quote:

---

The Hamas leadership said Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had "opened the gates of hell".

---

One of several links from today's news

It sounds like this is going to blow things wide open into full-scale war. And the Hamas is also blaming U.S. for its support of Israel.

What are your thoughts? Where is this going to lead?

Farmgirl
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Nowhere good.
 

---

Posted by Derrell (Member # 6062) on :
 
I think Hamas will reataliate, not only against Israel, but against the US as well.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I'm always a huge fan of assassination. I mean, it NEVER backfires.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
>> Where is this going to lead? <<

Nowhere good.

I think no one's started a thread because quite a few people here (myself included) have gotten into substantial flamewars over this in the past.

I just hope this thread doesn't go the route of the one at Ornery. Reading that thread made me absolutely livid.

(FYI, I'm half-Palestinian).
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
I'm pretty much on the fence with this one.
 

---

Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
 
Don't you mean the wall, Storm?
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
I predict Palestinians will react to this by calling the Israelis evil, and will strike against them, resulting in the Israelis calling the Palestinians evil, and striking back themselves.

Histocially, I think I'm making a safe prediction.
 

---

Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
 
I admit I really don't know anything about the situation. So I guess I'm going to have to say there's a 50% chance of Xap being correct.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
Well, I heard a Palestinian response this morning that basically pointed out that this can't possibly solve anything.

I can understand the whole concept of WANTING to assasinate the opposition''s leaders.. But to actually carry it out, not a good precedent.
 

---

Posted by skrika03 (Member # 5930) on :
 
I thought Sharon was being ousted on some kind of corruption charge a couple of months ago. It somehow managed to leak through the Dem primary coverage. I agree with Israel's right to survive, but I don't think Sharon's strategies are very good.

twinky, being Palestinian doesn't mean you have to support Hamas any more than being American means you want to have dinner with George W. Bush.
 

---

Posted by St. Yogi (Member # 5974) on :
 
This is just fueling the vicious cycle of violence.

The smartest thing the palestinians ca do i go out in the streets in peaceful demonstrations, denouncing the Israelan government and keep on doing them for as long as is necessary. If the Israelans do anything violent to these peaceful demonstrations, they would slowly but surely lose all support from the rest of the world.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
Bob: 14199
Tom: 14205

It's coming. Today, maybe.

Edit:

>> twinky, being Palestinian doesn't mean you have to support Hamas any more than being American means you want to have dinner with George W. Bush. <<

I'm well aware of that. And I don't. But it certainly has an effect on how personally I take comments.

[ March 22, 2004, 02:22 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
 

---

Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
Well, by posting this, I certainly wasn't trying to start any Palestinian/Israel division of support on Hatrack.

I try to remain neutral.

I was thinking of it more in terms of global consequences -- not a matter of "who is right and who is wrong."

I was also thinking of it in terms of prophecy.

But events such as this -- by ANY nation -- can easily tip off a world war.

That's what worries me.

Farmgirl

[ March 22, 2004, 02:22 PM: Message edited by: Farmgirl ]
 

---

Posted by skrika03 (Member # 5930) on :
 
Part of the problem with non violence is that it is not an ethic shared by every major religion.
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Because, after all, Christians and Hindus and Buddhists don't use violence, right?
 

---

Posted by skrika03 (Member # 5930) on :
 
Christians aren't supposed to. One could say that when one is, one isn't actually being a Christian, whatever one is calling oneself.
 

---

Posted by St. Yogi (Member # 5974) on :
 
Isn't it the same with Islam?
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
Lets not get into comparitive religions?
 

---

Posted by St. Yogi (Member # 5974) on :
 
Yeah, let's not.
 

---

Posted by skrika03 (Member # 5930) on :
 
I just think it would take a good long while before the the Palestinian protests could be seen as non violent. If the Palestinian authority had enough influence on the ranks to implement non-violence, we would be looking at a whole different situation. But it only takes one overly emotional fellow to mess up a non violent protest.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
I personally think the leadership on both sides should be removed from power. Every person I met in Israel & Palestine was mainly interested in peaceful coexistence. There were a few who were pretty unwavering in their dislike of the other side, but even those wanted the violence to end.

There are a few radicals on both sides, of course, and then there are the respective governments who are, I believe, at least 60% of the problem over there.
 

---

Posted by St. Yogi (Member # 5974) on :
 
Yes, I agree skrika. It does only take one person to ruin the whole thing. The palestinian leaders really need to preach nonviolence to the people. It's the smartest thing.

But I can't see that happening any time soon.

EDIT: Yeah, Bob. The governments are the biggest problem.

[ March 22, 2004, 02:58 PM: Message edited by: St. Yogi ]
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
Bob's hit the nail on the head while simultaneously equalling Tom's postcount.

Very cool.
 

---

Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
 

quote:

---

I personally think the leadership on both sides should be removed from power. Every person I met in Israel & Palestine was mainly interested in peaceful coexistence. There were a few who were pretty unwavering in their dislike of the other side, but even those wanted the violence to end.

---

One note of hope - it looks like things have finally quieted down in Northern Ireland.

What finally turned the tide more than anything was the noncombatants in that country - Catholic and Protestant alike - to tell the extremists they had had enough of burying children, husbands and wives.

Cautious hope, anyway. The violence hasn't really died down for all that long and there are still people on both sides eager to resume hostilities. And it took a very long time...
 

