Fight Fire with Fire?

Remove all ads!

So the fact that international press says that Israel violates international law, makes it antisemite? You know the thing that annoys me is that the Israeli leadership uses holocaust as a shield for everything they do. I consider this as disrespect to their own dead.

Perhaps as the prime ministers Eleftherios Venizelos and Ismet Inonou acted in 1930 by signing an treaty of peace and friendship after almost 12 years of war, ethning cleansing and thousands deads.

Turks got a free pass when they invaded Cyprus despite UN resolutions. I haven't seen a retaliation from the greek side. Also, I don't think that Palestinians are getting a free pass. I can't remember a single palestinian attack, which was not codemned by the whole international community (with the exception of the arab countries).

In terms of quantity we are outnumbered. In terms of quality I don't know but the popular opinion here is that we have far better pilots, sailors and special forces. Of course I don't want to learn if this is true.

PS. I'm not antisemite.

 

This would be a good example if Turkey was a part of Greece, but since it isn't the example doesen't work.

You really think Arafat has that kind of power? Arafat is now weaker than ever, once he was strong yes, but not anymore. The problem with killing Yassin is really that it kills all possibilities for a new "road map" for a long time since Hamas will most probably be run by extremists who do not even care to negotiate peace with Israel (which Yassin by the way did). And no I'm not saying that Israel killed an innocent man here, Yassin organized suicide bombers and was a terrorist in every way, I just do not think that this is a right way to go towards peace, in fact I think only misery and death will follow for both sides.

I do not agree with BOC that Israel will go for the ethnic cleansing and a final solution, it would be condemned by all, and I doubt that even the Israeli people would support such methods which still leaves me quite confused as to what was the big idea with this strike.

EDIT: I have to give some credit for Sharon though as he really is pushing to stop the building of Israeli settlements on Palestine terretory, he is clearly striving to peace, but his methods are very very questionable.

 

Something that I've forgotten to include in my previous post and I don't know if you are aware of it. Israeli and palestinian politicians after two years of negotiations in Geneva with the backing of Swiss goverment made the Geneva Accord, a treaty which gives a permanent solution to the palestinian problem. The people who participated in the discussions have no authority in their countries and I think that Sharon has rejected the treaty and I don't know which was Arafat's reaction, although this treaty shows that a solution is or was possible. You can read the treaty here.

 

What say we ratchet down the rhetoric here? None of us should be bandying about terms like "anti-semite" and "final solution" out of their proper context. The European position seems mostly anti-Zionist, not anti-Semitic, and there's a big difference between the two - the former is a political judgement, the other ethnic. And there's no way Israel would embark upon anything remotely like a "final solution". Even with the wall, the Israeli economy still depends upon a daily inflow of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian workers. Under the Sharon "solution" walling Israel off from the Palestinian sector, that daily migration wouldn't cease - it would just be more securely managed.

The issue is assassination, remember - its utility and morality (perhaps separate, perhaps interconnected) - compared to other means at Israel's disposal: massacres, mass imprisonments, a full military reoccupation of Gaza, economic sanctions, etc. Doesn't strike me that assassination strikes are the least just of the possibilities.

Oh, as for that Geneva agreement - it was a dead-letter to begin with. The equivalent would be if US Democratic congressmen joined with British Tory MPs to forge a "Joint US-UK Iraq Plan" to evacuate the territory and return control to the Ba'athists. Sometimes marrying contradictory positions requires a divorce from reality.

 

I want to commend Grey on his insite. I read the news every day, and I never even considered the link between the 9/11 hearings, and the killing of Hamas' spiritual leader Yassin. Good point!

What would have happened if the US had killed Bin Laden before 9/11? Would it would have been a violation of international law? Would there have been protestes and condemnations? I bet there would have been. Was the killng of Yassin a violation of international law?

Bin Laden is, in effect, the spirtual leader of Al Queida. Yassin was the spirutal leader of Hammas.

My first reaction to Yassin's killing was negative. Too much killing in that part of the world to begin with. But now that I think about it, and try to put myself in the shoes of the Israel government, I'm not so sure. Thanks for giving me something to think about.

 

Yassin was responsible for hundreds of dead Israeli citizens, by telling young Palestinians to become a martyr by blowing themselves up in the direct vicinity of as much Israeli's as possible.

So good riddance to him. They should have blasted him out of his wheelchair a long time ago.

And this isn't going to change a single thing. The Arab world was already after the destruction of the state of Israel, so how could things possibly become any worse ?

[ Careful with with your terminology. "The Arab world" lumps all Arabs together as anti-semitic, which makes your comment too generalized. ] - Beren

[ March 25, 2004, 20:49: Message edited by: Beren ]

 

Pac man,
have you ever considered who is the stronger and who's the weaker part in this conflict? Naturally, one might say Israel. It has all the arms and army and infrastructure and after a terrorist attack they retaliate with ferocity. The Israelis likely are about equal with the palestinians considering the overall bodycount.
The Israelis do a war by attrition - they guess that at one point the resistance will be broken and that then there is a way to achieve peace - through victory.

