Israel Locks Down Palestinians

[idontwantaname]

<snip>

Also Friday, the military sealed off the West Bank and Gaza Strip (news - web sites), barring Palestinians from entering Israel until the Jewish holiday season ends in October because of fears of Palestinian attacks.

<snip>

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&ncid=736&e=10&u=/ap/20040910/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians

[Nadav]

1. And you see this as a bad thing?

History has taught us that the holiday season is the most dangerous time for us. Did not Greece increase their security during the Olympics? Didn't your country do the same for your conventions? There is a real world out there with real problems that will not be solved by a wordly group hug.

[Violet_Crumble]

2. So which groups or nationalities did the US and Greece refuse entry to?

I must have missed that bit. It's just that when singling out a group like the Palestinians based on the actions of a small number of them, it takes on a bit of a whiffy stink to me...

Violet...

[Nadav]

3. What is a small number of them to you?

Is it 15 or 20? I think you have missed more than just a bit. Please come to visit us for a time and learn a bit more before you claim a "whiffy stink".

Ride a bus without glancing at a new passenger getting aboard. Shop for some milk and eggs at the local market and have to pass through security resembling your airport.

Enjoy a cup of coffee at a local cafe and try sitting with your back to the door.

When you filter your news through only media that supports your pre-determined views, I guess you are justified to say "just a small number of them".

[Violet_Crumble]

5. I didn't know I had to be that specific...

I no more know the exact number than I know the exact number of Israeli settlers who murder Palestinian civilians. What's a given for either case is that they are a small number out of the total population and it's abhorrent for anyone to try to paint most if not all of the population with the same brush...

Seeing you have no idea as to what media I do or don't read, can you explain to me how someone's personal sense of security proves that there's not a small number out of the Palestinian population who carry out attacks in Israel? Facts? Statistics? Anything?

Violet...

[Violet_Crumble]

69. I guess I was wasting my time asking a question...

Oh well :)

Violet...

[number6]

20. I see it as bad thing ....

..and the police state during the conventions ain't so hot either ...

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

6. The majority of Palestinians hate Jews?

That's a bit of a broad brushstroke yr using there, don't you think?

Do you also realise that yr stance is handing Israel a blank cheque to commit any atrocity it sees fit to as long as it covers its actions in the veil of 'fighting terror'?

Something else. If Israel deems it necessary for security reasons to ban Palestinians from entering Israel for a period of around a month, why isn't it viewed as necessary to do it all the time? It'd seem to me that a reasonable action would be to beef up security at checkpoints along the Green Line. What doesn't seem reasonable is to punish innocent Palestinians...

Violet...

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

8. Sorry, but it's a pretty nasty form of stereotyping...

Taking a bit of a vacation in Israel isn't going to change my mind on what's stereotyping an entire group of people. Why? Is there some travel brochure around that claims that's what'd happen? ;)

Violet...

[OhioStateProgressive]

9. hehehe

i live in Israel and spend a few months in the USA, thank you...my fiancee is an arab israeli

don't be so quick to assume you know what you're talking about

[Violet_Crumble]

10. And?

How does living in Israel and having an arab israeli fiancee give you the knowledge that the majority of Palestinians are anti-Semitic? Somehow I think that getting myself an arab israeli fiancee just isn't going to happen, so I will need you to explain the connection for me...

Violet...

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

12. No, and that's why I'll give you a hint...

Take the time to read the rules of the forum pretty soon. And please stop urging me to travel to destinations not on my itinerary for my globe-trotting tours. That's as bad as all those unsolicited phonecalls trying to persuade people to change their phone companies. I'm not sure why you think that a trip to Israel and the Occupied Territories would result in me agreeing with you that someone supporting the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination is just a small step away from admiring what happened in the Holocaust, but that comment is totally disgusting...

Violet...

[OhioStateProgressive]

13. the truth stands above ANY rules

well, i still advise you to see for yourself

hate stands out in red letters when it is right in front of your face

[Violet_Crumble]

14. "hate stands out in red letters when it is right in front of your face"

But does it stand out when it's viewed in a mirror? Just curious...

Violet...

[OhioStateProgressive]

15. do you support...

...Israelis having the right to live without fear of being blown up in buses or cafes?