---

Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
 
Sure this is a bad thing. From Israel's point of view they are going to do whatever it takes to stop the suicide attacks on their people. Of course this assassination won't do that, but then neither has anything else they've tried from peace talks to ceasefires etc.
The recent Israeli policy of assassinating the leaders of these movements is possibly more effective than other tactics they have tried. These scumbags who send in the suicide bombers to shopping centers, busses etc. richly deserve the violent death they are so willing to inflict on others.
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Trouble is, all of Israel's options are bad. This is one reason why I generall am pro-Israeli instead of pro-Palestinian, because the Palestinians have one option that is tried, true, and effective: nonviolent resistance and demostrations. The Palestinians (and those who claim to fight for them) have that option, violence against military targets, violence against civilian targets, and just accepting the status quo.

To my mind, they've (terrorists and their supporters) chosen the most odious and least effective means to resolve their problem. Then again, if my kid was killed by the Israeli Army, I might go blow up some Israeli kids too. (I mean this seriously, I can understand the rage felt by many Palestinians and Arabs.)

But what can the Israelis do? They can fight back, try peace talks, or accept the status quo (eventually leading to no more Israel). Peace talks might resolve the problem long-term. Big emphasis on the might, too. (I should mention that Arafat has proven either unwilling or unable to abide by them.) But in the short-term, they won't stop suicide bombers. Short-term can kill suicide bombers and cut the number of attacks against Israeli civilians, but ensures continuation of the long-term problem.

Israelis have at least tried everything, except outright capitulation. Palestinians have still left the biggest, most effective tool unused in favor of coldly targetting civilians for murder.
 

---

Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
So -- like American is under the Geneva Convention rules (after the world wars) to say we can't just go in and order the assasination of the leaders of other countries -- so is Israel not part of the Geneva convention? Or are they saying the Palestinians are not another country, therefore the rules don't apply?

Just trying for some clarification since I haven't followed this conflict all the way through...

Farmgirl
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
I'm not sure, Farmgirl. Good question. I can say that Israel more or less follows what international guidelines they feel like; they have flouted some UN decisions in the past, if memory serves.

Which I can understand. Such organizations tend to favor Palestinians and hamstring Israel
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
>> Israelis have at least tried everything, except outright capitulation. Palestinians have still left the biggest, most effective tool unused in favor of coldly targetting civilians for murder. <<

From the Palestinian perspective, when has negotiating ever worked for them? Being the weaker side of the conflict, what exactly have they got to bargain with? Israel already holds all of the cards, and is currently building a wall that cuts Palestinian territory off from its chief water supply.

What the Palestinians see is this: whenever we stop to negotiate, Israel continues to take de facto control of more territory with settlements, roads, checkpoints, and the new wall. It's no wonder Palestinians living in the West Bank see negotiation as a useless waste of time.

The Geneva proposal was certainly not unreasonable, but of course none of those involved have any actual influence on their respective leaders.
 

---

Posted by Raia (Member # 4700) on :
 

quote:

---

I think no one's started a thread because quite a few people here (myself included) have gotten into substantial flamewars over this in the past.

---

*shudders* Boy, do you have a point.

*thinks back to throat-slitting argument*

*gulps*

*returns to reading discussion on this thread, without posting (at least for the time being)*
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
>> *thinks back to throat-slitting argument* <<

o_O

I think I'm glad I missed that one, whatever it was.

I'm definitely willing to discuss this issue with Rakeesh, though, because even though he and I have differing views on this and a great many other things, he's sharp and always logical.

Edit: Plus, maybe I can catch up to his postcount.

[ March 22, 2004, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
 

---

Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
Okay, according to This Timeline this is all basically about who owns/occupies a certain piece of land, right? (changed because I found a better timeline)

Well, I guess that isn't what I want to get into in this post anyway.

I mainly want to look forward -- not what caused the past. I want to think about the global implications of this war if it gets "out of region", so to speak.

Farmgirl

edited -- better link

[ March 22, 2004, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: Farmgirl ]
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
Farmgirl-
The Israeli position is that the Palestinian Authority is not a nation, and therefore not covered by the geneva accords. The Palestinian authority of course disagrees.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
I just did a Google search and it appears that Israel rejects Version 4 of the Geneva Convention. I gather it has something to do with certain provisions being used against Israel related to building settlements, firing on civilian areas and bulldozing houses.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
>> And this has been going on (the conflict) since the 1930s?? <<

It got started in the late 1890s and built from there. The 1930s was when it really started to become a major issue for the occupying British.
 

---

Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
Twinky

yeah - I realized that when I updated my link (above). The original link just went back to the 1930s -- this gives a more ancient look at it.

It is an interesting read. Wow -- it's a complex issue.

Farmgirl
 

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 
Farmgirl, I wonder if the people who wrote that timeline are a little biased in favor of the Palestinians ..?

I'm curious, before this whole hundred-year history of bloodshed and revenge took place, what was the inciting incident? I mean, what were the Jewish immigrants doing that warranted violent uprisings?
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
Very much so.

...which is probably why I'm so pessimistic about peace. I just don't see it happening.

Edit:

>> I'm curious, before this whole hundred-year history of bloodshed and revenge took place, what was the inciting incident? I mean, what were the Jewish immigrants doing that warranted violent uprisings? <<

Well, the Zionist movement committed to establishing a Jewish homeland in Palestine in 1897. I can imagine that the Palestinians living under Ottoman and British rule in the early 1900s weren't happy, given that the stated goal of Zionist immigrants (not all of the Jewish immigrants were Zionists, of course, but the Zionist movement was certainly a major impetus behind the influx of Jews to Palestine) was to make Palestine their own.

