The IDF at work "fighting terrorism"

"Humiliation is NOT terrorism."


I didn't equate the two. It serves to provoke terrorism, however, which is why our own government criticized Israel for the raids, as reported in yesterday's Houston Chronicle: “Before the raids, the United States said Israeli attacks in heavily populated areas were counter-productive, a rare rap on the knuckles from Washington for Israel.” "Counterproductive" means "tending to hinder the attainment of a desired goal." Even our government understands that these raids don't serve to "combat terrorism."


The same source reports the obvious: “The Palestinian Authority says its ability to rein in militants is hampered by army blockades on Palestinian areas.”


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


They opened fire because an Israeli bulldozer was trying to destroy their offices. Or do you think the bulldozer was just standing by and the bulldozing, as with the other rocket and missile attacks on PA security offices (virtually every week now), was an afterthought?


I can imagine your response if Palestinians drove a bulldozer to Jerusalem and tried to demolish an Israeli police office, and then killed 5 Israelie officers for shooting at them. If I were to say, well, they only killed them after they shot at the Palestinians, so that's not terrorism, you'd call me a rank apologist, and you'd be right.


"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?"


No, I'm afraid I don't see the difference between using a tank to kill a civilian standing in a field by his house and using a suicide bomb to kill civilians in their homes. Nor do I see the difference between shooting IDF soldiers eating lunch and using rockets in a crowded civilian area to kill Palestinian militants (not just "terrorists"). Nor do I see the difference between Israel's "extrajudicial killing" of Palestinian officials and the PFLP's murder of Israeli officials. Maybe you could clarify it.


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


I didn't say that terrorism was the "mere" overuse of force, but it certainly can be, unless we just want to plant different labels on our side and their side (Palestinians "terrorize," the IDF "merely overuses force"). According the State Department, terrorism is the "[p]remeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience." Unless we adopt the hypocritical position that no government can engage in terrorism because they use armies instead of "subnational groups," destroying schools, police stations, blocks of homes, extrajudicial killing and "indiscriminate use of lethal force," all constitute state terrorism by the IDF.


"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."


And just how are they supposed to do this while trying to dodge IDF bullets, rockets, bombs and bulldozers? If you were a PA police officer, how fast would you run to work in the morning while the helicopters hovered over your office?


"Israel is retaliating against the PA for allowing these groups to continue, flourish and launch attacks from within their territory."


Clearly if the IDF "knows" that the PA is tolerating terrorists and allowing them to flourish, it has more arms, men and other resources necessary to capture and arrest them. It knows perfectly well that the PA can't round up every terrorist hiding in every corner and cubbyhole of the West Bank and Gaza any better than it can. So it does the next best thing: it destroys Palestinian authority and infrastrucure, makes hundreds of civilians homeless, denies access to medical aid, and murders the odd civilian. That's terrorism.

"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're being vague. Of course if the ends never justify the means, what does? OTOH, I tend to think the means are the ends, and that they need to fall within some moral framework if they can be justified.


"You must understand that Israel has a very democratic and open government."


True, and I think more democratic and open than ours in many respects. But the 4 million Palestinians that effectively subjects of this government, that have to obey IDF orders, stop at roadblocks and checkpoints, pay taxes, obtain licenses and permits for operating business and building things, to say nothing of having their homes and schools demolished, have no right to vote or participate in the government that lords over them. That's not democratic, is it?


"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."


I don't think it's appropriate to describe the killing of unarmed civilians and destroying schools and homes are simply "warts and all." To use a counter-example, Hamas provides (or used to provide) medical care, schools and other services. Is concentrating on the murders they commit just "siezing on the warts if that's what you are looking for?" Of course not. It's saying that the good things they do don't justify the bad things. I don't see why the same doesn't apply to Israel's government.


"On the other hand, the countries and organizations that you seem to praise do not operate in this fashion."


I don't think I've praised or "seemed to praise" any government that has any role or takes any side in this conflict. If you just want to find examples of racism, tyranny, brutality and state terror that make the U.S. and Israel look good by comparison, you'd hardly need to look much further than most of the governments of the Arab world, and I'm including the Palestinian Authority.


"Their news is more controlled and their warts are kept hidden."


You're kidding. I can find 100 articles in a minute from the U.S. press describing how crummy things are in the Arab world. Tom Friedman's columns in the NYT by themsleves are incredibly damning, to say nothing of the anti-Palistinian crowd like Krauthamer, Safire, Chris Mathews, The New Republic and Commentary.


"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."


Probably true.


"You should keep this in mind when you put your anti-Israeli posts here."


Cheap shot. I'm not "anti-Israeli" for denouncing Israeli terrorism any more than denouncing anti-Israel terrorism is "anti-Palestinian" or "anti-Arab."


"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."


I agree that they'd probably shoot me. But what's your point? That having the right to dissent means that one should have the decency to refrain from exercising it if it makes other uncomfortable? You don't believe that, do you?

im gonna ramble a bit but here goes.


were americans. thats #1.


israelis,jews, whatever, have a tremendous influence in our government. arabs dont.


after terrorist attack a lot of people were saying we need to adopt the israeli model. now do we want that? you see what i mean. you see why a lot of people are critical of israel?


dont believe me? skeptical? (thats it, no more questiions).


remember alan dershowitz (spelling) in the la times saying we need to start torturing people (a la the israeli model). sounds crazy but his argument was that you *can* be compelled to testify (your 5th amendment notwithstanding) *if* the court gives you immunity. so he was saying that the court can already coerce testimony, lets go the whole way and use physical torture (in extreme cases).


well, is that what we, as americans, want?


brad

"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."


