't reproduce the whole thing here, if you want to read it you can.It is subtitled

Brutalised and subjugated, Palestinians have lost the one thing that kept them in their place: fear

It offers some indication as to what has happened the Palestinian peoples attitudes of late.

Fisk also wrote an article yesterday, which was printed in the Irish Independent too I believe.

http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=88134

It is titled

What drives a bomber to kill the innocent child?
'A battleship or Israeli tank is one thing: a three-year-old waiting for his mother to cut his pizza is quite another'

It again goes some way toward shedding light on how a man can kill himself and innocent people including children, with seemingly no hesitation or scruples.

What goes on the Mid East would not be allowed to occur in the West.During disturbances in Northern Ireland, where gunmen would often attack soldiers or the RUC in the midst of riots, few children are shot.Would the irish people accept the excuse of 'that child should not have been throwing stones at those paratroopers, he deserved to be shot'? When innocent people were killed, like on Bloody Sunday, the event becomes pivotal, the whole nation knows what those two words mean.Just over a dozen people killed.Outrage, even now.Enquiries.Promises of justice, and truth.This seems like small potatoes when compared to the Mid East. The more than half a thousand Palestinian victims of the intifada will get no enquiry, and if they merited it, no justice.

Of course Bloody Sunday was not small potatoes.It was shameful and immoral.The difference was that Ireland has friends, us irish, we actually matter, in some small way.The Irish-American lobby in the US rattled their sabres.The Irish government(the Palestinians don't really have one, or a country) expressed outrage.The french(who were always quite sympathetic to the republican cause) sat up and took notice.But the Palestinians have no friends.Or rather the 'friends' they do have do not matter, they are not powerful enough. If the Palestinains had the powerful friend (the US in this case) that Israel has, then UN observers would have been allowed into the region.Syria, Jordan... these countries carry little clout on the international scene, therefore one country is able to torment and brutalise and humiliate a race of people who, effectively, do not matter.

Perhaps, as one prominent Rabbi put it recently, the Palestinians are in a sense "two legged beasts", or "insects". But if they are, then they have been turned into beasts, they did not choose it.

Fidelis · 12-08-2001 2:57pm

May I remind you people that the majority of IDF personnel serving in hot-spots around Israel are conscripts in their late teens with only basic training and very little discipline. They get frustrated and scared and make mistakes.

Again, I'm not justifying Israels actions etc

Kopf · 12-08-2001 5:44pm

The Israelis aren't the only ones doing wrong.

bugler · 12-08-2001 7:34pm

Those last two posts really added to the discussion.Kopf, if you had any sense of cop on, or level of shame, then you'd go and edit that post right now to nothing but a dot.

Fidelis you are right.They have alot of young soldiers, or reservists.These young guys don't plan artillery barrages on civilian populated areas, nor assassinations of leading arabs.I doubt they also torure prisoners.But just because you're 19 doesn't mean you don't know right from wrong.And your moral character should have fully developed by then, ensuring you don't make the "mistake" of shooting a child.

Kensai · 12-08-2001 8:17pm

1st. Exellent posts bugler, i also feel likeyou on the subject.

Originally posted by Von:
Yeah what's wrong with torture? Nobody gets arrested unless they're guilty of something. FACT.

Internment boy, ever hear of it?

"May I remind you people that the majority of IDF personnel serving in hot-spots around Israel are conscripts in their late teens with only basic training and very little discipline. They get frustrated and scared and make mistakes."
I had an israelie friend, he went off a month ago to serve with the IDF.
From him, I learnt that Israeli jews have nothing like the news we get over here, they know much much less about it then us.
He claimed that children werent being shot dead et. al. and when i told him it was on the news he claimed it was not.
I can only believe he was telling the truth.

Anyway, he was quite looking forward to serving in the IDF and really wanted to serve on the front lines so to speak.

BlitzKrieg · 13-08-2001 2:54am

Question:

How many of you actually think USA or any other major power is actually going to step in against Isreal?

very few.
(and if anyone has already said this sorry only read first 10 posts)

Isreal is calling the US bluff because it is a very well known fact that America is very anti "rag head" so they aint going to support the Arabs.

anyone do history here? The whole palestine and isreal situation is almost beyond repair. Niether side will ever agree. Its worse then N. ireland because they have humiliated each other and are not afriad of all out war.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus · 13-08-2001 5:30am

Originally posted by bugler:
But just because you're 19 doesn't mean you don't know right from wrong.And your moral character should have fully developed by then, ensuring you don't make the "mistake" of shooting a child.