[ March 22, 2004, 03:53 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
 

---

Posted by skrika03 (Member # 5930) on :
 
This guy wasn't a member of the Palestinian government. He was the leader of Hamas, which depending on who you are is either Palestine's most prestigious fraternity or a dangerous terrorist organization. If the later, it would make sense that Israel could see this as a police matter that the hosting government (the PA) wasn't dealing with. Much like we went into Afghanistan to get Bin Laden. (which, strangely, we haven't done yet).
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Twinky,

quote:

---

From the Palestinian perspective, when has negotiating ever worked for them? Being the weaker side of the conflict, what exactly have they got to bargain with? Israel already holds all of the cards, and is currently building a wall that cuts Palestinian territory off from its chief water supply.

---

My response would be, "When has it ever been seriously pursued?" This is just my perspective, but it seems to me that what happens is something like this: there's a cease-fire which holds for awhile. Peace negotiations begin. Things are offered-including virtually everything Palestinians demand, excluding right-of-return and some other issues-and Palestinians (or Arafat, really) reject them as unreasonable and swear to continue fighting.

I think negotiations haven't worked for Palestinians because you're defining it differently for them than you would if, say, you and I were negotiating something. If we negotiated something, we'd start from a list of things we both want, and both lists would get whittled down and shuffled around, and eventually we'd reach a settlement. We'd agree before starting negotiations that neither of us is going to get everything we want.

Arafat and terrorists attacking Israel are simply unwilling to accept that. Look at the Charter, after all. One of the goals is to simply erase Israel from the region. To my mind, Israeli leadership is also very frequently unreasonable, but at least they don't start out with a demand they know Palestinians can never, ever accept.

And as for the new wall...it's being built during continuous suicide bombing attacks. There is no cease-fire, so I think to use it is unreasonable.

Of course, I agree with Bob that the trouble is, the two societies-particularly Palestinian society-reward extremism with leadership, the very people least likely to reach a reasonable settlement. Also that neither Sharon nor Arafat really speak for the majority of Israelis or Palestinians true desires on those issues. (I will, however, point out that Arafat is a legitimate leader much less than Sharon is.)

J4

PS Right back atcha, Twink:) One of the nicest things said to me, I appreciate it very much.
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Oh, and never, Twinky!

*shakes fist*
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
(Edit: My post is hard to read. I apologize. I'll work on the formatting, but won't change any content.)

I'm going to have to be careful not to get dragged too far into this, I have large piles of work awaiting me...

>> My response would be, "When has it ever been seriously pursued?" This is just my perspective, but it seems to me that what happens is something like this: there's a cease-fire which holds for awhile. Peace negotiations begin. Things are offered-including virtually everything Palestinians demand, excluding right-of-return and some other issues-and Palestinians (or Arafat, really) reject them as unreasonable and swear to continue fighting. <<

I'd say that it was seriously pursued in 1948, but the UN's partition proposal was ridiculous (there were more Palestinians in the state designated as "Jewish" than there were Jews, by a significant margin). When the partition plan failed, the Zionists conquered by force of arms, declaring their independence and then fending off Arab attacks until their position was consolidated on the Green Line.

I also don't believe that Israel always negotiates in good faith. Ehud Barak's proposal, for instance, was even more absurd than the 1948 partition plan, notwithstanding that settlement construction continued unabated while the negotiations were taking place.

When were the Palestinians ever offered any agreement that would have led to a viable state? It wasn't Oslo. It wasn't Barak's proposal. It certainly wasn't the 1948 partition plan. The "road map" is too vague to call one way or another.

The only reasonable proposal I've ever seen is the Geneva proposal, but of course it was made by people outside of the leadership on both sides.

______________________

>> I think negotiations haven't worked for Palestinians because you're defining it differently for them than you would if, say, you and I were negotiating something. If we negotiated something, we'd start from a list of things we both want, and both lists would get whittled down and shuffled around, and eventually we'd reach a settlement. We'd agree before starting negotiations that neither of us is going to get everything we want. <<

Sure, but neither of us has already taken unilateral action. That is a crucial difference. Too much has already happened between Israel and the Palestinians to just start negotiating with a clean slate as though the last 56 years just didn't happen.

______________________

>> Arafat and terrorists attacking Israel are simply unwilling to accept that. Look at the Charter, after all. One of the goals is to simply erase Israel from the region. To my mind, Israeli leadership is also very frequently unreasonable, but at least they don't start out with a demand they know Palestinians can never, ever accept. <<

The Palestinian Authority has a website of its own on which the Charter is outlined, but sadly it currently appears to be down... not that that's surprising. Google isn't helping me with unbiased sources on that score, unfortunately.

But you're right about the clauses. The PA keeps saying they're going to change the charter but the measures keep getting frozen or stayed or who-knows-what-else, which is just absurd and reveals the influence of extremist elements of Palestinian society at even these high levels.

But when has this ever been asked for at the negotiation table? Over the last 56 years, multiple Israeli leaders have called for the annexation of the West Bank and Gaza strip, and even parts of Jordan, because those are the borders of the "true" Jewish state. Where are the Palestinians supposed to go in such a circumstance, exactly? David Ben-Gurion put it best: "Drive them out."