[Violet_Crumble]

16. No-one in this forum supports sucide-bombings...

Those who have get banned pretty swiftly...

Now here's a question for you, just so I can get a clearer idea of yr views. Do you support the right of the Palestinian people to live in peace and security in a viable state of their own in their territory captured by Israel in 1967?

Violet...

[OhioStateProgressive]

17. yes

I do support it, when the Palestinians give up their struggle

I support them living in a Palestinian state that exists inside of the current green line, they forfeited their right to a state bound by the 47 partition

[Nadav]

18. You're wasting your time

[OhioStateProgressive]

19. i know

I know I am wasting my time trying here, but I cannot sit back and watch the one sided arguments without at least shedding alittle truth on the matter.

[northzax]

21. so in order to win, the Palestinians have to lose?

interesting. And define 'give up the struggle', please. Shall we say five years with no attacks on Israel (oops, did that in the nineties, didn't work) or twenty? kowtowing by Palestinians? Define 'give up the struggle.'

you know what's funny? there was a movement in Parliament to give the American Colonies the same rights as british citizens, if only they would give up the struggle. Every colonial power promises carrots when the stick is failing. But it's too late, then, the other side knows that they have nothing to lose, and everything to gain. Israel missed it's window of being the wronged party in this fight and is just as culpable as the Palestinian Authority is. So why not gain the high ground and back off? It's inevitable, it's going to happen, how many more people must die before it does?

10?
100?
1000?
more?

both sides share the blame, real leadership and humanity is leading the way to a solution, even if there is a loss of pride along the way. The side with more power can most easily do this. so why not? Sure, the Palestinians should as well, but the 'because he's doing it too!" arguement doesn't work in Kindergarten, why should it work here? One side needs to step up. Can you give us one good reason why it shouldn't be Israel?

[OhioStateProgressive]

22. giving up the struggle means stopping all resistance

but your comparison is meaningless, since Israel isn't a colonial nation

but, it means they admit they lost, they stop resisting

basically admitting all of their resistance has been wrong, and accept whatever deal they are offered by Israel and the west

[Cheswick2.0]

23. so they should just lie back and enjoy it?

I think Israel should give back the land. That would stop the conflict.

[OhioStateProgressive]

25. i think terrorism should stop

that would end the conflict

[Cheswick2.0]

26. from your mouth to Sharons ears

I agree that terrorism should stop. Do you think Sharon would stop if you asked him nicely.

[northzax]

27. er, terrorism did stop

through most of the late 90's. And yet the occupation did not. Where's the lesson?

[OhioStateProgressive]

29. that's incorrect

it most certainly did not stop during the mid 90's, i would like to know where you got that impression

[northzax]

30. ok then

http://www.terrorvictims.com/attacks%201990_2000.htm

will you accept this as a source? note that there is not one single attack between 1992 and 2000 that is linked to the Palestinian Authority. Unless you believe that Hamas is somehow under the control of Arafat as well? there will always be fringe groups (like Hamas) interested in Chaos for the sake of Chaos.

or should the Palestinians have taken the murders by Goldstein in 1994 to be acts by the State of Israel?

There will always be criminals on both sides of an issue, the question is, do we let them determine the fates of everyone?

[OhioStateProgressive]

31. yes

documents uncovered by the IDF in Jenin show that at the time of the Oslo agreements, arafat was sanctioning attacks by Hamas...the same hand he shook Rabin with, passed money to Hamass to finance terror

[idontwantaname]

32. just like we finance terror worldwide right?...

we: repugs and democraps.

[OhioStateProgressive]

33. hmmm

I am unaware of what you speak of

[idontwantaname]

34. honestly...?

you seem to be unaware of a lot of things... very strange for a kucinich supporter.

[OhioStateProgressive]

35. im not unaware, i don't label terror as you do

I do not call everything under the sun terrorism, as most leftists do...now, what terror has america funded?

[Darranar]

36. But you still have not defined your concept of terrorism...

so arguing that would be pointless....

[OhioStateProgressive]

37. oh i did define it, it was one of my 6 deleted posts last night(nt)

[Darranar]

38. I don't think so...

I think I managed to read all of those posts, don't recall it....

