[eklipse]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3209132.stm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Oct20.html
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=455548

In one instance, helicopters fired two missiles at a car near a refugee camp in central Gaza killing at least six people, according to witnesses and Palestinian sources.

Shortly afterwards a building on the eastern edge of Gaza, said to be a weapons store, which had already been hit earlier in the day was struck again.

At least 40 people are said to have been injured in the first evening attack which struck the main street of the Nusseirat camp.

It is not known who was travelling in the car targeted in Nusseirat, and the Israeli military has not yet commented on the incident.

The evening attacks follow three Israeli air strikes on Gaza earlier on Monday, in which at least three people, including two Hamas militants, were killed and about 24 wounded.

The Israeli army described the earlier strikes as a major part of what they termed their war against terrorism, says the BBC's James Rodgers in Gaza.

At the funerals for those killed in the attack on the car, Hamas supporters vowed revenge.

Wash, Rinse, Repeat......

[lil'babykitten]

That's way too many people killed/injured at the hands of Israel in one day.

I guess we can expect some suicide bombings in the next week.

[spacefreak]

Are you sure this isn't 'terrorism'?

Pretty sure. Looks like it was an attack on terrorists. Your quote even mentions the targeted Hamas militants.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Pretty sure. Looks like it was an attack on terrorists. Your quote even mentions the targeted Hamas militants.

It was. It's not like they opted to acted women and children on busses.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Pretty sure. Looks like it was an attack on terrorists. Your quote even mentions the targeted Hamas militants.

At least 40 people are said to have been injured in the first evening attack which struck the main street of the Nusseirat camp.

Israeli military aircraft staged three attacks Monday morning against Palestinian militants and their weapons storehouses in the Gaza Strip, killing three men and wounding at least 25 others, including many women and children, Israeli military officials and Palestinian hospital officials and witnesses said.

No one was killed, but at least 10 people were injured by the explosion, including four children -- one age 2, another age 4 --and three women, Palestinian hospital officials said. Some news service reports said that as many as 14 people were injured in the attack, including seven children and four women.

But the casualties could have been far worse: a piece of concrete lay in a cradle in the family house; Na'ima Bulbul had snatched her 18-month-old baby out of the cradle when she heard the missile hit, moments before the wall partly collapsed on to the cradle.

[shmerek]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
It was. It's not like they opted to acted women and children on busses.

Huh?

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by eklipse:

Were the women and children targeted? Doubtful.

It's definitely a shame, but it's not terrorism. Terrorism targets innocent civilians. Military operations target enemies. If you want to claim this is manslaughter (ie- not intentional, but the fault of the Israeli military nonetheless), I'd see your point a bit clearer.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Were the women and children targeted? Doubtful.

It's definitely a shame, but it's not terrorism. Terrorism targets innocent civilians. Military operations target enemies. If you want to claim this is manslaughter (ie- not intentional, but the fault of the Israeli military nonetheless), I'd see your point a bit clearer.

Yeah, manslaughter yes. I can see that. But they are not targeted.

The real question one should ask is, if the terrorists weren't attacking, would there be ANY need for Israel to defend themselves?

Of course not.

The quickest way to stop this, is to stop the terrorist attacks on Israel.

It's just that simple.

[Face Ache]

Oh **** off with your collateral damage. It's far too convenient.

Israel killed 10 civilians (100 injured) as payback for the deaths of 3 soldiers.

Who's killing civilians now huh?

[eklipse]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Were the women and children targeted? Doubtful.

It's definitely a shame, but it's not terrorism. Terrorism targets innocent civilians. Military operations target enemies. If you want to claim this is manslaughter (ie- not intentional, but the fault of the Israeli military nonetheless), I'd see your point a bit clearer.

When you fire a missile into a main street or at a car near a refugee camp, tell me, what do you expect to hit? Geese?

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
That's way too many people killed/injured at the hands of Israel in one day.

I guess we can expect some suicide bombings in the next week.

Those Jihadis will be surprised to find Allah, Jibreel, Hall of Judgement, Muhammed on Pegasus or 72 virgins in paradise will NOT be waiting for them.

[Mithras]

The bombing of the King David Hotel by the Irgun was terrorism.

The attacks aimed at militants are not terrorism. I think they're shortsighted, and will not pave the way to peace, but they are not terrorism.

Just because you hate Sharon's guts (I do), or think Israel needs to get the he1l out of the territories (I do), does not mean that every action of the Israeli state is evil, or that you should lose your moral compass.

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by Mithras:
The bombing of the King David Hotel by the Irgun was terrorism.

yes it was.