In other words, the Palestinians aren't the only ones with extremists in their midst.

______________________

>> And as for the new wall...it's being built during continuous suicide bombing attacks. There is no cease-fire, so I think to use it is unreasonable. <<

It's also being built during continuous missile attacks. We can agree to drop the wall with respect to negotiations, but to call it "retaliatory" action is a misnomer, I think. Any "who-did-what-to-whom-first" debate is ultimately going to wind up back in 1948 anyway.

______________________

>> Of course, I agree with Bob that the trouble is, the two societies-particularly Palestinian society-reward extremism with leadership, the very people least likely to reach a reasonable settlement. Also that neither Sharon nor Arafat really speak for the majority of Israelis or Palestinians true desires on those issues. (I will, however, point out that Arafat is a legitimate leader much less than Sharon is.) <<

I think Arafat should have handed over the reins and held a real election about fifteen years ago, but instead he got used to photo ops and trips to Washington and being able to steal lots of money from the PA. Bah.

By the same token, however, how in the heck are the Palestinians supposed to have a real election when Israel continually destroys Palestinian infrastructure?

Basically, I don't agree with your weighting of responsibility.

(Edited for paragraph spacings.)

[ March 22, 2004, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 
I don't think Sharon is a great leader, but that's by the by.

I think this was a stupid move - I don't see how it can do anything but escalate tensions, not only in Palestine, but in other Muslim countries. Which isn't really a desirable thing right now.

In terms of veiwing Hammas as a terrorist organisation, the assasination could probably be given some moral justification.* However in terms of the US trying to eliminate Osama Bin Laden, that happened in an out and out war against Afgahnistan. I don't think many people in Israel or Palestine desire the escalation of tensions to an out and out war - yet it seems this is where this move is taking them.

*That is, if you believe it's morally justified to assasinate terrorists.

I just think it's bad news. For everyone involved.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
That's basically my problem with it. I certainly don't support Hamas and would dearly love to see their influence on Palestinians utterly purged... but I don't see how any progress can possibly come of a move like this.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
I have seriously prayed for Palestinian Ghandi. I hope they find one someday.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
Hanan Ashrawi is probably about as close as they'll come, but the Palestinian Authority keeps marginalizing her.

(She's a relatively moderate Christian Palestinian who is married to a Jewish man. She's been working with the PA since its inception but has never gotten any real clout. Very sad, IMO.)

Diana Buttu is also an excellent spokeswoman – she's a Canadian-born Palestinian who is currently the PA's legal advisor – but, again, they never let her decide anything or give any important speeches or anything.


 

---

Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
 
Hamas in not a legitimate political organization!!! Its a terrorist group like Islamic Jihad and Al-Queda. How is a nation not justified in executing the leader/founder of a group that murders innocent civilians for the sake of causing terror? Its not even as if Israel took out Yasser Arafat who is half legitimate politician and half terrorist. What makes this "assasination" any different from the dozens Israel has already caried out except that this one was responsible for more murders? In fact considering that he was a religious leader if Muslims are truly angry at the falsification of their beliefs by these terrorists then they should be happy! Besides since when were political leaders considered immune? The CIA tried to kill Fidel Castro a few times for one. Moreover, were Allied attempts during WWII to assasinate Hitler unjustified?

Here's what really bothers me, where was the outrage when the Israeli Minister of Tourism of murdered last year?
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
I hereby invoke Godwin's Law.

(Edited to add the wink.)

[ March 22, 2004, 09:57 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
 

---

Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
 
Fine would you prefer Kurds trying to kill Saddam Hussein after he dropped loads of chemical weapons on their villages? How does political office in and of itself guaruntee immunity? Not of course that Hamas's founder is to considered a holder of political office.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
I don't think it's that different from any of the other assassinations Israel has carried out. There are a few differences, though.

• The victim was a relatively prominent figure.
• The actual assassination – hitting him with a rocket as he came out of a mosque – was pretty in-your-face.

I certainly don't think of it as being significantly different from any of the other assassinations Israel has been carrying out.
 

---

Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
 
My personal take on this, and it won't be a popular one, is that it was about time.

I believe that on the Arab side of the equation (rather than the Palestinian side, I'll get to that in a bit) is that this has been a war against Israel by proxy since Egypt backed out of fighting Israel in the late 1970s.

Since then, only Syria has ever tangled with Israel full on, and then it was in the area of Lebanon, with much of the fighting being handled by Hamas and the various Lebanese militias.

In the meantime, many Arabic countries have funneled weapons and money into the Palestinian organizations and some are no more than shadow groups proclaiming Palestinian status but with foreign leadership. The do use, however, Palestinian youths as their footsoldiers and bomb-wearers.

Throughout this entire mess, and it is truly a mess, the leadership of the groups, and their foreign backers have sat in seeming impunity right under Israel's nose. They've thumbed their noses at peace iniatives, funneled in more money and kept a sore well picked. It is not them, nor their own sons, who have died in the homicide bombings or the raids... it is the sons and daughters of the old refugee camps that are now cities that have paid the blood price.

It's about danged time someone lowered the hammer on these creeps. They've kept either side from holding any sort of peace or pursuing a better life for any of the Palestinians.

So yes, I think Israel finally laid it on the line for them by saying: If you direct the homicide bombings and the terrorist acts, we will reign unholy Hell down not upon the Palestinian people but on you.

