"But I have always heard "terrorism" defined as acts of violence specficially targeted toward civilians instead of military targets"
What is the difference between saying - "target civilians specifically" and saying - "don't bother being too fussy about your targets" There's a distinction here that you see and I don't, especially since your definition of "terrorism" is fairly broad in other circumstances, and you recognize it's largely subjective. But there isn't room in there to recognize that Palestinians can have a basis to view Israelis as terrorists?
Would you say that the attack on the Pentagaon wasn't a terroristic attack because it's the center of the military, but the attack on the WTC was a terroristic attack because it wasn't concerned with the military?
posted on October 2, 2001 08:28:40 PM new
"Donny, I'm very familiar with historical revisionism. I don't need repeated examples."
I'm talking about peace talks that were attempted in the last few weeks, Twinsoft. There hasn't hardly been time yet for historical revisionism, tag it with bias instead if you want.
posted on October 2, 2001 08:29:44 PM newI'm sorry, but I wasn't aware that we provided any warning to Japan whatsoever about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Actually the idea of those cities being bombed wasn't exactly a remote idea, they knew they were at war, they knew American planes were dropping bombs, air raids were given when enemy planes came over. After Hiroshima leaflets were dropped telling the Japanese to ask their leaders why no more news came from Hiroshima, announcements were made over the radio also, they repeated the process after dropping fat man on Nagasaki.
Kyoto was the largest un bombed city at the time the atomic bombs became ready. Truman and Stimson refused to bomb Kyoto in spite of the military's request that be used for maximum effect, because of its historical and cultural symbolism to the Japanese. Also during the war the emperor's place in Tokyo was off limits as a target.
If you want to look at the atomic bombs as an act of cowardice go ahead, self flagellation seems to be the new pastime. However consider what the outcry would have been from American's if they learned the invasion Japan and the tremendous resulting casualties could have been prevented. Little boy and fat man saved far more people than it killed, most accept that as a truth.
posted on October 2, 2001 08:45:48 PM newhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1331000/1331172.stm
"About 1,300,000 Arabs lived in Palestine before the war, and estimates of the numbers displaced from their original homes during the period from December 1947 to January 1949 range from about 520,000 to about 1,000,000.
More than half a century later, there are some four million Palestinian refugees.
Events marking the Nakba in the occupied territories and neighbouring Arab states will concentrate on pressing for their right to return to their homes - a right enshrined in UN Resolution 194, but rejected by successive Israeli governments."
http://www.hrw.org/wr2k1/mideast/israel.html
"In several cases the Israeli government also actively sought to thwart court rulings supporting human rights by supporting initiatives to legalize torture and hostage-taking, and by delaying the enforcement of court rulings against discrimination.
...Palestinians passing through Israeli checkpoints were frequently subjected to harassment, physical abuse, and even torture by Israeli soldiers and police. For example, in a well-publicized incident on September 6, three Palestinian laborers required hospital treatment after being beaten by border police at a checkpoint. During the attack the police photographed themselves with their victims, and the unit commander later told Ha'aretz, "What we did was not special. Everybody does it." Other incidents resulted in deaths, as on July 9 when soldiers fired on a taxi carrying Atidal Muammer, killing her and injuring her husband, two children, and other passersby. Following an investigation, the IDF saidthe killing was "a terrible mistake," and stated that its soldiers were responding to shots from a different vehicle. However, no such vehicle was recovered and no spent cartridges were found at the scene of the shooting."
http://www.odvv.org/Commission-57th/full%20text/factshit2.htm
"Israel's policy of demolishing Palestinian homes built without permits and its customary
refusal to issue such permits in the first place, remains one of the most disturbing human
rights violations to survive the peace process.
In recent years, Israel has concentrated its demolition of Palestinian homes in areas it has
staked out for itself in the event of a permanent settlement with the Palestinians. These
include "security" areas, areas slated for settlement expansion, by-pass roads, the "Greater
Jerusalem," and the like - over 60% of the West Bank.
Between 1993 and 1998, over 700 Palestinian homes were demolished and an additional 2,000
Palestinian homes were still under threat of demolition."