The attacks aimed at militants are not terrorism. I think they're shortsighted, and will not pave the way to peace, but they are not terrorism.

right again.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Mithras:
The attacks aimed at militants are not terrorism. I think they're shortsighted, and will not pave the way to peace, but they are not terrorism.

Just because you hate Sharon's guts (I do), or think Israel needs to get the he1l out of the territories (I do), does not mean that every action of the Israeli state is evil, or that you should lose your moral compass.

You appear to see a difference between blowing up a bus full of civilians and firing missiles into civilian populated areas (I don't).

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by eklipse:
You appear to see a difference between blowing up a bus full of civilians and firing missiles into civilian populated areas (I don't).

that's your perception. Regardless, a big difference exists.

The Allies bombed civilians during World War Two, creating tens of millions of casualties. That wasn't terrorism.

The terrorists hide among civilians, and Israel stirkes at terrorists. The civilians are just in the way. That's very sad, unfortunate, and inconvenient, but letting the terrorists operate with impunity anywhere they want and have guaranteed sanctuary would be allowing them to win.

[Troll]

Pop quizz: If I fire a machine gun into a crowd of people at a rock concert, am I committing murder or culpable homicide? I don't intend to kill any particular person, although I realise that death is a necessary consequence of my action? Say I'm a cop and two suspected perps run into a crowded laundromat. Am I a murderer if I open fire on the shop killing 11 people plus the two perps? Or am I really just a nice guy who's misunderstood?

I heard an eye witness report. One of the cars was parked at a traffic light when Israeli F-16's fired 3 missiles into it. What happens when a missile hits a car people? What happens at a traffic light people? Do you really think Israeli army officials know less about these things than you do? Do you really think they don't know that civilians hang around traffic lights or what happens when 3 missiles go into a 1 ton piece of metal? You can't even call that negligence. This is a clear manifestation of intent to kill. It's murder, it's terrorism.

As Face Ache said, Hamas kills soldiers - military targets, fair game - and Israel responds by killing and injuring hundreds of civilians. Face the facts people, Israel does this on purpose. Israel believes that it can beat the Palestinians into submission. Apartheid, terrorism and genocide - those are the tools of the Israeli government; tools whose use the majority of Israeli people support. How can they complain when the same tactics they employ are used against them?

Support that if you want to. Rationalise these ghastly acts in whatever way you please, but don't pretend that they aren't what they are. Don't complain when Israeli civilians die. Because each civilian life that was taken today was worth at least as much as any civilian life taken in any suicide bombing in Israel ... or any civilian life taken on 9/11.

[thunderous_funker]

The trouble with a word like "terrorism" is it doesn't denote degrees. It implies equivalency for all of the actions undertaken under the heading of "terrorism" regardless of scale, intensity, ruthlessness, etc.

Terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Lots of activities fall under that category, but it doesn't make them all equal.

I would consider the principle of "collective punishment" to be state terrorism on the part of Israel, but that doesn't mean that it is morally equivalent to the 9/11 attacks or suicide bombings. Some crimes are more repugnant than others, but they all still fall under the heading of crime.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
The Allies bombed civilians during World War Two, creating tens of millions of casualties. That wasn't terrorism.

The two situations are hardly comparable.

The terrorists hide among civilians, and Israel stirkes at terrorists. The civilians are just in the way. That's very sad, unfortunate, and inconvenient, but letting the terrorists operate with impunity anywhere they want and have guaranteed sanctuary would be allowing them to win.

Doesn't this speak volumes as to the futility of Israel's efforts?

What precisely has Israel 'won' so far?

[Mithras]

Originally posted by eklipse:
The two situations are hardly comparable.
Doesn't this speak volumes as to the futility of Israel's efforts?

What precisely has Israel 'won' so far?

I agree -- strikes like those today are futile, pointless, unethical and unjust.

But I don't think there's much utility in calling them terrorism; it's not accurate, and it doesn't advance conditions.

Let's just call it idiotic and immoral and leave it at that, eh?

Next year, in Jerusalem.

[thunderous_funker]

In my ongoing attempt to apply the Hegelian Dialectic to this potential flamefest......

The illegitimacy of "collective punishment" cuts both ways. Israeli civilians shouldn't be "punished" for the sins of their government any more than Arab civilians should be "punished" for the sins of Hamas.

Israel's supporters rationalize the "collateral damange" because deep down they feel that all Palestinians are ultimately to blame for the terrorists. They are all guilty by association or at least to blame for not "cracking down" on terrorists.