Blow him up at a mosque? I'm sure that sounds tacky to some and sacreligious to others. Guess what? If most of the planning for the violence, most of the recruiting of soldiers goes on at the mosque, then by God or Allah, it is a military target and it might very well be the root of the evil that has festered for too long there... an Evil that has claimed the lives of too many Palestinian and Israeli children.

Perhaps this will show some of the Palestinians how far these Hamas and Hezbollah leaders have perverted their religion... so much so that no one outside of the religion, even a country founded on theology, will view their holy places as sacrosanct sanctuary.

Without Hamas, Hezbollah, the PLO and other organizations, the Palestinians would probably have a better life now and be a part of a nation making something of itself in the Middle East, rather than a group of terrorists without a true home.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
John – on that last bit, that was directed at me – damn straight. The Europeans totally screwed up the Middle East.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 

 

---

Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
 
That the "assasination" was "in your face" and that Yassin was prominent doesn't provide reason as to why the attack wasn't justified.
 

---

Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
 
And I would contend that Germany and Russia helped plenty to screw up the Middle East so its not just the Western Europeans that messed up.

[ March 23, 2004, 12:11 AM: Message edited by: newfoundlogic ]
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
>> That the "assasination" was "in your face" and that Yassin was prominent doesn't provide reason as to why the attack wasn't justified. <<



That's not the question you asked. I answered the question you asked.

It's not even a matter of it being unjustified. I simply don't see it accomplishing anything for Israel in terms of even its own goals.
 

---

Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
 
"I hereby invoke Godwin's Law."

Godwin is a nazi.

"Hamas in not a legitimate political organization!!!"

Neither is the RepublicanParty. But if illegitimate folk wanna get together...

"Its a terrorist group"

So is Likud. Admittedly Likud kills a LOT more innocent bystanders, and provides better security for the murderers heading it.
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
How is this act any different from the U.S. hitting Osama bin Laden with a missile when he is leaving a Mosque?
 

---

Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
Well, actually that IS one of the things I originally thought of when I heard of this -- how is it different than us going after bin Laden.

Since bin Laden isn't really a country or political leader, he doesn't fall under the assasination protection of Geneva.

I guess I tend to think of Palestine as a country, or at least with some structure politically/religiously. Whereas the bin Laden group is not.

That's just in my head.

Farmgirl
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
But we're talking about the leadership of Hamas, not Palestine. Palestine has its own leaders already.
 

---

Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
 
WestBank&Gaza is an occupied territory, and thus is covered by GenevaConvention protections against harming innocent civilians, and against targetting religious buildings.

Whatever one may feel about the intended target, seven other people were killed for attending mosque services. And five more were killed in the protests which followed. Undoubtedly, there were even more wounded&injured.
 

---

Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
 
It’s not so much the assassination that’s the problem. It’s more that, even after more than half a century of trying, Israel is still fighting terrorism with the barrel of a gun. You can’t kill ideas that abstract. Can you point to a person or a group of persons that, once removed, will end the terrorist threat? Short of full-scale genocide that is. So you’ve killed one key person, now there’s a power void and plenty of people clamoring to fill it. You don’t even have to be particularly charismatic to convince someone who already feels they have no hope to kill themselves for a cause.
 

---

Posted by BUZZ (Member # 6359) on :
 
As a PARENT, when my kids are fighting I may try to find out who instigated the fight, but both kids should know better than to hurt each other. I think both sides need a time out. The United States is the only power that could moderate such a cooling off period. Murder is a criminal activity. If the criminals were put away through judicial process, most of the people could live peacefully as neighbors. Both sides need to surrender their power positions in the interest of peace. Let a higher authority such as the UN make decisions for a while. When the population has turned to peaceful business pursuits, a representative government can be tried - with UN oversight. History is Histrionics - for both sides. As a planet, we need to quiet this problem and control it until individuals from both sides see each other as people with similar needs, wants, ambitions - and not as objects (obstacles, vehicles, or irrelevant).

This opinion comes from a man who has served as an Arabic linguist for the US Air Force during the first Gulf War and who has graduated with a degree in Arabic. I also studied Hebrew for 2 years before enlisting. I have heard about a lot of topics 2nd hand through my wife who has a post count of about 3,000. This is my first post.
 

---

Posted by aka (Member # 139) on :
 
Wow, welcome Buzz! Awesome first post. I'm really interested in the Arabic language thing. The best I've been able to find for Iraqi Arabic is a dvd course in Egyptian Arabic, yet I understand there are significant differences in vocabulary. Do you know any way I can try to learn actual Iraqi Arabic? I'm planning on going over there as soon as possible.
 

---

Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
 
ahlaan ya Buzz. Itsharafna. I hope you enjoy Hatrack.

Edit: aka, are you still doing that MSA thing?

[ March 23, 2004, 10:55 AM: Message edited by: sarcasticmuppet ]
 

---

Posted by aka (Member # 139) on :
 
My computer is fuxored, in such a way that I haven't been able to get my new DVD player to work. My CD-RW won't write, either. That's always been true. The experts are baffled. In the meantime I've been sort of up to the neck in this California job, without too much time to spend on it, so the short answer is.... not yet.

I know I'm going to be very sorry I didn't work harder the first time someone with a Kalashnikov screams at me and I can't understand what he says.
 

---

Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
 
Is it the NMELRC DVD with Mahmoud Al-Batal, or something else? It's a shame you can't get it to work.
 