In June 1982, with a view to putting an end to the PLO as a force to be reckoned with, and quashing its support in the West Bank and Gaza, the Israel Defence Force acted. Israeli aircraft and troops began a supposedly retaliatory move into Lebanon (although the border was in fact quiet at the time).
This quickly became a full-scale invasion lasting more than two months and eventually rolling into the Lebanese capital Beirut itself. Tens of thousands of civilians, Lebanese and Palestinians, were killed and injured.
Sabra-Shatila - after the massacre
World and much of Israeli opinion was appalled. The outrage reached epic proportions when in September 1982, fighters of a Christian militia allied to Israel carried out a massacre of several hundred Palestinian civilians in a Beirut camp, Sabra-Shatila, that the Israeli Army was supposed to be controlling and guarding."
http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0397/9703072.htm
"Israel’s campaign to rid the Negev of the Bedouins began the same year the Jewish state came into being. By the time the fighting ended in late 1948, Israel had destroyed 67 Bedouin villages and localities and routed hundreds and perhaps thousands of the nomads from their grazing areasas it had dispossessed three-quarters of a million Palestinians.6 The next year 500 Bedouin families were chased out by Israeli troops from an area south of Hebron, just north of the Negev.7 In 1950, Egypt complained to the United Nations that 4,000 Bedouins had been driven from their homes in the Negev into its territory. Egypt charged that atrocities had been committed against the Bedouins by Israeli troops and that the Bedouins’ herds of goats had been killed.
...Israel’s campaign against the Bedouin reached a new height of brutality in 1959 when troops forcibly drove out 350 Bedouins from the Negev. On Oct. 6, the United Nations Egyptian-Israeli Mixed Armistice Commission condemned Israel for the action. The commission accused the Israelis of killing some Bedouins, burning their tents and taking their property, including camels, donkeys and sheep.11
Such brutal behavior eventually achieved Israel’s aims. Israeli anthropologist Clinton Bailey reported at the end of 1993 that during the past four decades Israel had forced 99 percent of the Bedouins off their lands and confiscated their herds. Now, he wrote, Israel was conducting a “discriminatory policy designed to get all the Bedouins off the land....the last 1 percent of the Bedouins still living in their native area in the central Negev are fighting expulsion.” "
posted on October 2, 2001 08:46:24 PM newI'm talking about peace talks that were attempted in the last few weeks, Twinsoft.
No, you're not.
Also, you keep pointing to the gray area between right and wrong, as if that somehow justifies wrong. Regarding the WTC, does our bombing of Iraq (for example), justify WTC? Do the terrorists' beliefs make their actions right? I don't think so. And what's more, right or wrong, the terrorists are about to get stomped. Personally, I'd rather be a live infidel then a dead martyr.
BTW, many Israelis do favor making peace with the PLO, even to the point of appeasing them with land. I am not one of them. The Arab nations waged war on Israel from the West Bank. There's no question about who started it. The Arabs lost those wars. The idea that they should receive the West Bank back as a gift is ludicrous.
posted on October 2, 2001 09:05:15 PM new
" 'I'm talking about peace talks that were attempted in the last few weeks, Twinsoft.'
No, you're not."
Yes, I was, among other things. Who knows what you're calling historical revisionism, you didn't distinguish anything.
Historical revisionism isn't limited to shading the actions of others. You throw out the phrase like it's a brand for an untrustworthy foe. We do it ourselves, look at how our view of our own history in regards to the Indians has changed over time. We see ourselves as less justified now than we did in the past. And Israel does it too, in regards to its own history. The Israeli view of Ben-Gurion himself has changed over time.
posted on October 2, 2001 09:05:50 PM new
Bunni, I lived in Israel and served in the Israeli military. There were volunteer Beduins in my unit. I can tell you for a fact that Israel co-exists peacefully with Beduins today.
I'm not disputing that after a half-dozen wars in the last 50 years, there weren't terrible acts on both sides.
The account of southern Lebanon is incorrect. There were (and are) terrorist camps, supported by Syria, located in southern Lebanon.