Arab supporters rationalize the dead Jews in resturants because deep down they feel there must be some karmic punishment for the decades of oppression and brutality visited upon Arabs at the hands of a democratic state. Jews are to blame for their government's actions, ultimately since they could change it if they wanted to.

As long as people keep thinking like this, nothing will change.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by eklipse:
When you fire a missile into a main street or at a car near a refugee camp, tell me, what do you expect to hit? Geese?

Why do the terrorists purposely group themselves around such streets?

Cowards.

These people could easily be turned in.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
that's your perception. Regardless, a big difference exists.

The Allies bombed civilians during World War Two, creating tens of millions of casualties. That wasn't terrorism.

The terrorists hide among civilians, and Israel stirkes at terrorists. The civilians are just in the way. That's very sad, unfortunate, and inconvenient, but letting the terrorists operate with impunity anywhere they want and have guaranteed sanctuary would be allowing them to win.

If they admit the two are different, they would then too have to admit that "their side" is acting worse than the other.

Something they aren't willing to do.

You'll never see anyone in here that is Pro Palestinian admit that maybe, just maybe there is a difference.

Again, the Palestinian terrorism stops. There would be no bombs launched into cities.

Quickest way to stop it.

[Mithras]

First of all, for the umpteenth time, thunderous_funker has demonstrated that he is the wisest soul on these boards. Thanks for your last several posts, t_f.

Secondly,

Originally posted by Zimphire:
You'll never see anyone in here that is Pro Palestinian admit that maybe, just maybe there is a difference.

as noted above, I am pro-Palestinian (as in, the Palestinians need a state NOW, and as in, the Zionists were terrorists 60 years ago, and the only thing that stopped them was winning a state). But I certainly agree there is a difference.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
In my ongoing attempt to apply the Hegelian Dialectic to this potential flamefest......

The illegitimacy of "collective punishment" cuts both ways. Israeli civilians shouldn't be "punished" for the sins of their government any more than Arab civilians should be "punished" for the sins of Hamas.

Israel's supporters rationalize the "collateral damange" because deep down they feel that all Palestinians are ultimately to blame for the terrorists. They are all guilty by association or at least to blame for not "cracking down" on terrorists.

Arab supporters rationalize the dead Jews in resturants because deep down they feel there must be some karmic punishment for the decades of oppression and brutality visited upon Arabs at the hands of a democratic state. Jews are to blame for their government's actions, ultimately since they could change it if they wanted to.

As long as people keep thinking like this, nothing will change.

The dialectic was about the changing of ideas. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis necessarily requires antithesis to be different from the thesis in order for the synthesis to be different from the thesis. Thus, since both sides are operating under the same ideas, they won't go anywhere.

Or is that what you were trying to get at? Do I get a cookie?

BG

Edit: too much 'thesis'.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Mithras:
But I certainly agree there is a difference.

[einmakom]

Originally posted by Mithras:
The bombing of the King David Hotel by the Irgun was terrorism.

The attacks aimed at militants are not terrorism. I think they're shortsighted, and will not pave the way to peace, but they are not terrorism.

No, it wasn't- the King David Hotel housed British Military and was therefore a military target, not terrorism. Not to mention, how often is it that you warn your targets with precise when-and-where?

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by einmakom:
No, it wasn't- the King David Hotel housed British Military and was therefore a military target, not terrorism. Not to mention, how often is it that you warn your targets with precise when-and-where?

So you admit the killing of the three Israeli soldiers wasn't terrorism. Good.

Doctor Zain Shahin's first reaction to the Israeli air strike today near the clinic where he worked was to rush out to treat the wounded. It cost him his life.

Witnesses said the Palestinian doctor rushed to help the wounded lying around a car struck by a missile.

But he himself was hit by shrapnel when a second missile slammed into a crowd of people who had also come to see who they could save.

"Doctor Zain rushed to help, and he paid with his life trying to save the lives of others," store owner Hisham Mohammad told Reuters.

"He treated a few people on the ground before he ... fell among them."

Medical officials said at least seven people, all civilians, were killed and about 70 wounded in the air strike, one of five carried out by Israel in the Gaza Strip today.

Shahin, 29, was married to a Russian and had two children.

Women wept as rescue workers carried the wounded to hospital while men chanted Allahu Akbar (God is greatest).

Thousands of protesters in the Nusseirat refugee camp, a stronghold for Islamic militants, called for revenge and urged Prime Minister Ahmed Qurie to abandon efforts to make peace with Israel.

"The Palestinian Authority should quit talks about peace and ceasefires and everyone must fight until either we achieve victory or martyrdom," said another protester, who gave his name only as Ali.