---

Posted by skrika03 (Member # 5930) on :
 
Buzz
Here's the other thread I mentioned: Dog's Israel Question

Dog is OSC's grown son, by the way. Just in case the name reminds you strongly of my brother like it does me.

I have to apologize, there are about double the number of new threads. Must be spring. Most folks when they start out stick with the snail's pace of the "Discussions on OSC" folder.

P.S. aka, it's probably best to learn MSA. Everyone can understand it. The differences in dialects tend to be stuff that don't show up in writing. If I recall correctly, Iraqi and Egyptian have different epenthesis patterns. That is, they insert vowels into consonant clusters differently.

[ March 23, 2004, 05:28 PM: Message edited by: skrika03 ]
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Twinky,

The points you made reminded me that there are many, many issues on which I don't much like defending Israeli actions, and in fact admit they frequently screw up and deliberately mistreat Palestinians.

Just wanted that part clear before I continue, and sorry it's taken so long for a response.

quote:

---

I'd say that it was seriously pursued in 1948, but the UN's partition proposal was ridiculous (there were more Palestinians in the state designated as "Jewish" than there were Jews, by a significant margin). When the partition plan failed, the Zionists conquered by force of arms, declaring their independence and then fending off Arab attacks until their position was consolidated on the Green Line.

I also don't believe that Israel always negotiates in good faith. Ehud Barak's proposal, for instance, was even more absurd than the 1948 partition plan, notwithstanding that settlement construction continued unabated while the negotiations were taking place.

---

quote:

---

The only reasonable proposal I've ever seen is the Geneva proposal, but of course it was made by people outside of the leadership on both sides.

---

quote:

---

Sure, but neither of us has already taken unilateral action. That is a crucial difference. Too much has already happened between Israel and the Palestinians to just start negotiating with a clean slate as though the last 56 years just didn't happen.

---

quote:

---

But you're right about the clauses. The PA keeps saying they're going to change the charter but the measures keep getting frozen or stayed or who-knows-what-else, which is just absurd and reveals the influence of extremist elements of Palestinian society at even these high levels.

---

True enough, but at least there's been some vacillation (sp?) on the Israeli side. But throughoug the entire conflict, there has loomed the undeniable ultimate goal of Palestinian-supporting suicide bombers: utterly eradicate Israel from the region. This is part of a much larger problem, that Israel has no one to negotiate with that can be trusted. Not just trusted to stick to an agreement, but trusted to have the means to force compliance from others.

Now, Israel bears some responsibility for this. You're right, they've destroyed Palestinian governing infrastructure, police stations, etc. But I must point out that Israel's reason for doing so bears scrutiny: that the 'leaders' of the Palestinian people, those who used the infrastructure, were utterly dedicated to destroying Israel, or supporting actively those who did.

-----

Once again, broadly, the reason I tend to side with Israelis over Palestinians-while admitting that the Palestinians have really been shafted-is that those claiming to fight for Palestinians have embraced the most murderous and evil style of conflict which is at once the least effective. You correctly point out, "What else have they tried that's worked?" and I have to admit that from a Palestinian perspective, negotiations with Israel might be a joke. But other oppressed peoples have suffered more and done less evil than those supporting Palestinians, and such tactics are obviously more effective.

One other thing that needs to be addressed: another major problem Palestinians face, aside from Israel, is the Arab nations in the region. For all the talk of Arabic brotherhood and standing up to the Zionist tyrant, the Arabic nations in the region seem remarkably willing to let a great number of Palestinians rot and suffer in refugee camps.

This is another way in which Palestinians are screwed. Their 'friends' are willing to ruthlessly exploit them, even pay them, to keep fighting Israel, with the ideal of making life better for Palestinians. But citizenship, living space, welfare, money for actual amenties, etc.? That's not really on the table, is it? Not that I've heard, anyway.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
I agree with a fair amount of what you said, so I'll only address the points with which I take issue...

>> I have a really hard time taking agreeing with anyone who thinks Israel did something wrong when they seized land from the enemies who tried, in war, to do so. Given that those enemies would've done and were aiming to do exactly that, but they weren't as good at the game as Israel. <<

We seem to be talking about different wars – you about 1967, me about 1948. In 1967, both sides were wrong. The Arab states massed their troops and Israel shot first. A perfect example of preemptive war, actually.

But that's beside the point I want to make, which is that the reason, in my mind, that the Occupied Territories shouldn't have been occupied is not that they were conquered in war, regaradless of who did what to whom, is what happened in 1948. For me that's always what it comes back to. Israel owes the Palestinians the Occupied Territories for taking the rest of what the Palestinians thought they had been promised as their country (of course, as John points out, a similar promise was also made to the Jews).

__________________________

>> I'll agree to that, but it seems to me that Palestinians-and Israelis, to a lesser extent-want negotiations to give them everything they want, right now. If it doesn't happen that way, then the negotiations are declared treachery against the Palestinian people or somesuch, and suicide bombings and deliberate, targetted attacks against Israeli civilians begins anew. <<

First, the groups carrying out the suicide bombings are not beholden to the folks at the negotiation table. Keep in mind that Palestinian society is not – and cannot be, so long as it has no infrastructure to speak of – a monolithic entity. It's not as though the PA could somehow shut down Hamas and the Islamic Jihad, when it has extremists even in its own ranks, but this is what Israel continually demands that they do.

I have to say that I honestly believe that for any progress to happen, Israel is going to have to "be the bigger man" here, for the simple reason that Israel is a state. When its government decides to do something, that thing generally happens. This is not the way it is with the Palestinians and it won't happen for them until their quality of life improves dramatically. If their quality of life improves, the suicide bombings will slow and ultimately stop.

Yes, I realize that this means Israel has to stop retaliating, but look at what they're doing right now – their current tactics do nothing more than inflame the situation such that extremist Palestinian groups have no trouble finding new recruits. So long as Israel continues to keep the Palestinians on what amounts to a big reservation, with controls on where they can go and what they can do even within their own territory, Hamas' ranks will continue to swell.

__________________________

>> I'll admit it poses an enormous problem...but frankly, I think both sides need to just suck it up and get over it. It seems to me that that kind of thinking is the only way serious negotiations will ever be completed, if they ever will. <<

It's hard for Palestinians to do that. Since my mother's family left Jaffa in 1948, she has been back twice. The first time in 1967 or 68, with her brother, they went back to Jaffa and found, unsurprisingly, an Israeli family living in their house, to which they no longer had any right. The second time was in the late eighties with my father and I, and we stayed in the Occupied Territories, in a small village where we have some family. The village is mostly olive farmers, or rather, was mostly olive farmers until Israel bulldozed the entire olive orchard a couple of years ago. Not that any suicide bombers came from this small hamlet, it was just there.

Israel basically has what it wants – a Jewish state, which is strong and prosperous compared to the other countries in the region. The Palestinians have... well, pretty much nothing.

Now, I agree with the thrust of your point, but I hope you understand that that won't be easy – maybe even not possible – for the Palestinians to do.

________________________

>> Once again, broadly, the reason I tend to side with Israelis over Palestinians-while admitting that the Palestinians have really been shafted-is that those claiming to fight for Palestinians have embraced the most murderous and evil style of conflict which is at once the least effective. You correctly point out, "What else have they tried that's worked?" and I have to admit that from a Palestinian perspective, negotiations with Israel might be a joke. But other oppressed peoples have suffered more and done less evil than those supporting Palestinians, and such tactics are obviously more effective. <<

Absolutely. You're right about the Palestinian view of negotations, and you're right that the suicide bombers only perpetuate the conflict. I completely agree. But what 18-year-old Palestinian boy has heard of Ghandi? Or Nelson Mandela? The one who joins Hamas almost certainly hasn't.

__________________

>> This is another way in which Palestinians are screwed. Their 'friends' are willing to ruthlessly exploit them, even pay them, to keep fighting Israel, with the ideal of making life better for Palestinians. But citizenship, living space, welfare, money for actual amenties, etc.? That's not really on the table, is it? Not that I've heard, anyway. <<

Yes, the Arab countries have been the second-worst thing to happen to the Palestinians. Of course, the problems in the Arab countries go well beyond the Palestinians, and the whole region is in desperate need of some sort of progress – though as an aside, I completely disagree with the American approach to fostering such progress. A large part of the problem, as John pointed out, is how thoroughly the entire region has been screwed up by outside meddling – the colonial powers after WW1, for example, who just drew arbitrary lines on the map so they could divide up the territory amongst themselves. The whole problem of the Kurds in Iraq would not be extant today if Europe had drawn Iraq along ethnic lines...

A reason that the Arab countries don't offer the Palestinians anything permanent is that Israel will simply say "why do you want the Occupied Territories, then? Just go to Jordan or Syria, they'll take you!" I don't think that's valid justification – especially given that plenty of Israel's supporters already make that argument – but that's a part of the mentality.

________________

Again, I'm pretty firm in my belief that for there to be progress, Israel has to take positive unilateral steps in good faith. After doing that, they'll have to be willing to tolerate more of the same – without retaliating – until the Palestinian infrastructure is built and their quality of life improves.

I know that isn't easy, and believe me I wish I could see another solution that didn't require Israel to just sit around while its citizens are murdered until the extremist Palestinian groups lose their support. But I don't see any other way for it to happen.
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
"We seem to be talking about different wars ? you about 1967, me about 1948. In 1967, both sides were wrong. The Arab states massed their troops and Israel shot first. A perfect example of preemptive war, actually."

Israel shot first, but egypt had already carried out Acts of War, which, had they been perpetrated against any nation but Israel, would be recognized by the world community as actually starting the war.

I don't want to get into this debate again, so I'm not going to discuss other matters, but technically speaking, the first acts of war were Egyptian.

And, the first shots between Israeli's and Jordanians were heavy artillery shots fired into civilian population centers.

[ March 25, 2004, 05:18 PM: Message edited by: Paul Goldner ]
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
>> Israel shot first, but egypt had already carried out Acts of War, which, had they been perpetrated against any nation but Israel, would be recognized by the world community as actually starting the war. <<

Didn't the UN, after the fact, classify the war as defensive? I thought that was part of resolution 242.
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
Yeah, they did, but you are stating that Israel was wrong for firing the first shot. *shrug* They had the choice either to fire first, be economically strangled, or let the arab armies invade. The implication of your statement is that Israel should have let itself die, rather then fire first... Israel was already at war, however, when they fired the first bullet, and so stating they were "Wrong" for firing the first shot seems to be an interesting choice of words
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
>> In 1967, both sides were wrong. <<
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
Full paragraph...

