The IDF at work "fighting terrorism"

From today's NY Times, describing an IDF raid wherein the government of Israel defends itself against terrorism:


"The largest operation was launched against Beit Hanoun, a town of about 20,000 Palestinians in northern Gaza.


A 21-year-old man, Samer Hamad, was wounded by Israeli tank fire while standing in a field near his house, Palestinian doctors said. Hamad was taken to a local clinic, but Israeli troops barred ambulances from transferring him to a hospital in Gaza City, his relatives said. The wounded man eventually was taken by taxi on a side road, but died before reaching the hospital.


The Israeli military said Palestinian paramedics never submitted a request to enter Beit Hanoun.


Army bulldozers knocked down an outer wall of the girls' high school in Beit Hanoun, and soldiers pitched tents in the courtyard and raised an Israeli flag, witnesses said."


From Ha'aretz, on the another raid the same day:


"Palestinian security officials said three policemen were killed in Dir al-Balah when an Israeli bulldozer destroyed their post. Troops shot two other Palestinians in an exchange of fire in Beit Hanoun and at least ten people were arrested, Palestinian witnesses and hospital officials said. ...


Palestinian security officials said the five policemen were killed in Deir al-Balah when an Israeli bulldozer destroyed their position. Israeli sources said the five were shot dead by tank fire when it appeared they were about to open fire. There were no reports of Israeli casualties."


That's five more PA cops that won't be arresting any Hamas activists.


Notice the deliberate attempts to humiliate: destroying schools and police stations, raising the flag of the foreign occupier, killing local authorities, killing a guy standing in a field (maybe he was trying to terrorize the field); denying access to medical services. This isn't anti-terrorism, it's terrorism, intimidation and provocation in order to ensure, as some advocate, "continual war."

He still has delusions. He thinks that George Bush is Don Corleone, and he thinks that the fairest system of world government is demonstrted by Osama Bin Laden,Yasser Arafat, and Paradise Poker. Of course he mixes mama and papa into his garbled speach when discussing Paradise.....


The medication hasn't helped.

It's heavy-handed use of force, perhaps oppressively so. You don't quote anything about the context of the events so it is somewhat hard to judge all that is going on; e.g., was the man standing in his field hit by stray fire, or was he deliberately targeted while he was doing nothing? What about the context of the events as a whole?


Humiliation is NOT terrorism.


Shhoting 5 PA policemen who were about to open fire is NOT terrorism.


Raising a flag is NOT terrorism.


Denying medical services, depending on the circumstances, may range from necessary to very bad. My guess is that this was indeed on the bad side but we don't know the details of the ambulances, etc. or if there were security concerns that might have weighed somewhat (although I agree probably not enough to justify this).


Terrorism is not merely suppression, or oppression, or the use (or overuse) of force.


Don't you see the difference between the above and: suicide bombers striking a girl's bas mitzvah party, suicide bombers attacking a disco, the murder of Olympic athletes, the targeting of a totally uninvolved family who is vacationing in a foreign country?


The PA is not doing what they must do to curb terrorism. Arresting a few militants isn't going to do do the trick. The PA needs to declare illegal the existence and operation of Islamic Jihad and all other such organizations operating from within their territories, close their offices, arrest ALL leaders of these organizations and force the other members to disband. Israel is retaiating against the PA for allowing these groups to continue, flourish and launch attacks from within their territory.

I will amend my statement on the denying of medical services to allow the possibility that under some circumstances, it should be considered criminal. However even this is NOT the equivalent of suicide bombers targeting a girl's bas mitzvah party or the murder of Olympic athletes.


Doesn't anything strike you as being illogical and wrong about the idea that targeting totally innocent and uninvolved people, as a means to make a point, is an acceptable means of settling disputes or waging war? I think the entire world needs to make it very clear that this practice is both morally and logically wrong, and that it cannot and will not be tolerated anywhere.

Very insightful response.

Reading this post, together with the "Justification for Arab Hatred" post below, is very depressing.


One does not have to approve of Palestinian tactics to also disapprove of Israeli tactics. And one does not have to approve of Israeli attitudes to be sickened by, for example, the Saudi government's thinking, as exemplified in the article cited in the "Justification for Arab Hatred" post.


Rather than questioning Chris's motives or sincerity or evenhandedness, I prefer to read what he posts and absorb it's content. Posts like the one immediately below Chris's (by "chris Alger's Psychotherapist") serve only to show the willful ignorance or the poster. There is no question that Israel has not been merely an innocent victim in its dealings with the Palestinians. This is not to say that the Palestinians are blameless in the apparently endless cycle of violence. But those who dismiss the information Chris posts because they don't like him or his views are only looking at one side of the story.