Witnesses said each missile had lit up the night sky.

"It lit the street, like lightning, but the sound was thunderous," one witness said.

Another witness, Mahmoud Al-Qassas, was in deep shock.

"What can I say? It was unbelievable to bear what I saw," he said.

"Where are the United States and the United Nations? Are not we humans and have rights? Why do they keep silent to see us being massacred."

It was the bloodiest of the five air strikes today. An earlier attack killed two Islamic militants and a bystander in Gaza City.

And AGAIN firing a second missile to kill anyone attempting to help the wounded.

Mother****ers.

The Palestinians could learn from that.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
SAnd AGAIN firing a second missile to kill anyone attempting to help the wounded.

Mother****ers.

The Palestinians could learn from that.

You sure that is why they fired the second missle? Positive?

Again, fact is, the terrorist stop, Israel stop.

Israel is not going to stop as long as the terrorists keep attacking.

It's on them. The Palestinian people need to come against these groups, and oust them.

But for some reason, you just don't see it happening. It's almost as if they encourage it.

[Troll]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
The illegitimacy of "collective punishment" cuts both ways. Israeli civilians shouldn't be "punished" for the sins of their government any more than Arab civilians should be "punished" for the sins of Hamas.

Actually I think Israeli citizens can from both a moral and a philosophical standpoint be punished for their sins in a way that Palestinians can't. This is so because Israelis have a greater level of responsibility for Israel's actions than Palestinians have for Hamas'

Israel is a state with a government that derives its power from the Israeli people through regular elections. It is subject to judicial review.

Palestine is not a state. Palestine has no government in the conventional sense. There is an elected authority which has little more than notional responsibility for the Occupied Territories but very little real power over its electorate. For argument's sake, let's say the PA is representative of the Palestinians and they are as responsible for the PA as Israelis are for their own government. Fine. Now let's look at who is committing these ghastly acts on each side. Who is killing Palestinians? The elected government of Israel. Is the PA killing Israelis? No. So, on what basis can you punish Palestinians for acts by a non-elected terrorist group that operates within its country? Are the Irish people as a whole responsible for IRA attacks? Who represents Spanish people - the Spanish government or ETA? The PA specifically rejects Hamas' actions. If you want to attribute any ideology to the Palestinians by virtue of their government, then it must be one that rejects the killing of Israelis. The same can't be said for Israelis. They use their electoral power to support the killing of Palestinians. They use their vote to approve of it.

I don't agree with punishing Israelis or Palestinians by killing them but I recognise that the common Israeli is far more closely bound to the actions of the Israeli government than Palestinians are to the actions of Hamas. One might say that is simply because Palestinians don't have a real government and if they did then that government would support the killing of Israelis in the same way the Israeli government supports the killing of Palestinians. Maybe. But that is not a situation that the Israelis have allowed nor is it the reality on the ground.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Why do the terrorists purposely group themselves around such streets?

Cowards.

Perhaps they live there?

The Israelis weren't targeting a 'group' of terrorists, they were (allegedly) targeting one or two 'militants' and ended up killing several innocents and wounding tens of others.

How do we even know the people targeted were terrorists? All we have to go on is the say-so of an Israeli defense spokesperson. No arrests ever made, no trials ever held, no evidence ever presented. The IDF is the judge, jury and executioner all rolled into one.

[Zimphire]

OMG! U R Right!

They could B all making it up.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Mithras:
But I don't think there's much utility in calling them terrorism; it's not accurate, and it doesn't advance conditions.

Where is the inaccuracy in calling it 'terrorism'?

From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913):

Terrorism \Ter"ror*ism\, n. [Cf. F. terrorisme.]
The act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; a mode
of government by terror or intimidation. --Jefferson.

Perhaps we should ask the inhabitants of the Gaza strip whether they feel 'terrorized'? - my guess is that missiles fired from helicopter gun-ships are quite terror inducing.

This isn't about 'advancing conditions', this is about Israel and it's proponents attempting to claim some bullshit-moral-high-ground.

So far the only difference being offered up is 'the Israelis don't kill civilians intentionally' - and we have only their word on this to go by. By this extremely weak logic, it suggests that if Hamas comes out and says: "We didn't mean to blow up the bus full of civilians, we were aiming for the army barracks 10 blocks down the road - but hey, shit happens!", nobody would have any problem with it - fair game and all.

If this is not 'terrorism' then the only other possibility is that the Israeli Defense Forces, the Israeli regime and it's supporters are monumentally stupid, fundamentally naive, blindingly incompetent and criminally negligent - which is worse?