For what it's worth, in regard to US funding of and participation in terrorism:

Nicaragua throughout the 1980s (politically-motivated mass murder by the Contras)

Turkey in the 1990s (state terrorism against the Kurds)

[OhioStateProgressive]

39. well, I don't define either of those as terrorism

although Saddam Hussein committed terror against the Kurds

now the contra affair was very much a crime, but I fail to see how it was terrorism

I define International terror as what the Fundementalist muslims are doing right now...to go back and start calling most everything terrorism is terribly revisionist

[Darranar]

40. That is an interesting definition...

What is the difference between slaughtering thousands of innocent people for a political reason and slaughtering thousands of innocent people for a political reason? Is there some inherent quality in Muslims that make what they do terrorism, but every other atrocity simply a crime?

What is the difference between what Saddam Hussein did (brutalize and slaughter innocent Kurds) and what Turkey did (brutalize and slaughter innocent Kurds) except that one was aimed at ethnic cleansing, the other at repression? Is "terrorism" simply a quality added to someone's atrocities once they become enemies of the US?

[OhioStateProgressive]

41. of course not

there are plenty of non muslim terror groups (IRA,The Escundis in Spain, etc,etc)...but i think it is revisionist to go declaring everything under the sun as terror...what the Contras were involved in was a civil war, the Turkish fight vs the Kurds, well that is a struggle as old as Kurds and Turks have been around, it is a bit of warfare on each side (as a matter of fact it is probably more fair to call the Kurds terrorist in the example you mentioned, the Turkish response is just that, a response to terror)

I find a very current trend for people to go over labelling of things as terror nowadays

[Darranar]

42. Can't a response to terror be terroristic?

If China was attacked by Nepalese terrorists and proceeded to invade Nepal and deliberately slaughter innocent Nepalese for the purpose of controlling that country, wouldn't that be state terrorism, and yet also a response to terrorism on the other side of the war?

Why can't terrorism occur in a civil war?

You still have yet to explain why in one case deliberately slaughtering innocent people for a political reason is a crime, and in another deliberately slaughtering innocent people for a political reason is terrorism. In what case would slaughtering innocent people for a political reason NOT be terrorism?

[OhioStateProgressive]

43. interesting

this is the problem with this discussion...I believe in this day and age, post 9-11, terror has come to mean a very specific thing...not a broad definition...sure, we can call everything terroristic if we want to

so label me a bigot, but in this day and age, for the purpose of our discussion here, I am labelling terrorism as what the Palestinian orgs are doing against Israel, what Al Qaeda and the Iraqi resistance is doing against us, and what the Chechyans are doing against Russia

[Darranar]

44. Why?

I can call US actions in Iraq, clapping one's hands, and me breathing blushfaknikandiankaidnism, but my strange definition simply muddles language....

The only difference is that in one case I am making up a word on the spot, and in the other you are taking a controversial term and assigning it a definition to suit your purposes.

Without consistency of application such terms become pointless. If I claim that "murder" is the deliberate killing of innocents when done by the US, I eliminate its purpose in common debate. I can't say that because what the US is doing in Iraq is murder, the Iraqi resistance is better than the US, because the Iraqi resistance may be committing morally equivalent actions that were murder but are no longer, because I redefined the term. Similarly, if Israel were to commit equivalent crimes as Hamas (leaving aside questions of whether they do), perhaps by indiscriminantly bombing the Occupied Territories and killing a dozen innocent Palestinians, while your definition of terrorism doesn't apply (because Israel is not Palestinian, Iraqi, or Chechnyan), the act is morally equivalent to terrorism and, had it been done by Chechnyans, Iraqis, or Palestinians, your definition would classify it as terrorism.

Look at it in another way. Your definition of terrorism consists of two parts:

1. Being Palestinian, Iraqi, or Chechnyan.
2. Committing actions that you would consider terrorism when done by the above groups.

Unless you are bigoted I do not think that you would say that (1) is a crime or morally wrong. Therefore, considering terrorism to be as you define it, what is wrong about terrorism - why it is immoral and should be opposed - is wholly in (2). Therefore, when Israel, or the US, or any other nation, commits (2), they are, from a moral perspective, committing an equivalent crime as the Palestinians. In order, then, to show that the Israeli government is more moral than the Palestinians, it would be beside to point to claim that they are not committing terrorism, because, according to your definition, that is inherently true. Rather, you would have to show that they are not committing (2). So, in essence, in logically arguing that Israel is indeed "in the right", including the term "terrorism" (again, by your definition) would be pointless unless matched by an equivalent term on the Israeli side (which you would have to show does not exist, or exists in a significantly lesser amount).