"We seem to be talking about different wars ? you about 1967, me about 1948. In 1967, both sides were wrong. The Arab states massed their troops and Israel shot first. A perfect example of preemptive war, actually."

To me, its clear you are talking about moral culpability for the initiation of war.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
Except that I go on to specifically explain what I thought Israel did that was wrong, namely, occupying the West Bank and Gaza:

>> But that's beside the point I want to make, which is that the reason, in my mind, that the Occupied Territories shouldn't have been occupied is not that they were conquered in war, regaradless of who did what to whom, is what happened in 1948. For me that's always what it comes back to. <<
 

---

Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
 
How are both sides wrong in 1967? The Egyptians are about to launch a suprise attack on Israel, the Mossad finds out about it, and Israel launches a preemptive strike. What's wrong with Israeli actions?

In 1948 the Palestinians were promised land but instead of agreeing to the UN resolution creating two states they attacked Israel first. Then, the land now known as "Palestine" was occupied not by Israel, but by Egypt and Jordan.
 

---

Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
 
I'm sorry for this totally fluffy and probably inappropriate observation, but when I first saw a photo of Yassin I noticed a striking resemblance to this guy. Hmm...
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Twinky,

quote:

---

We seem to be talking about different wars – you about 1967, me about 1948. In 1967, both sides were wrong. The Arab states massed their troops and Israel shot first. A perfect example of preemptive war, actually.

But that's beside the point I want to make, which is that the reason, in my mind, that the Occupied Territories shouldn't have been occupied is not that they were conquered in war, regaradless of who did what to whom, is what happened in 1948. For me that's always what it comes back to. Israel owes the Palestinians the Occupied Territories for taking the rest of what the Palestinians thought they had been promised as their country (of course, as John points out, a similar promise was also made to the Jews).

---

quote:

---

First, the groups carrying out the suicide bombings are not beholden to the folks at the negotiation table. Keep in mind that Palestinian society is not – and cannot be, so long as it has no infrastructure to speak of – a monolithic entity. It's not as though the PA could somehow shut down Hamas and the Islamic Jihad, when it has extremists even in its own ranks, but this is what Israel continually demands that they do.

---

quote:

---

Yes, I realize that this means Israel has to stop retaliating, but look at what they're doing right now – their current tactics do nothing more than inflame the situation such that extremist Palestinian groups have no trouble finding new recruits. So long as Israel continues to keep the Palestinians on what amounts to a big reservation, with controls on where they can go and what they can do even within their own territory, Hamas' ranks will continue to swell.

---

quote:

---

Israel basically has what it wants – a Jewish state, which is strong and prosperous compared to the other countries in the region. The Palestinians have... well, pretty much nothing.

Now, I agree with the thrust of your point, but I hope you understand that that won't be easy – maybe even not possible – for the Palestinians to do.

---

I've got to take issue with the 'Israel basically has what it wants', but I understand what you mean. And I am sorry about your mother as well I will say that I don't think right of return should necessarily be denied for all Palestinians-just the ones who fled when Arab nations promised them, "You'll get it all back after we're done destroying Israel."

I get angry at the Israeli government and Sharon when I hear stories about expanded settlements and bulldozed villages, etc. Not just because it's cruel and (I think) unnecessary, but because he's sticking with his own extremists and it serves no real long-term good but exacerbating the hatreds.

quote:

---

But what 18-year-old Palestinian boy has heard of Ghandi? Or Nelson Mandela? The one who joins Hamas almost certainly hasn't.

---

quote:

---

Yes, the Arab countries have been the second-worst thing to happen to the Palestinians. Of course, the problems in the Arab countries go well beyond the Palestinians, and the whole region is in desperate need of some sort of progress – though as an aside, I completely disagree with the American approach to fostering such progress. A large part of the problem, as John pointed out, is how thoroughly the entire region has been screwed up by outside meddling – the colonial powers after WW1, for example, who just drew arbitrary lines on the map so they could divide up the territory amongst themselves. The whole problem of the Kurds in Iraq would not be extant today if Europe had drawn Iraq along ethnic lines...

---

I agree completely, even with the part about America up until the invasion of Iraq . Talking about our previous methods of fostering democracy. Being buddy-buddy with monarchies ain't the way to do that, no matter how much oil they have.

One reason I tend to get a little irritated with Europeans complaining about America is because America is so involved in fixing problems created by Colonial powers meddling. Asia, Africa, Middle-East, all of their current troubles owe a great deal to European inept meddling and redrawing of boundaries.

I hadn't thought of what Israel would say if Jordan or Syria offered true haven to Palestinians, but you're right.
 

---

Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
 
Don't forget that Kuwait did offer a relatively generous haven but what did the Palestinians do with that haven? They cheered when it was taken over by Saddam. On top of that, the other Arab countries aren't the second worst thing to happen to the Palestinians, they're the worst period. Its the Arab nations who have rejected their own kin. Its the Arab nations who have participated in whole sale slaughter of Palestinians to a far higher degree than it could be even be argued the Israelis have committed, its the other Arab nations who forced the rejection of the UN compromise in 1948. If it weren't for the other Arab nations' meddling we wouldn't be having this discussion because there would be two states, one Arab, one Jewish with Jerusalem as an international city.
 

---

Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
 
*hands nfl a napkin*
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
So, what's your stance on Poland, newfoundlogic?

http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/forum/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=022621#000001
 

---