[macvillage.net]

How is it with laser guided weapons, among an arsonal of percision weapons, you can "accidentally" (to quote certain people here) kill more civilians then a terrorist group can do intentionally with a belt bomb on a city bus?

It's no accident. Anyone who seriously believes that... well, I have a bridge to sell you.

It's amazing how many "accidents" can happen with percision weapons?

If these weapons are really this inaccurate. Why do we bother with "laser guided" and "sattelite guided"? Why not just use a free falling bomb? Cheaper and just accurate, perhaps more accurate? Is this an attempt to waste money?



Unless there is a new definition of terrorisim other than:

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

The Israeli government is a Terrorist group.

Intentionally killing civilians, in hopes of creating fear... makes you a terrorist. It's the definition of the word. Israel uses the tactic. Making it a terrrorist group. It's a simple as that. This isn't even politics. This is just using the word, and the definition.

[Troll]

Worth noting that the Palestinians intentionally targetting Israeli civilians has lead to the deaths of 780 odd Israeli casualties whereas the unintentional collateral damage inflicted by the IDF has lead to 2,500 odd Palestinian casualties!

(these are figures since the start of the Al Aqsa intifada).

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Troll:
Worth noting that the Palestinians intentionally targetting Israeli civilians has lead to the deaths of 780 odd Israeli casualties whereas the unintentional collateral damage inflicted by the IDF has lead to 2,500 odd Palestinian casualties!

(these are figures since the start of the Al Aqsa intifada).

"unintentional" should be in quotes.


They must have been trained by the french. If this were truely unintentional, A force couldn't be more uskilled if they tried to be bad.


Considering it's considered to be the best trained force in the world by military experts... I would say it's terrorism. Because it's using the killing of civilians to intimidate.

[einmakom]

Originally posted by Troll:
Worth noting that the Palestinians intentionally targetting Israeli civilians has lead to the deaths of 780 odd Israeli casualties whereas the unintentional collateral damage inflicted by the IDF has lead to 2,500 odd Palestinian casualties!

(these are figures since the start of the Al Aqsa intifada).

Sure, but where did those figures originate? With the Palestinians who have admitted inflating their numbers in the past? Does this number include the number of people who have chosen to explode themselves in an effort to harm others? Should it?

This is a war, which due to Israel's restraint, is fought whenever it's convenient for Israel's attackers (the Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade, Al-Fatah, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Hizbollah) decide. They attack, and then play victim, whether you believe it or not.

But don't tell us in all seriousness that terror is not endorsed by the PA. The PA has Arafat as it's President, and he is also the head of Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade and Al-Fatah. He did everything to undermine Former PM Abbas and his security minister Dahlan, to the point of appointing a new security minister to render Dahlan redundant - because (sarcasm) heavens knows, we wouldn't want to let Abbas and Dahlan continue when it appeared they might actually intend to make peace! (end sarcasm.)

Out of one side of his mouth, Mr. Arafat condemns attacks, out of the other, he takes gleeful pleasure in the attacks committed by his organizations, Al-Fatah and Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade. Telling yourself that he's a different person when in his role as President is indicative of delusions or naiveté.

If Israel were not exercising such restraint, you would see Israel committing attacks with great frequency, using additional aircraft besides just helicopters, and ground troops as well. Instead, all you see are strikes with intent to hit militant targets following attacks on Israel's citizenry or military.

The PA has been armed and promised to arrest all those who plan terror within her jurisdiction. The PA under Arafat has failed through inaction. When Arafat opens his mouth to condemn terror, we should know that it matters little what people say, and muchly what they do.

We know that Sharon and Israel are not actively committing acts of terror, but are fighting a war with as little action as possible. We should also know that Sharon is not doing enough- under Netanyahu, there were fewer attacks than there have been in years. Sharon has survived two votes of no-confidence. Mr. Arafat hasn't had to face election in years, because he just won't hold one.

[thunderous_funker]

See, its ok to kill your enemies because they are wrong.

Carry on. Enjoy the war.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
See, its ok to kill your enemies because they are wrong.

Carry on. Enjoy the war.

Good point.

I'll pop some popcorn. You bring something to drink. We shall sit and enjoy together. Bring some friends.

[Mithras]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/21/in...ND-MIDEAS.html

Point: On Israeli Government Intentions

Israeli politicians and military analysts sharply criticized Monday's air attacks, citing civilian casualties. Alex Fishman, one of Israel's foremost military journalists and no dove, wondered in the pages of the largest daily, Yedioth Ahronoth, if Israel still imposed any limits on itself. "How long can we hurt innocent civilians?" he asked. "Is it conceivable that somebody on our side has decided that all of Palestinian society is the target?"