Then there are Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Except for the occasional bombings and murders it is relatively quiet - high key terror acts have been very rare in the reccent time. It is a fair guess that over the years the IRA and protestants and their respective splinter groups have likely killed more british policemen and soldiers than the brits killed terrorists in return.

So did Britain lose? Considering the overall much better situation there compared to Israel one has to say they won, but only by points. And maybe that's the best possible result.

It ist likely so that, in an occupation situation where non-state actors fight, deterrence, in the way of retaliation, becomes ineffective and worse, counter-productive. You can scare a country by threatening to rubble it's industrial base and economy. That approach fails with terrorists. That is what the "Iraq was a smackdown" goons don't get: In a terrorism context retaliation amplifies.

Fighting in terrorism situations seems to be turned upside down: In a terror war the stronger side may be the weaker one. And sometimes the best way to win may be not to fight and to indeed suffer the casualties in order to win.

In a war on terrorists winning means denying the enemy sympathy and support in the population. You don't win by accelerating the bodycount in hope the other side will one day run out of fanatics. Retaliation only adds sympathy for the terrorists as it underlines their claim to be fighting opression (especially in shape of retaliation).

And as terrorism is born out of a political problem, and without adressing that root cause you'll achieve nothing - you don't solve a problem of being late by breaking the watch.

I think you're on the wrong track Pac man. Very much so.

[ March 25, 2004, 15:02: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

You seem to forget that no matter what the Israeli's do, wheter it be retaliation, or trying to keep the peaceprocess going on, it will NEVER EVER satisfy the majority of the Arab world. That can only be achieved when the last Israeli is either dead, or moved out of the middle east.

I also like to remind you that the Israeli's did NOT draw first blood in this whole thing. From day one they are surrounded only by hostile nations, who tried anything within their limits to bring the state of Israel down. All the Israeli's were doing is defend themselves, and you can't blame them for doing it by all means necessary. This has turned into a survival of the fittest contest, and there can be only one ending.

 

You also seem to forget that it was an Israeli, a Jew, who killed Rabin for promoting the peace process.

I wouldn't be too sure about that. Likud likes to tell that a lot, it serves their picture of a mortal, relentless enemy. I'm not so convinced.
Basically you say this conflict is special because it is about two religions and Jews. I don't think the extinction of Jews is the aim of the Palestinian struggle.
The Palestinians would likely be quite happy if they only can live and handle their lives in their country freely, a much less ambitious and arcane goal still worth fighting for.

For both sides, Palestinian and Israeli hardliners the conflict is a must. They need each other. With Israel at *peace*, without an external threat from Egypt, Syria and Jordan in sight Israeli hardliners need another enemy to keep their political influence - Palestinian terrorism. For the Palestinians of Hamas it's the harsh reality of Isreali occupation forces. Both points serve just fine as an excuse to perpetuate violence.
And for both sides it's for blood and soil, for the Israelis and the Palestinians it is about Lebensraum. And both sides are quite ideological and sure suffer no lack of fanatism.

That reminds me of that old saying about antisemites and Jews - and paraphrase it yourself: For an antisemite the worst problem is that he defines himself by hating his worst enemy. That is, he requires his enemy to maintain his identity. Take that away and he's nothing.

That is: Deadlocked in a mortal struggle with his mortal enemy may for a fanatic be a desirable state of affairs. They might not want peace.

Unimportance is the worst and cruelest death a politico can die, and to avoid that killing is a way out. That's what makes me pessimistic about an achievable peace there.

Both sides have an easy time to kill any sign of hope: One more suicide attack or another air raid and the peace process is in shambles again. And on for another round ...

Notes in the margin:
Israel holds Palestinian territory occupied since 1967 - before these were parts of Egypt and Jordan. The Palestinians didn't want to become part of Israel, and no one ever asked them. And now Israel is settling on their land. That would upset me a bit too, if I was one of them.

And as I said, without adressing the root cause that problem will not be solved.

On the other hand, it is another example of blowback - Israel first encouraged the creation of Hamas as a religious counterweight to secular PLO which at that time was Israels major concern, in an attempt to weaken PLO. They succeeded. Today Hamas is conducting the terroist acts. Bravo!
Today Israel demands from the very PLO they themselve weakened that they fight Hamas, which emerged as a new menace.

That other aspect is quite interesting, sort of analogous to the US creating the Mujaheddin volunteer forces in Afghanistan to fight the Russians, only to see them turning on them in shape of Al Qaeda - classical blowback.

[ March 25, 2004, 17:51: Message edited by: Ragusa ]