Why do I have to keep saying this: I agree that doing these things is absolutely wrong. I agree that Palestinian terrorism against civilians is a brutal crime. I've said this time and again.


Where we disagree is that I also think that when Israel does it, it's also wrong, and that Palestinian crimes against Israel do not justify Israeli crimes against Palestinians. You keep arguing that as long as the IDF's brutality falls short of the worst acts of Palestinian terrorists, it's either alright or not a fit subject of criticism. It's purely hypocritical, even if what the suicide bombers do amounts to something worse on a gradient of evildoing. Besides, you and I don't fund the suicide bombers, but we fund the IDF. I'm not as interested the bad things that can't be my responsibility as those things that are. People who think otherwise are called "hypocrites."

'"You must understand that Israel has a very democratic and open government."

True, and I think more democratic and open than ours in many respects.'


i really wont touch this without having a lot of evidence to back up my opinion, but lets just say that i dont want to model our country on that of israel.


'Cheap shot. I'm not "anti-Israeli" '


you can call me 'anti-Israeli', i dont care. im pro american, pro US, and thats it. you can call me anti-arab, too, but frankly arab ideals have never and probably will never catch on in this country so theres really no reason to discuss them.


brad

"israelis,jews, whatever, have a tremendous influence in our government. arabs dont."


I don't think that U.S. policy toward Israel and the Palestinians results from "jewish influence" over the U.S. government. Jews remain a small minority in the U.S., outnumbered even by muslims. Despite a well organized pro-Israel lobby, it's influence cannot account for force of U.S. commitment to Israel. To take two examples, Jews in the U.S. were probably more unified in their affection toward Israel from 1948 until the Lebanon invasion, but for much of this time (1948-1973)were often ignored in favor of perceived U.S. interests. Look at Eisenhower during the Suez crisis, or the "Rogers Plan" for withdrawal from the occupied territories. Also, I doubt that very many jewish supporters of Israel care much about the huge amount of aid we give to Egypt, which most policy makers consider a key to U.S. mideast policy.


Yeah, I read that Dershowitz favored legalizing torture, even to the point of proposing "writs" of toruture. About what I would have expected from this academic thug.

well, my (somewhat incoherent) point was that theres a reason to be critical of israels faults (since we dont want to adopt them), but no real reason to be critical of arab faults (since theres about a 0% chance were going to turn this country into an islamic kingdom).


also, thats really my only interest in israel (or any arab country or whatever).

(its effect on US). theres a lot of bad stuff that goes on in the world, but lets make sure that as americans we dont let things like death squads/ torture squads happen here.


brad

If I was a native in a land and a foreign government split up my country and offered a large share to quasi-colonial group from halfway across the globe, I would refuse too. Wouldn't you?


KJS

The reason I dwell on these points is to refute your calling these types of Israeli actions "terrorism," in the post above and other posts. Here is what you wrote:


"This isn't anti-terrorism, it's terrorism, intimidation and provocation in order to ensure, as some advocate, "continual war.""


I don't believe it is "terrorism" on the part of Israel. Apparently you and I have different definitions of terrorism, or you tend to lump all sorts of abuses or heavy-handed actions into a similar category. I am trying to point out that there is indeed a difference in what is going on. I'm not saying the IDF is blameless; they are probably far from blameless. What I am saying is that the direct and deadly targeting of innocent uninvolved persons in order to make a political statement is terrorism, and I believe it is both logically and morally flawed in the extreme. In other words, if you have a gripe, deal with the people you have the gripe with, or even fight them...but don't go blow up a family on vacation or a little girl's bas mitzvah party because you have a gripe with the people running her country. I strongly believe that such actions must not be tolerated by the world, and that such actions are a very large step beyond what is reasonable or right, no matter which side you are on.


As for the IDF and their actions, no doubt there are problems and injustices that should be addressed. However the actions you cited are not the equivalent of pure terrorism, and I believe that this distinction is very important, and not just in a theoretical sense. Thus I feel compelled to point out these differences, and hope that you will see the differences too.


Terrorists targeting a family on vacation, for instance, makes not much more sense than someone punching out a neighbor of yours whom he doesn't even know just because he happens to be mad at you who live next door. It is a misdirected attack and is especially reprehensible in my opinion when it involves deadly force. So if you want to talk about the IDF or Israeli brutality, fine; but I have a problem when you start lumping all manner of perceived wrongs in with terrorism, and referring to it all as "terrorism." In my mind terrorism is a deadly and especially vicious, unjust practice aimed at the weakest and most blameless members of society, most often merely to make a political point. If they want a war, even a guerilla war, that is one thing; but when they start attacking young children at a birthday party or families on vacation or Olympic athletes, they have crossed every and all lines of legitimate, reasonable or half-decent human behavior.

" So it does the next best thing: it destroys Palestinian authority and infrastrucure, makes hundreds of civilians homeless, denies access to medical aid, and murders the odd civilian. That's terrorism."


No that's NOT terrorism. Terrorism is a suicide bomber at a little girl's bas mitzvah party. If you can't see the difference I really don't know what more to say.