Counterpoint: The Video

after the missile strike, one of five Israeli air attacks on Monday, brought unusual criticism from within Israel, the Air Force took the rare step of showing reporters video footage it said was taken of the incident by a drone overhead.

The black-and-white images, which the drone transmitted live to commanders directing the helicopter crew that fired the missiles, showed a first missile striking a car traveling an empty street.

The car, which Israel said was carrying Hamas militants, continued for about 50 yards until it appeared to bump a curb. Then it backed up almost to its original spot. A single person appeared to be approaching when the car was destroyed in a direct hit by a second missile. The strikes were a minute apart.

It was at least 90 seconds after the second blast that dozens of people were seen leaving their houses to surround the wreckage. Moments later, the footage ended. The senior Air Force officer who had presented it said there was nothing more of interest to see.

"We would not allow any munition to be launched on a massive gathering of people," the officer said. "To fire into a crowd is not professional, it is not ethical and it's not moral."

[Troll]

Originally posted by einmakom:
But don't tell us in all seriousness that terror is not endorsed by the PA.

Even if we accept your arguments; even if we say that the PA tacitly endorses the attacks, that still doesn't create an equivalency with Israeli support for the attacks by the IDF - for the simple reason that Palestine is not a state and the PA is not a government. There is no democracy in "Palestine". The same is not true in Israel. Israeli's are apparently directly in control of their government's (and by extension their army's) actions.

How can you say that there is any equivalency between the level of responsbility of Palestinians for acts "endorsed" by the PA which neither is a real government of a real state nor does it have actual power over Palestinians and the level of responsibility of Israelis for the acts of the government they elect and control through a democratic process?

As I've said I don't think any party should be killing the other, but there's only one way that I can see this ending and that's by Israelis making sacrifices. I believe Israelis can stop the circle of violence in a way that Palestinians can't. Israelis hold the key. Because it is clear that if Israelis stop the IDF from committing these acts, Palestinian deaths will drop dramatically, whereas I don't see any significant change coming from Palestinians exercising the vague control they have over the PA. Just as white South Africans held the key to peace in South Africa, Israelis hold it in Israel. You have to make the sacrifice if you want peace. Demanding that blacks stop the terrorism, demanding that white demands generally be met before peace be made, didn't work in SA and it won't work in Israel either.

[einmakom]

Originally posted by Troll:
Even if we accept your arguments; even if we say that the PA tacitly endorses the attacks, that still doesn't create an equivalency with Israeli support for the attacks by the IDF - for the simple reason that Palestine is not a state and the PA is not a government. There is no democracy in "Palestine". The same is not true in Israel. Israeli's are apparently directly in control of their government's (and by extension their army's) actions.

So you admit that any election of Arafat as President was a sham, if there is no democracy there?

How can you say that there is any equivalency between the level of responsbility of Palestinians for acts "endorsed" by the PA which neither is a real government of a real state nor does it have actual power over Palestinians and the level of responsibility of Israelis for the acts of the government they elect and control through a democratic process?

Because Israel deals with PA government as such, in search of a partner for peace. Why else would Israel arm the PA so that they could create a security force to police and end the attacks?

As I've said I don't think any party should be killing the other, but there's only one way that I can see this ending and that's by Israelis making sacrifices. I believe Israelis can stop the circle of violence in a way that Palestinians can't. Israelis hold the key. Because it is clear that if Israelis stop the IDF from committing these acts, Palestinian deaths will drop dramatically, whereas I don't see any significant change coming from Palestinians exercising the vague control they have over the PA. Just as white South Africans held the key to peace in South Africa, Israelis hold it in Israel. You have to make the sacrifice if you want peace. Demanding that blacks stop the terrorism, demanding that white demands generally be met before peace be made, didn't work in SA and it won't work in Israel either.

So you're saying that the Palestinians aren't responsible for their actions? That's very generous of you. Condescending to them, even.

You're ignoring that this can end another way- with one party having such a decisive victory over the other that the other cuts their losses. Truthfully, this would also be win-win, because it would mean normalization for the people who go on living their lives in peace without attack. It's how peace came between Israel and Egypt, and how agreements were reached between Lebanon and Israel, and Israel and Jordan. There's precendent for this to work as a solution, where there is no precedent for a 'peace process.'

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by Mithras:

It was at least 90 seconds after the second blast that dozens of people were seen leaving their houses to surround the wreckage. Moments later, the footage ended. The senior Air Force officer who had presented it said there was nothing more of interest to see.