Not true at all bugler m8

The vast body of evidence that exists regarding child and adolescent soldiers clearly shows that at an impressionable age, and even past "formative" years, people can be made to believe almost anything. Child psychology aside, if we consider the lessons of history- SS units during WWII who served in concentration camps were well past their formative years. They in fact, believed what they were doing was the right and proper thing. When their moral standards are so inherently corrupt, it's very hard to blame any of them. They have been brought up to believe that the Palestinians are squatters on holy land. That the Palestinians have been living on that land for a few hundred years is merely a blip for them. As such, they don't see anything wrong with what they are doing.

To think that they must, through all the prejudice that surrounds their education, somehow acquire moral values in accordance with our own is absurd.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

ConUladh · 13-08-2001 8:31am

Swiss summed it up nicely here:

Israel is installed in the region, as a democratic government, accountable to it's people. This implies that it is accountable, as are other countries for various actions it undertakes - especially those having defence or security implications. It also assumes that the government holds a modicum of responsibility - after all, it has a responsible position.

You can't compare a terrorist organisation with a democratic government

How do you stop suicide bombers? Who knows, it's hard to see how killing someone's friends and family is going to discourage them from voluntarily killing themselves

Israel obviously doesn't know how to react but feels it has to in some way, they must have a list of targets that are picked off as retaliations for each suicide bombing. If these buildings were of any real significance or threat they'd all be picked off now for Israel's security, instead another one is hit each time as revenge, which frankly is a tad pathetic.

And no I don't have any recommendations as to what should be done but what is being done is achieving bugger all.

Other stuff:
http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/2001/08/12/stifgnmid02001

Prob won't be war because US would wade in on Israel's behalf no matter what

bugler · 13-08-2001 9:22am

I'm well aware of the impressionability of young soldiers Bob, as illustrated by the Hitler Youth/SS units who fought harder and with more belief than any other.The point of what Israel has its people believing is well taken too, but I absolutely refuse to believe that a 19 yr old Israeli soldier can have no qualms about shooting a child.
Is rock throwing a sign of evil, or an attempt to destroy the state of Israel? If what we have said is completely true about indoctrination, then why did many Israeli soldiers protest at what was being allowed to happen at Sabra and Chatila? Those times were just as savage as today, why did they see anything wrong with the massacre?

Also, there has been another suicide bombing, thankfully noone killed, but 20 injured.And an 8 yr old Palestinian girl was shot dead.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus · 13-08-2001 12:22pm

Bugler- you are viewing this from a moral standpoint. Sure, they might have qualms, and yes, many of them may shoot children with distaste. But if it's what they are ordered to do, then they won't view it from the same moral perspective that we do.

They will simply regard it as doing their duty, and defending a public order that they've been told "Only Israel Can Maintain". Given the extremely lax view taken by the Palestinian authorities (perhaps understandably) on illegal violent gatherings, the Israeli government can make the "We know better than them" approach, even easier to swallow for young soldiers.

Whether they have qualms or not about shooting children isn't the moral dilemmna- at least not for them. It probably doesn't trouble the leadership giving out the orders either- I doubt any of them have seen a small child coughing their life out in the small, unhygienic building that passes for a West Bank public hospital. Out of sight, out of mind, and their political future secure.

It's heartbreaking, and damn cynical, but those are the facts. Also a fact is that there is no future for any kind of Palestinian autonomy without cooperation with the Israeli government.

Those are the hard facts of the current situation. Politics is a fickle mistress however, the current Israeli government may not be so amused when the populace get sick of them and vote them out. Distressingly, the reason they will be voted out is probably not humanitiarian concern for Palestinians- it will be for the failure of security forces to protect the Israeli populace. Yet it is probably the average Palestinian's best hope right now. Let us all hope for everyone's sake, that a power shakeup is affected in Israel soon. It's probably the only way forward steps can be taken. Incidentally, that 8-year old girl was killed in crossfire- an accidental casualty of a violent incident according to both sides. I guess distancing yourself politically is the best first move when a young child is killed

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Clintons Cat · 20-08-2001 3:43am

The Hal Turner Site has pictures of the "Reprisal Attacks" made by the IDF Apache Helicoptors on Palestinian Authority Buildings,which look pretty much like normal civillian apatments,the dead included children.

HalTurner is known for making statements that could be justifyably be considered to be of a Anti-Semitic nature. so his conclusions are not suprising but it does raise the questions of why images of israelis picking pieces of scalp of the pavement was considered suitable for mainstream viewing were as palestinians zipping up the bodybags of "collateral damage" were not.
In my worthless opinion,the scizm between the clinical matter of fact reporting of the Helicoptor reprisal attacks and the close up personal reporting from the scene of the pizzarea bombing is more closely linked into the post gulf war mythology of Smart bombs.The truth that these guided missiles are just as much indescriminate killers as a man strapped up with explosives wandering into a crowded area.
This is in no way endorsing the actions of terrorists i am just highlighting the various ways attrocities are reported.
the rest of the pictures are here

http://www.halturnershow.com/July10attack.htm

Israel continues to delude itself, and break international law

Comments