I am also the sole survivor of a terrorist attack in which 40 people were killed. After one has lived through an experience like that, reports by various commissions don't mean much.
I've said my piece. Believe what you want.
P.S. Maybe if we offer Bin-Laden Florida and the Eastern Seaboard, he'll leave us alone.
posted on October 2, 2001 09:22:10 PM newtwinsoft: my post had nothing to do with bin Laden, or giving him *anything*. You may note from my previous posts that I have said since 9/11 happened that we should go after those responsible.
My post had to do with the continuing portrayal of Israel as a poor, put-upon, misunderstood country that just can't understand why those "evil" Palestinians don't like them. I've never believed that we should support Israel. It's ironic that people who lament the takeover against Indians by Europeans to form the US (bad, bad, Americans) see absolutely nothing wrong with what Israel has done & is doing. If US forces with state of the art weapons move against poorly equipped foes *we* are termed thugs & bullies--but Israel has done so for 60-odd years & that seems to be OK. Id you take the time to read the few links I posted (& none are from middle eastern sources) you will see that if anyone has an agressive agenda it's Israel--they even used "terrorist" tactics against the British in order to drive them out once the UK had set them up with a country.
The fact that there were Bedouins in the Israeli unit you served in doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot--the US Army employed Apaches & other Indians as scouts during the westward movement--often to help scout out Indians who were "terrorizing" settlers...
posted on October 2, 2001 10:22:09 PM new
Tim Llewellyn? Tim Llewellyn?? Bunnicula, I'm not sure why you chose to link to Llewellyn's series that was widely criticized for the anti-Israeli slant that he took in that gem. Of course Tim Llewellyn is a former BBC broadcaster and now a freelancer who is known for his pro-palestinian views. Every "report" that he has ever written or produced is heavily biased against Israel and his "trademark" is his anti-Israeli, pro-palestinian opinion. The guy couldn't write an objective "story" if his life depended on it. Maybe his numerous affiliations with Palestinian organizations and his continued "contributions" to Palestinian propaganda medias affect his "objectivity" which is a neccessity for any legitimate journalist. Ya think? To use any piece written by Tim Llewellyn as "proof" as to the "truth" about Israel is an absurdity. He is rabidly anti-semite, anti-Israeli and pro-palestinian. He ADMITS this. That "History of Israel" is nothing more than an op-ed article, full of his own personal slant and bias, and completely lacking in what any credible news journalist MUST have....OBJECTIVITY.
posted on October 2, 2001 10:42:28 PM new
Israel has been out numbered and out gunned in every conventional battle it has fought with its Middle East foes.
It has won every contest by shear bravery and brilliant tatctics.
The "debate" over who the land belongs to was over long ago. The U.N. recognized Israel long ago.
The question is not whether Israel exists as a nation, but will the terrorist nations recognize it as such and seek peaceful coexistence.
posted on October 2, 2001 10:56:00 PM new
You will notice that half of the urls I posted are *not* Llewellyn pieces. Do an internet search and you'll find innumerable pieces by others that say the very same thing. But, by all means, let's all pay homage to the idea that Israel can do and has done no wrong...
posted on October 2, 2001 10:58:31 PM newReamond: No, Israel has *not* been "outnumbered & ougunned." From the very beginning they've had superior armaments, not to mention support from the US and other major powers.
posted on October 2, 2001 11:01:08 PM new
Bunni- Anyway one may wish to quantify it, Israel has been out numbered and out gunned in every conventional battle it has been involved in.
posted on October 2, 2001 11:15:01 PM newlet's all pay homage to the idea that Israel can do and has done no wrong...
Better yet lets all feel guilty to those that danced in the streets while we wept. Lets blame ourselves at the rage coming from mobs of Muslim extremists that probably have as much grasp of world politics/history as my 9 month old daughter.
If Israel becomes more determine and exacts higher prices against Palestinians for acts of terrorism I'll understand it now. Sept 11th opened my eyes.
posted on October 2, 2001 11:33:53 PM new
U.S. Policy...
Albright's 1996 statement was widely publicized in the the Arab world...
Needless to mention (but I will) that the people there knew what happened - they didn't need to read or hear about it, since they lived it first hand (or died)...
Figured some here though might not have ever heard or read of it...
>>>> QUOTE >>>>
What moved those kamikaze Muslims to embark, some many months ago on the training that they knew would culminate in their deaths as well of those (they must have hoped) of thousands upon thousands of innocent people? Was it the Koran plus a tape from Osama bin Laden? The dream of a world in which all men wear untrimmed beards and women have to stay at home or go outside only when enveloped in blue tents? I doubt it. If I had to cite what steeled their resolve the list would surely include the exchange on CBS in 1996 between Madeleine Albright and then US ambassador to the United Nations and Lesley Stahl. Albright was maintaining that sanctions had yielded important concessions from Saddam Hussein.
Stahl: "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And you know, is the price worth it?"
Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price - we think the price is worth it."
>>>> UN-QUOTE >>>>>
- From an article at counterpunch.org - Article title: Was It Really Worth It, Mrs. Albright? THE PRICE - Written by By Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair - September 25, 2001
Now, I'm not going to stick around and subject myself to any crap...
posted on October 3, 2001 12:11:25 AM new
Hmmm. I guess I'm sorta doubting I can get out of this thread politely.
If you take the time to read the few links I posted (& none are from middle eastern sources) you will see that if anyone has an agressive agenda it's Israel.
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I lived in Israel. I served in the military there. I don't need "links" to know what is happening.
My P.S. above was not directed at you in particular, but at anyone who would try to appease terrorists. It doesn't work.
I visited many of the places that are now so deadly. Hebron, Nablus, Jenin, etc. The Palestinians (I would prefer the term Arabs) I met there were very kind, very nice, sincere people. I never felt unsafe. Since I was stationed at the border, I had occasion to spend plenty of time in those towns. I never had a problem with any inhabitant, never sensed any resentment, never experienced any fear. I never met a Palestinian I didn't like. And I never knew any soldier to resent a Palestinian. That was 20 years ago.
It's not hard to understand what happened. The handful of terrorists known as the PLO went underground, playing the role of a political movement (helped in large part by the U.S.), and found acceptance with the Palestinian people. The PLO nourished the hatred of the Palestinians. That brings us to today: Children being raised as suicide bombers. (Just an observation: It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the Arabs live(d) better as Israelis than as Palestinians.)
You overlooked the point of my comment that Beduins volunteered to join the IDF. And unlike your American Indian example, Beduins were friends, not enemies.
The idea that Zionism could succeed is ridiculous. Here's a tiny minority located on a tiny bit of land. Israelis are certainly no threat to the Arab world. However, after having been attacked numerous times, the Israelis did push the Arabs back to defensible borders. That amounts to a ten-mile strip of land on the west bank of the Jordan river. So what? As if the whole Middle East isn't big enough that they have to make such a fuss about a ten-mile strip of land? Get real.
There is some truth to accusations of terrorism against the British prior to 1948. At that time, the British were preventing European refugees from entering Palestine. The British would rather send Jews back to Germany than allow them to land on what the Bible calls "The Promised Land." So screw the British.
We can throw accusations around, but the bottom line is that Israel is a tiny bit of land among huge Arab nations. Israel is no threat to anyone. To portray them as aggressors is just a lie. It is nothing but uninformed rhetoric.
P.S. The Arabs weren't fighting with sticks and rocks. They had French Mirage fighters and plenty of Russian tanks. Don't kid yourself.
posted on October 3, 2001 12:45:38 AM newSpaz, if I recall correctly, it was in 1980. The bus that was blown up on the Haifa-Tel Aviv highway.
I was coming from the base on a Friday afternoon to my apartment in Tel Aviv. I arrived at the bus stop at about 4:15 and had to wait for the 5:00 bus. I remembered that I left my laundry at the barracks. I procrastinated until about 4:45 then went back to get it. I missed that bus, #22 that I always took home on Fridays. I caught the 6:00 bus.
Bus #22 was stopped on the Haifa-Tel Aviv highway by terrorists. It was bazookaed and everyone on the bus was killed. I believe the terrorists were also killed afterward. I had been sitting at the bus stop waiting for that bus for a half hour. No lie. (Maybe it's an indulgence, but I think of myself as the only survivor.)
The 6:00 bus took a detour. When I got home it was dark. I turned on the light and the radio. I heard the news about bus #22. (The same one I just got off of.) The first thing I thought was that I was a ghost. The second thing I thought was that God had put me in hell because I turned on a light on the Sabbath. (I am not religious.)
posted on October 3, 2001 05:31:18 AM new
Morning, all.
Donny: What is the difference between saying - "target civilians specifically" and saying - "don't bother being too fussy about your targets" There's a distinction here that you see and I don't
Well, that's the root of our disagreement, isn't it? You're simply unable to see the distinction between what Israel does and what the Palestinians do. However, I think you are blowing "don't bother being too fussy about your targets" way, way out of proportion. Nothing Israel has done even comes close to approaching the acts which Palestinians have perpetrated against civilians. Is Israel blameless? Nope. Have Palestinian civilians been killed in the conflict? Most certainly. Am I defending everything that Israel has done? Nope again. But Israel is not blowing up buses full of children or sending suicide bombers into restaurants full of civilians. I realize you can't see the distinction, although I find your inability to do so both staggering and deeply disturbing.
But there isn't room in there to recognize that Palestinians can have a basis to view Israelis as terrorists?
Again, I don't give a rat's patootie about what the Palestinians think on the subject. I'm asking you to defend your statement that Israel "practices terrorism". I'm assuming that this is your opinion, and not just a statement of what other people may believe. Unless, of course, you happen to be Palestinian, in which case I humbly apologize. If you want to argue that the Palestinians believe that Israel practices terrorism against them, I can hardly argue with that, since that is what many of them believe. But that's different from saying that Israel actually does practice terrorism against the Palestinians, which is what I thought you were saying and is what I disagree with.
Would you say that the attack on the Pentagaon wasn't a terroristic attack because it's the center of the military, but the attack on the WTC was a terroristic attack because it wasn't concerned with the military?
If that were the sole attack, I probably would say that it was simply an act of war and not a terrorist attack [well, except for the fact that an entire planeload of civilians was purposely killed in the process]. However, since it was part of a coordinated attack that specifically targeted civilians, it's really hard to separate one part of the attack from the rest.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
[ edited by godzillatemple on Oct 3, 2001 05:32 AM ]
This is retaliation for the Israeli deaths I referenced yesterday when I quoted that:
"Two Israelis were killed when a militant Palestinian gunman broke into a Jewish settlement in the Gaza Strip on Tuesday night and seized a house, the army said."
In that confrontation, the 2 Palestinian gunmen were killed by snipers after a several hour standoff.
So it's not enough that the 2 Palestinians who carried out the previous attack were killed during the commission of it. There has to be retaliation that took out a couple of Palestinian policemen and a bystander.
Does anyone see a Palestinian retaliation for the policemen and the bystander in the near future?
When does this stop making sense to you, Twinsoft?
posted on October 3, 2001 05:47:25 AM new
Okay, Barry. Two Palestinians go shooting up an Israeli settlement, killing 2 Israelis, and are killed in the process. That's terrorism.
The next day, even though the guys who did it are dead, the Israelis tear up a few Palestinian police stations, flatten some farmland, a bystander gets killed, and that's not terrorism.
posted on October 3, 2001 06:09:32 AM new
I'm not a Palestinian, Barry, there's no need to apologize.
You're making a distinction I find overly delicate - If one side uses a car bomb to kill civilians, perhaps taking out a few military by mistake, though that's not the goal, that's terrorism. If the other side uses a tank to kill military, perhaps taking out a few civilians by mistake, though that's not the goal, that's not terrorism. So the end result doesn't matter, as long as you say your goal was to kill X rather Y. If you've clipped a couple of Y's too, so what?
I don't see a car bomb as any more or less political than the tank. The difference is in resources. If the first guy had a tank, he'd use that. He doesn't, so he uses the car bomb. If the second guy didn't have the tank, what would he use?
Is it that one side has soldiers and the other side isn't? Israel is a state, it has official soldiers. Palestine is not a state.
A Palestinian suicide bomber blew himself up in Netanya in May of this year, killing himself and 5 Israelis. That's terrorism. Israel responded by bombing Nablus with F-16's. That's not.
posted on October 3, 2001 07:23:14 AM newWhen does this stop making sense to you, Twinsoft?
Israel's policy is to hit terrorists back harder. That policy is becoming less successful as terrorists become more fanatical. To be honest, the numbers don't impress me. Though I would suggest that if Israel sent in tanks and troops to bomb a terrorist center and only five people were killed, Israel is showing restraint.
They killed two so we killed five? Oh, boo-hoo! We should have killed twenty. Israel should kick the Arabs out of the Gaza Strip completely. That is my opinion. Anyone who thinks terrorism will end with the creation of an Arab state within Israel is being naive.
The other fact you are overlooking is that Israel doesn't have the luxury of waltzing into Palestinian towns and choosing their targets. "All terrorists line up over here, please!" By any accounts, there is a war going on now. I'm sorry but that is a sad fact. Still, civilains were not targeted in the attack. This wasn't a case of "go in and kill as many women and children as possible."
And yes, I do see a retaliation coming. Israel needs to kick the Palestinians out. Period. Let Syria deal with them.
Note that Israel has made peace with Egypt and to a large extent with Lebanon, without giving up land. "Give us Jerusalem and we'll leave you alone" is not good faith dealing. It's a joke.
posted on October 3, 2001 07:42:00 AM newDonny: If one side uses a car bomb to kill civilians, perhaps taking out a few military by mistake, though that's not the goal, that's terrorism. If the other side uses a tank to kill military, perhaps taking out a few civilians by mistake, though that's not the goal, that's not terrorism.
Yes, I would say that's an accurate statement of my beliefs. You may feel that the intentions behind the attack don't matter, nor the percentage of civilians killed versus military personnel. I think they do. Specifically targeting civilians is terrorism. Accidentally killing civilians as part of an attack against a military target is not.
Civilian casualties are, unfortunately, a part of war. The United States has accidentally killed civilians while targeting military targets, and parts of the Arabic world call us terrorists as a result. But we are no more "terrorists" than the Israelis are, because we do not specifically target civilians. Is the end result the same, whether we specifically target civilians or whether we kill them by accident? Perhaps, except that the NUMBER of civilians killed by accident is far less than those killed ON PURPOSE by the other side. Again, I realize that you do not consider that to be a valid distinction -- a single civilian killed by accident is apparently just as much an act of "terrorism" as 100 civilians killed on purpose.
You [and the Palestinians, apparently] have your own definition of what it means to "practice terrorism" -- a definition which I do not share, and I would guess that most people in the U.S do not share either. Especially since, under your definition, the U.S. is also guilty of practicing terrorism.
Yes, I agree that terrorism is a politcal tool used by sane, rational men to further their aims. But I think you paint too broad a picture when you define terrorism to include any instance where civilians are killed, whether on purpose or accidentally.
As long as you and I continue to define the essential terms of the debate differently, however, I guess we will simply have to "agree to disagree" as you say. Or, to put it another way, I can agree that if the word "terrorism" is as broadly defined as you make it out to be, then yes, Israel [not to mention the U.S.] practices terrorism. And at the same time, I'm sure you can agree that if the word "terrorism" is as narrowly defined as I make it out to be, then neither Israel nor the U.S. practice it.
The problem, though, is that "terrorism" is one of those "hot button" words used to portray the other side in the absolute worst light possible, and I will NEVER agree that the actions of the Israelis are as bad or as evil as those of the Palestinians, regardless of WHAT words you use to describe them or how you define your terms.