"We would not allow any munition to be launched on a massive gathering of people," the officer said. "To fire into a crowd is not professional, it is not ethical and it's not moral."

Except that we know from the story I posted above that they DID fire into the crowd (which is "not ethical and it's not moral").

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by einmakom:

So you admit that any election of Arafat as President was a sham, if there is no democracy there?


[/b]
Because Israel deals with PA government as such, in search of a partner for peace. Why else would Israel arm the PA so that they could create a security force to police and end the attacks?



So you're saying that the Palestinians aren't responsible for their actions? That's very generous of you. Condescending to them, even.

You're ignoring that this can end another way- with one party having such a decisive victory over the other that the other cuts their losses. Truthfully, this would also be win-win, because it would mean normalization for the people who go on living their lives in peace without attack. It's how peace came between Israel and Egypt, and how agreements were reached between Lebanon and Israel, and Israel and Jordan. There's precendent for this to work as a solution, where there is no precedent for a 'peace process.' [/B]

There are many democracies that have done well (if not better than the US as far as Quality of Live for the time period).

Democracy or not isn't a legitimate issue. It's not even an issue worth discussing. It's simply a structure of government. It doesn't make a government better or worse. It's capable of all the pitfalls any other government is worth. Sadly, the pitfalls are harder to avoid as it takes a majority to regain sanity, rather than just some.


The issue in this thread is if attacking civilians to intimidate is terrorism or not?

That's the issue at hand.

The issue (shouldn't be) who can use such strategies. But are they ethical, and why don't they end.

Sadly, some feel it's a great tactic.

Even more pathetic is that in this situation 2 sides have decided that terrorism is an effective method.

[Uday's Carcass]

We're seeing the same thread over and over again.

Hamas are terrorists.
No they're not.
Yes they are.
It's okay to deliberately and habitually target women and babies for a bloody, brutal death.
No it's not.

blah blah blah.

just make it a sticky. That way all you puke pro-terrorist, pro-Hamas losers can circle-jerk to the bloody pieces of Jewish women and babies. That's what you sick pricks get off on, no doubt.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
We're seeing the same thread over and over again.

Hamas are terrorists.
No they're not.
Yes they are.
It's okay to deliberately and habitually target women and babies for a bloody, brutal death.
No it's not.

blah blah blah.

just make it a sticky. That way all you puke pro-terrorist, pro-Hamas losers can circle-jerk to the bloody pieces of Jewish women and babies. That's what you sick pricks get off on, no doubt.

I have yet to see anyone really admit that if the Hamas and other terrorists stop, that Israel would stop as well.

No one seems to want to admit this.

It's almost like people think it's a righteous thing they are doing.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
We're seeing the same thread over and over again.

Hamas are terrorists.
No they're not.
Yes they are.
It's okay to deliberately and habitually target women and babies for a bloody, brutal death.
No it's not.

blah blah blah.

just make it a sticky. That way all you puke pro-terrorist, pro-Hamas losers can circle-jerk to the bloody pieces of Jewish women and babies. That's what you sick pricks get off on, no doubt.

You are pretty twisted.

Since when has anyone debated if Hamas is a terrorist group?


The debate has always been if ISRAEL is a terrorist group.

And the only two sides are:

Yes - Killing civilians as a form of intimidation is terrorism.

No - It's done by a recognized government.


That's the only argument on THIS forum.

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
You are pretty twisted.

Since when has anyone debated if Hamas is a terrorist group?

The debate has always been if ISRAEL is a terrorist group.

And the only two sides are:

Yes - Killing civilians as a form of intimidation is terrorism.

No - It's done by a recognized government.

That's the only argument on THIS forum.

where have you been, Robert? Everytime we get into the Palestinian 'struggle', 'cause', 'Jihad'--whatever the heck you want to call it--all the wacko leftists pop out of the woodwork to justify Hamas and Islamic Jihad's murders as legitimate and part of a war for freedom.

You're as wrong as green spooge.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Yes - Killing civilians as a form of intimidation is terrorism.

Purposely killing civilians as a form of intimidation is terrorism.

There will always be intended casualties.

[Troll]

Originally posted by einmakom:

So you admit that any election of Arafat as President was a sham, if there is no democracy there?

Of course it's a sham. The election of any president of a country that doesn't exist is a sham. The whole process is a sham. But it's a sham that serves Israel's interests. Of course Arafat loves the attention, but I think even he realises that he has no real power. The existence of the PA allows Israel to take some sort of notional step back from the reality of its involvement in the West Bank and Gaza. It's the same tactic apartheid South Africa adopted with its homelands policy. It's saying to the world, "Look, we've given them government. They have democracy, they vote. And we hold them responsible. So quit calling us racist bastards."