Anyway, the term "terrorism" has no indicator of its specific appliance to certain groups of people. It is not like, for example, anti-Semitism, which means specifically racism against Jews because it was coined that way and has been used that way since.

[OhioStateProgressive]

45. look, i said this was a problematic discussion because of this

it is the problem taking an abstract adjective and trying to make a verb out of it.

this is why i tried to clarify with "for the purpose of this discussion", the Israelis, us, and the Russians are fighting a "war on terror", well, the terror we are fighting is Muslim fundementalism, perpetuated by the groups above mentioned...of course there is more terror than just this, but this is what we are fighting, so for this discussion I believe it holds true

[Darranar]

48. But if in that "war on terror" the supposed "anti-terrorists"...

commit terrorism, isn't that something to consider?

What people say and what they do are different things, and the difference is even larger concerning governments. Just because "we" are fighting a supposed "war on terror" does not mean that it actually is a war on terror, and it certainly doesn't mean that there is no "terror" involved on "our" side of the war.

[OhioStateProgressive]

50. I'll cede that to you

But again, this further removes us from having ANY definition to this stuff at all..I mean we can look up in the dictionary what the word terror means, and use it in every one of those instances that seem, at surface level, to fit...but I think it loses all meaning then

on your first point, well, I would say it is more fair to call 'terroristic' type things done by legitimate armies in legitimate warfare "war crimes", a strictly defined term with specific meanings...mostly, the things we call terror nowadays come from illegitimate groups

[Darranar]

52. But the greatest crimes have always been committed by...

supposed "legitimate" groups.

Most of the brutal tyrants and murderous warmongers of history had "legitimate" militaries and governments. They still were brutal tyrants and murderous warmongers.

Terrorism is more than simply criminal, which is why the term war crime doesn't suffice. Soldiers pretending to be civilians is a war crime, but I wouldn't consider it terrorism.

[Lithos]

55. Perhaps an explanation

Terrorism is the use of violence to control or bend a population to your will. It involves specific actions with an intended purpose.

A war crime is an act of violence or banditry against a civilian population by a member of a military unit - legitimate or paramilitary. It may or may not involve the use of violence (such as the destruction of a hospital or the theft of valuables). Also no intent is attached to such an act as it stands alone.

However, a violent war crime with the intended results of controlling a civilian population is still terrorism.

Not all terrorism involves military or paramilitary units. Not all war-crimes are violent or intended to dominate a civilian population. However, there is still an intersection between the two.

L-

[OhioStateProgressive]

57. don't presume to think i need to be explained to(nt)

[Lithos]

58. It was not in response to your post

It was in response to Darranar's question/statement about the sufficiency of the war crime definition.

L-

[OhioStateProgressive]

59. it's all good(nt)

[idontwantaname]

60. i will be in israel to visit some close friends...

is it possible for us to arrange a meet up?
i would be interested in placing a face with a name. PM me.

as for this part of the thread... i do not know where it has gone but maybe we can stop it here.

PS- thanks lithos for the terrorism explaination. i knew yove posted it before but i couldnt remember where.

[Darranar]

61. Most counter-insurgency operations, then, are terrorism...

they target violent dissidents not only to eliminate resistance, but to coerce the population into not adopting such tactics.

Even anti-crime efforts designed to deter crime could perhaps be considered terrorism under that definition.

In my view, terrorism not only intends to violently coerce civilians, but it does so through the use of violence against them. In that sense, Israeli killings of Palestinian terrorists, while partially motivated by a desire to coerce the population into not becoming terrorists, are not terrorism, while the recent US strike on a crowd of civilians would count as such.