Regards,
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on October 3, 2001 08:45:21 AM new
Yes, we can agree to disagree, and we still do agree on some points. But what I perceive in your thoughts re "terrorism," and your realization that it's largely a subjective term, is that your realization only goes so far, and stops short when it comes to Israel/Palestine. There, it's different. To me, it's not different, it's still largely subjective. When your child is dead, that she was killed inadvertantly by a someone whom a state has declared a soldier rather than randomly by a suicide bomber whom his society has declared a freedom fighter is cold comfort, and distinctions aren't going to matter.
I wish you could refrain from lumping me with Palestinians. I've already stated I'm not a Palestinian, yet you continue to put me in there ("You [and the Palestinians, apparently]" ) You don't have to be a Palestinian, or anti-Israel, to perceive that Israel's had a carte blanche, and it's run out. I support the state of Israel, I believe it should exist. More than that, I believe it does exist. However, continued rallying cries of "We're fighting for our existance" get worn out after nearly 60 years. When does Israel stop fighting for its existance and address the concerns of the Palestinians, even if that means admitting that Israel has been playing the "fighting for existance" card too long?
Recognizing that Israel's practices are part of the problem is not the same as saying that Palestinians' actions are not also part of the problem.
But our stance, our foreign policy problem, has been that we only see one side. We pay lip service to the goal of the creation of a Palestinian state, but our money goes to funding Israel's military. The talk isn't matching the walk. Who are we fooling? We may be fooling us, but we're not fooling the Palestinian father who picks up a fragment of U.S. made weaponry and says - "This killed my child."
"and I would guess that most people in the U.S do not share either. Especially since, under your definition, the U.S. is also guilty of practicing terrorism."
Well, lots of people in the U.S. share definitions I don't share either, but what difference does that make? You can find a whole slew of things, from the "Love Cruise" shows and their ilk, to fake cheese in cans that I'm not going for either, no matter what popular opinion might proclaim. But, yes, I do think the U.S. is also guilty of practicing terrorism.
posted on October 3, 2001 09:02:17 AM new
"Israel's policy is to hit terrorists back harder. That policy is becoming less successful as terrorists become more fanatical."
You wrote that, Twinsoft, and that's right. And, contained in that one sentence is the whole essence of the spiral of escalation.
posted on October 3, 2001 09:07:04 AM newDonny: your realization only goes so far, and stops short when it comes to Israel/Palestine
No, as I said, your definition would apply just as equally to the actions of the United States, Great Britain, and pretty much any country in the world that has ever accidentally killed a civilian while attacking a military target. I simply find that definition to be too broad, regardless of WHAT country or conflict we are talking about.
I wish you could refrain from lumping me with Palestinians
Well, it's hard not to, since you keep arguing their viewpoint by saying things like:
"But there isn't room in there to recognize that Palestinians can have a basis to view Israelis as terrorists?"
and
"it seems to me that today's Palestinian complaints center not so much on that the Israeli government actively tells its troops to target civilians, but that the Israeli government doesn't care much whether Palestinian civilians get killed or not."
I agree that our foreign policy is too one-sided. I agree that Israel is not blameless. In fact, I happen to also believe that Israel often goes too far in its acts of "retaliation" and deserves condemnation for some of those acts.
But "terrorism" has a very specific meaning to most people, one that involves a conscious choice to attack civilians rather than military targets. It's a word typically used to describe the most heinous acts imaginable [ranking right up their with "genocide"], and I object to the use of that word to describe the actions of the Israeli government. I'm glad to see that you are at least consistent in the application of your definition ["I do think the U.S. is also guilty of practicing terrorism"], but again, that is an overly broad definition which I do not share.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on October 3, 2001 09:17:55 AM new
I've enjoyed reading the great debates here. Many knowledgeable people sharing their views.
I find myself agreeing with (supporting/cheering, if you will) the posts of Reamond, KatyD, Uaru, twinsoft the most. They seem to see this situation the same way I do.
I have trouble understanding how so many don't seem to believe what the terrorists have told us. They want us all dead. Period. I believe them and believe our country must act according to that warning. Whatever that takes.
I think you are being much too generous in qualifying the Pentagon attack as "simply an act of war and not a terrorist attack [well, except ...". There was no military objective in that attack. It was about as 'terroristic' in concept as the WTC attacks.