That's all it does; take the heat off Israel for a while, because the reality is still that Israel is the Occupying Power. Israel is still ultimately in charge, and responsible for the Palestinian people. The PA can wax lyrical about peace and terrorism but it has no real power. Israel uses the PA as a ruse to pretend that the Palestinians are somehow free and to legitimise its attacks on Palestinians. Israel is still their ward when it comes to security, enforcement of the law, territorial integrity (or lack thereof) in this case and pretty much everything else. Just as the democracies that existed in Bophutatswana, Transkei, Ciskei and Venda were shams, so is the whole PA. Until there is a Palestinian state that is independent of Israel, there is no real democracy in the Occupied Territories.

Originally posted by einmakom:
So you're saying that the Palestinians aren't responsible for their actions? That's very generous of you. Condescending to them, even.

So you're saying that the Irish people are responsible for the IRA's actions?

What I'm saying is that the Palestinian people as a whole are not in control of Hamas' actions in the same way that the Israeli people are in control of their army. I would venture to say that they have NO control over Hamas' actions. The only rebuttal that you have presented is that the PA endorses Hamas' attacks (despite its public condemnation) and that since Palestinians are in control of the PA, they are responsible. You are saying that the attacks by Hamas are "actions" by Palestinians as a people. Even if that were true, which it is clearly not, the way you attribute responsibility is a clear acknowledgement that the level of involvement of the Palestinians themselves in the violence is far reduced in comparison to the involvement of Israelis in the actions undertaken by their army.

Originally posted by einmakom:
You're ignoring that this can end another way- with one party having such a decisive victory over the other that the other cuts their losses. Truthfully, this would also be win-win, because it would mean normalization for the people who go on living their lives in peace without attack. It's how peace came between Israel and Egypt, and how agreements were reached between Lebanon and Israel, and Israel and Jordan. There's precendent for this to work as a solution, where there is no precedent for a 'peace process.'

This is the part where I ask you if you are advocating genocide as the solution isn't it?

I am ignoring the possibility of a decisive victory because it is not a possibility. This conflict is not a national conflict between two states. This is a liberation struggle. Facts are facts. Israel occupies land that doesn't belong to it and rules over the people that live there. It has denied them self-determination for 50 years. There is a very different set of values on the line here to the set that are at issue in national wars between states. By way of analogy, US citizens apply a very different test to deciding whether the cost of war in Iraq is justified than they might to deciding whether the cost of resisting a foreign occupation of their own soil is justified. A war about protecting some other people's rights across the border is something that people are far happier to abandon than giving in to occupation. You can't give one example of creating peace through ''decisivie victory' in a self-determination struggle context because there isn't one. It has never worked. People can only take so much and after 50 years of this sh1t, I can fully understand why the Palestinians have lost patience. I understand why the Palestinians believe that the fight is about SURVIVAL. It's not analagous to the situations you mentioned for that reason. Did you miss the part where it was announced that some of the suicide bombers are young female college students? How, short of committing genocide do you intend to have a decisive victory over college students? People who feel that their survival is threatened have an instinct to fight to the death. For the same reason they can't gain a decisive victory over you, you will never gain one over them. You can't win this my friend. The best you can hope for is compromise. The sooner you realise that, the better!

Originally posted by einmakom:
There's precendent for this to work as a solution, where there is no precedent for a 'peace process.' [/B]

Nelson Mandela and FW de Klerk don't ring bells?

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I have yet to see anyone really admit that if the Hamas and other terrorists stop, that Israel would stop as well.

No one seems to want to admit this.

If the terrorists were to stop, Israel might stop as well - probably after they exact a revenge attack for the last Hamas suicide bombing.

Let's assume Israel/Hamas forgo their customary revenge response - Hamas stops it's suicide attacks and Israel stops it's missile attacks and village invasions. Will Israel also drop it's idiotic plans to build walls on disputed territory?, will it repeal it's draconian marriage laws?, will it stop building settlements on disputed land?, will it stop any future and all past forms of stupid incitement to violence?

Doubtful.

Israel will likely pursue some other kind of foolhardy, provocative scheme that raises the ire of the Palestinian up to the point that someone detonates themselves in a public place. Israel then throws up it's hands in mock horror, unable to comprehend what could have led to such a disaster.

It's almost like people think it's a righteous thing they are doing.

The key point is that these people do believe it is a righteous thing they are doing - that is why any amount of external condemnation and criticism will not get you very far. The situation that causes their mentality needs to be addressed - not it's effects.