My point in regard to war crimes v. terrorism wasn't that there is no relationship. It was, rather, that terrorism is certainly a war crime, but it is more than that, in the same sense that murder, while a crime, is more than simply that. If I were to accuse the US, Israeli, or Russian governments of war crimes, it would be a lesser accusation than accusing them of terrorism, because there are war crimes that are of less repugnancy than terrorism. This is even more relevant in a time when international law is mocked while terrorism is held up as the ultimate evil. So, to say that war crimes is the equivalent of terrorism when it comes to legitimate governments and militaries is inaccurate.

[Lithos]

62. Coerce is a good word

And I can agree with the use of it.

Most counter-insurgency operations are directed towards armed militants which do indirectly include civilian loss as part of the fallout. Sometimes poor planning and poor operational choices create unnecessary casualties.

However, there are certainly those operations which are conducted in a manner intended to cow the citizens. Stalin's operations in the Ukraine post WWII certainly counts in this vein. Same with Turkey's operations in the Kurdish regions in the 1980's and 1990's.

As for war crimes... my point there is that war crimes can involve non-violent activities such as theft of property and valuables (such as the theft by the Nazi's of art work, etc.) and do not fall in the category of terrorism. Also some war crimes are committed out of the heat of the moment. Witness the infamous shooting of the captured Viet Cong member by the Hue(?) chief of Police. This wasn't terrorism, but it was a war crime.

However, your point that when terrorism occurs by soldiers/military combatants then it is undeniably also a war crime.

[Darranar]

63. My point wasn't about civilian casualties...

My point was that counter-insurgency operations often operate not only to eliminate the insurgents but to coerce the population into not cooperating with them and not becoming them. One means of doing so is killing insurgents, but I wouldn't consider that terrorism even if one of the motives is the coercion of civilians.

Collective punishment is another means of doing so, for instance Israel's destruction of homes, but while often a war crime I wouldn't consider it terrorism unless it involves the deliberate killing of innocent people. Terrorism is a word with enough power that it should not be used lightly, but it should be used consistently to give it a clearer meaning and make the term more than simply a tool of propaganda.

So, in essence, simple coercion of a civilian population isn't terrorism, but it requires deliberate targeting of them as well. The Contra campaign in Nicaragua qualifies, as do incidents of genocide and ethnic cleansing, among them Turkey's attack on the Kurds.

Civilian casualties is quite another matter entirely. I doubt it makes much difference to those who have lost family and friends whether it was "deliberate" or "accidental", any more than it matters to the victims of the tragedy in the Sudan whether it is "genocide" or a mere "conflict", but it is still an important distinction to keep in mind. It is unfair to equate fighting militants and accidentally killing civilians in the process to deliberately targeting civilians.

There is, however, an effective argument for a different perspective. When the United States launched its August assault on Najaf, no reasonable person could claim that it would involve no civilian deaths. It was a military operation in an urban area, and as such it was inevitable that civilian casualties would occur, whatever the supposed "caution" of the invaders. It cannot be claimed that such results were "accidental", since they were entirely predictable. They may not have been the objective of the operation, but they were unquestionably part of its cost, and it was inevitable that it would be so.

When such operations are unnecessary and this is known beforehand by those planning it, there is a reasonable argument that this could amount to terrorism. Since most large-scale military operations have an inevitable civilian cost, going forth with them when they are not the right solution and you know they are not the right solution amounts to little more than slaughter, since they are not constructive. In a case where they are done anyway, for reasons of personal power, bigotry, or otherwise, they are nothing more than killing for no legitimate reason.

Typical compunctions regarding killing are suspended when operations target combatants. This is because those combatants are violently fighting the military, and therefore can be legitimately destroyed. However, if launching an operation to destroy them would be ineffective security-wise or even counter-productive, than the usual justification is eliminated. Going forth with the operation anyway amounts to killing people without justification, therefore it is equivalent to murder, which, if used for coercion of a population, is morally equivalent to terrorism if not precisely falling into the defintion I have used.

[Lithos]

64. Ahh

My point was that counter-insurgency operations often operate not only to eliminate the insurgents but to coerce the population into not cooperating with them and not becoming them. One means of doing so is killing insurgents, but I wouldn't consider that terrorism even if one of the motives is the coercion of civilians.

No, demoralizing the enemy population through legitimate military campaigns is an acceptable form of combat. There is no reason for one side NOT to use superior firepower or means if it can and will result in fewer casualties to your army, SAVE for the case where it causes unnecessary destruction and violence to the civilian population, its infrastructure, its cultural heritage and to the environment.