The Zionists and the Israelis have always treated the Palestinians with contempt. Those who, even in the early years, pointed out that there were people on the land, were ignored or marginalized. The Zionists chose to ignore them and concentrate their efforts on the British, first with diplomacy and then with guns.


There is plenty of blame to go around for all parties. The first Israeli historians were basically triumphalists who insisted their country had done and could do no wrong and that the enemy was 100% to blame for the problems. More recently, younger historians such as Benny Morris and Avi Schlaim have shown that such a viewpoint is distorted. Sharon's worldview certainly has more in common with Jabotinksy's Iron Wall than with Chaim Weitzman's socialism.


This leaves me with the question I posed in another thread below: What is the answer? Is there an answer? Are the parties doomed to continued fighting until one is basically eliminated or marginalized, like the Amerian Indians? It seems a problem almost without acceptable solution.

I have heard, and read a bit to similar effect, that the Arabs treat the Palestinians like dirt too. It is only because the Arabs hate Israel even more that they side with the Palestinians versus Israel. For instance, I have heard that Jordan has a very large Palestinian population themselves (can't vouch for this), yet they annexed land which was allocated for the Palestinians now living in Israel--basically Jordan robbed them.


The whole thing is an unbelievable mess and let's not forget that many desert peoples have a long history of infighting for ages (and does any other culture have the actual specific concept of 'holy war' built into their religion?)


At a certain point I think you have to say, look, dammit, here's a settlement and nobody likes it 100% but it's better than endless fighting. So here it is and abide by it and that had better be the end of it. And I think it that along with a settlement and homeland, the terrorist organizations should have to cease and desist ... or else. It needs to be made crystal clear that terror attacks targeting innocent uninvolved parties are intolerable.

A long time ago there was an organization called Brit Shalom which favored the creation of a bi-national state in Palestine. There were some Jewish luminaries who favored this approach, including, I believe, Judah Magnes and perhaps also Martin Buber. I am Jewish, but the idea of a Jewish state has always been a problem for me. I can go to Israel and have all of the rights and responsibilities of citizenship, but President Bush, for example, cannot. And this is so because of the religion we profess, or rather, the religion our mothers professed.


I would hope there would be a Palestinian state alongside of Israel with a mutual defense pact and I dream of their merging one day into that bi-national state. These hopes and dreams are overridden, I'm afraid, by the reality of what I fear will be continued violence, leading to disaster. The Palestinians, absent the kind of massive, imposed solution you allude to, will probably continue their tactics, similar to the way the American Indians tried to stave off the inevitable in the 19th century, and their fate in the 21st century will probably approximate that of the American Indians in the 20th century, without the casinos.


It's worth remembering that many guerilla and terrorist organizations (for example, the IRA)

use(d) Menachem Begin's book The Revolt as their bible in planning and executing their policies. This is not to excuse or in any way condone the activities of the Irgun, the IRA, or Hamas, but to point out that many times people who are convinced they are 100% right will resort to violence against civilians to try to achieve their goals. Hopefully we in the United States and elsewhere can use our influence to convince the combatants that neither side is 100% right and that, as you suggest, a solution must be found that, unavoidably, will not be liked 100% by either party.


Otherwise I fear we face an earthquake of such colossal magnitude that the pre-shocks we've experienced these past 100 years, horrible as they have been, will seem miniscule in comparison. I hope I am wrong about this.

I strongly agree with Mr. M here. It appears that what you are doing is taking things out of context to present your case. Sort of "the end justifies the means" sort of thing. You must understand that Israel has a very democratic and open government. Thus when news comes out of its territory, it comes with warts and all, and it's easy to just seize on the warts if that's what you are looking for.


On the other hand, the countries and organizations that you seem to praise do not operate in this fashion. Their news is more controlled and their warts are kept hidden. In the Arab world, based on my understanding, only Jordan has a fair amount of democratic freedom, and even here it is not close to what Israel has to offer. You should keep this in mind when you put your anti-Israeli posts here. For example, if you lived in Syria and wanted to post anti-Syrian information, how long do you think you will be allowed to do it.

"For instance, I have heard that Jordan has a very large Palestinian population themselves (can't vouch for this), yet they annexed land which was allocated for the Palestinians now living in Israel--basically Jordan robbed them."


I think this is a forgotten point. In the original partition of Palestine there was suppose to be a Palestinian homeland, but the Arabs refused it.