You could even cite as an example a special case where losing on the battlefield still accomplished the strategic goal of demoralizing the enemy. This example is the Tet offensive.

[The Magistrate]

65. An Excellent Colloquey, Sir...

"Terrorism" is definitely a coinage of use only in muddying any discussion; a word that enables all to claim with Alice's Hatter, "When I use a word, it means what I say it means!" It is best left aside entirely, in my view. There is today no "war on terrorism" whatever. There is a war between Islamic fundamentalist radicals under arms and the United States and the West in general as they construe it. There are also a variety of seperate wars, such as that between Russia and Chechnya, and that between Israel and Arab Palestine, and that between the United States and Iraq, and it is true that the Isalmic radicals seek to chip in on them all. That is insufficient to make them all merely fronts in a single war, however, as they all have independent causes and would exist without the radical element that seeks to piggy-back upon them.

[forgethell]

67. How much land?

from the river to the sea? That's what the Palestinians want, what they say they want? Why should I not believe them, just because they have l ied in the past and have not fulfilled any pbligations of various agreements in the past?

Arabs attacked Israel before they lost the West Bank. That's why they lost it.

[Violet_Crumble]

70. What the Palestinians want...

...is the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Not an unreasonable expectation. Mind you, the Likud Charter defines Israel as being from the river to the sea. Is that okay? Now, considering Israel has lied in the past and not fulfilled its obligations, why do you believe them at all? Or is it only Palestinian lies that you have a problem with...

I think most of us are aware of why Jordan lost the West Bank. You haven't explained why Israel's still holding onto it over thirty years later, though...

Violet...

[northzax]

28. you are right

a colonial power works to increase the value of their holdings. An occupying power does not. Israel falls in the latter camp, not the former.

both sides have lost. Why is the onus on the Palestinians to accept a deal, and not on Israel?

[Cheswick2.0]

24. That's what the Palestinians say too

when they see hate standing right in front of them. Unfortunately the hate they see kills them at about 3 times the rate of Israeli deaths.

[Amazin]

46. This conflict will not end

Till Israel starts treating Palestinians with fairness. Israel has the power to make peace tomorrow if it wants. They hold all the cards. But they feel that they don't need to because they are so powerful compared to the Palestinians. The U.S. is in the same position in Iraq.There is one underestimation in both cases by the U.S. and Israel. The will of the people to be free of their oppressers. Eventually Iraqi's and Palestinians will win. But they must stay true to their cause. When they stray and act like their adversaries,killing innocent civilians,they hurt their own cause and weaken their spirits and cause.Otherwise,the natural order of light over darkness will eventually and naturally prevail.

[OhioStateProgressive]

47. yes, and fairy farts will power cars(nt)

[Darranar]

49. Like it did in the Americas...

when invaders carried out a campaign of genocide against the natives?

[Amazin]

51. Who said the Americans won?

The fart knocker?

[Darranar]

53. No, you said that light always triumphs over darkness...

I contested that.

[Amazin]

54. Yes light will allways dispell darkness

Your example of the American Indian is flawed on many levels and is not a good argument against the good v. evil theory. For one thing there are twice the number of Indians in NA today than there were in 1492. They have been outpopulated.How they are treated today would be more relevant to the point of how Palestinians are treated.

Futhermore the Indians were the sole race in NA over 20,000 years. The American empire is only a couple hundred years old. Doubt this empire will make it as long as the Indian's did if they dont see the light soon. In other words,America can't claim a victory if it blows itself up after only a 2 or 300 year reign. That would be a joke for historians.

[forgethell]

66. It seems to me

that the Palestinians should first show that they will give up murder as a political tactic. The Israelis will be able to relax the irksome restraints on the Palestinians. Perhaps, if they prove they can be trusted, the Palestinians may one day get their own state.

But I'm not holding my breath.

[idontwantaname]

68. it seems to me...

israel should halt its crimes as well...

[Djinn]

56. come on VC

for the same reason that Pauline wasn't racist she had a friend who's chinese and Fred Nile isn't homophobic.

Weird the amount of people willing to be on friendly terms with people who despise them isn't it :eyes: