Weekend Suicide Bombings

I'm sure everyone knows what happened over the weekend in Israel: three suicide bombers detonated their bombs (and themselves) in crowded areas. 10 were killed when 2 bombs went off at a mall; 15 were killed when a man exploded on a bus in Haifa.

Obviously, it's an attack on Israel. Hamas has claimed responsibility. Hamas opposes the state of Israel and seeks its destruction. They also, therefore, oppose any peace accords with the Palestinian Authority. They will continue bombing as long as Israel exists.

In retaliation, Israel fired missles near Arafat's offices. They are also occupying some Palestinian land. One can imagine that this is only the beginning.

There is obviously a continued threat. So, my question - what is an appropriate response? I'd especially like to hear tw's opinion on this, but everyone should contribute.

[jet_silver]

The only response that is left is take two aspirin and try to forget it. It's pretty clear no outside agency is going to be able to fix the problem.

I'm not interested in the 'rightness' of anybody's position. The status quo is either acceptable or not acceptable to the people involved, who need to decide whether they want to live in peace (in which case they need to abandon their feud) or whether they want to annihilate one another (in which case no external peace-keeping mission is going to do any more than slow down the inevitable).

Throwing assets of any kind at either side is a waste of time and money. Throwing talk is cheaper but it serves to aggrandize the matter, which is that two intransigent peoples don't, apparently, value getting along.
Historically speaking, if both sides in a war fight themselves into exhaustion, a third party will take advantage of the power vacuum to exert their own control, and that is what intransigent people seem to need in order to learn to behave themselves.

Let me clarify:

I didn't mean "what is an appropriate response for the US?" but, rather, "what should Israel do?" It seems to me that they're in a never-ending war, but how does a nation react to this? Not a one-time thing, but a constant bombardment. Weekly suicide bombings. Weekly murder of innocent Israeli civilians just driving down the road. What is Israel to do?

[russotto]

Originally posted by dhamsaic
Let me clarify:

I didn't mean "what is an appropriate response for the US?" but, rather, "what should Israel do?" It seems to me that they're in a never-ending war, but how does a nation react to this? Not a one-time thing, but a constant bombardment. Weekly suicide bombings. Weekly murder of innocent Israeli civilians just driving down the road. What is Israel to do?

Stop with the half-assed tit-for-tat responses and go for an all-out war with the terrorists and their supporters.

Unfortunately for Israel, this is pretty much impossible; they can't just invade Syria, for instance.

[tw]

Originally posted by dhamsaic
Let me clarify:

I didn't mean "what is an appropriate response for the US?" but, rather, "what should Israel do?" It seems to me that they're in a never-ending war, but how does a nation react to this?

The bombings play perfectly in Sharon's playbook - to repeat the obvious. Sharon's history is to advance himself at the expense of others - including almost inciting WWIII.

First, Sharon wants to eliminate the Oslo Accords and make UN 242 irrelevant. The final act will be the annexation of Gaza and West Bank. Making them part of Israel is a long time Likud's (Zionist) objective. The more land they can steal using 'legal' actions (an act of terrorism without outright violence), then the more likely the Palestinians turn extremist; become bombers.

Second, as soon as George Jr announced his war on terrorism, Sharon stepped right up (next to India who wanted Pakistan on that list) to demand that Arafat be listed. Having been denied, Sharon continued actions that would only inspire more terrorist bombs. Those bombs are not from the PLO. Those are Hamas and Islamic Jihad bombs - the enemies of Sharon and Arafat. No problem. Just declare the bombings as plans by Arafat. Declare Arafat's personal security force as terrorist (without reason), to make Arafat appear evil among those who read nothing more advanced than the Daily News or National Inquirer or the words on the Ch 6 Action News set.

With so much emotion in Israel (do you remember your mindset on 12 Sept), Sharon can lie openly about Arafat and no one dares to disagree. Meanwhile Sharon has perfectly discredited all moderate, non-extremist parties. Especially discredited is Peres who has been manipulated as a government minister to look like a buffon. There is no viable moderate leader in Israel - just Likud extremists.

A Saudi Prince donates $10million to the WTC fund, states the obvious about US/Arab relations, and has his check returned only because he told the truth in September - when emotions were so raw. Peres suffers the same problem being a moderate in an extremist government. IOW, in Israel, there are no moderates - another successful part of the Sharon plan. At least in America, moderate opinions still thrive. Not true in Israel even though continued extremist government policy will only result in more suicide bombings.

We need only look at our own history. The king enacted economic terrorism against the colonies - actions that pale compared to what Israel does to Palestinians. In America, the king was confronted by a Declaration of Independence and outright, immoral guerrilla warfare - the terrorism of its time. Of course Israel will only suffer more outright rebellion - suicide bombs. No problem. Sharon is a man who prospers at the expense of others. Who long ago considered civilian causulties as colateral damage and oppurtunities rather than as fatalities. More suicide bombs only play into his hands. That is his history.


Keep pushing Israeli government terrorism against innocent Palestinians just a little more every week. Image of the Day' picture of a tank shell in Ramallah. More escalation. Push tanks into Ramallah and see how George Jr and Europe respond. One year ago, the negative response would have been aggressive. Now attacking Palestinian major cities with tanks using live shells is as acceptable as attacking police stations with Cobra attack helicopters (only because those police try to keep law and order in Palestinian controlled areas). Not mentioned was how those tanks also made every effort to damage those Palestinian streets or how those attacks were so excessive that even reporters and ambulances were kept out for hours while some people bleed to death on the streets. Ahh, but since that part was not photographed, the violence occurred without world criticism. Violence slowly escalated so the world will accept more violence. Another well executed part of Sharon's plan.

Tony Blair has provided so much support for America recently. He got nothing in return for his military that has been all but denied active roles in Afghanistan. Two weekends ago, Colin Powell was to give a benchmark speech on the Middle East. Tony Blair represented opinion of almost every EU nation. Maybe Blair's constant criticism of a myopic George Jr middle east policy was finally understood? Maybe the US would finally reengage a policy of seeking a peaceful settlement? The international diplomatic community held its breath for Powell's speech.

It did not happen. Instead Powell gave the traditional 'ignore the reasons for Middle East violence' speech. So Deja Vu that the breathlessly awaited speech was hardly reported in the news. But confirmation of America's hands off attitude was taken by Sharon as permission to start his last phase. All Sharon needed was an incident.

Hamas plays into Sharon's hand. IOW extremists, even though adversaries, actually support each other in the destruction of moderates. Arafat is the moderate caught between condemnation by his remaining supporters, condemnation for suicide bombers he is powerless to stop, condemnation by Palestinian extremists, condemnation by Sharon as a terrorist (which is an outright lie), and condemnation by George Jr. who does not have the intelligence to see the problem he is creating. George Jr has the stupidity to not see Sharon as an anti-humanity extremist - probably because George is also as extremist right wing as his Attorney-general.

Another part of Sharon's plan calls for the assassination of PLO leadership. Assassination is not to be taken lightly. First, attack and kill low level politicians while calling them extremists or active terrorists. Slowly work up the political ladder until even an attack on Arafat will not result in world wide condemnation. That has just occurred. Arafat, in a desparate position, wildly rounded up anyone who might have had knowledge of the recent suicide bombings - justice be damned. In less than 24 hours, Israel personally attacked Arafat anyway. Why? Now that Arafat is imprisoning innocent people, then attacks on his person will not rally Palestinian support. In the meantime, we have become more tolerant even of the worse kind of Israeli violence - assassination of moderate PLO leadership.

Arafat did not encourage or plan those suicide bombs. Arafat has even less power today than previously to stop such bombings. But you would never know it from the right wing extremist Israeli rhetoric. Arafat is on the ropes. Now it is safe to assassinate him. Even the US President endorses, by not condemning, those actions. The White House nor its current representatives in Isreal will take an Arafat call. The last of the moderates in the Middle East are about to be removed.

One year ago, it was acceptable to attack honest Palestinian policemen even with attack helicopters and missiles. It makes Palestinian law and order that much more difficult. It makes it that much easier for Hamas terrorists to operate. How convenient for Sharon.

With the removal of Arafat, a Palestinian homeland, UN 242, the Oslo Accords - all Likud objectives are accomplished. Figure this accomplished before the end of 2002 based upon current progress.

George Jr does not understand how this all plays in the Arab world. Recruiting lines for Arab extremist organizations must be quite long these days. The 'man on an Arab street' does not see Israel attacking moderate Arabs. It sees American weapons attacking Palestinians while the American President endorses such actions by blaming Arafat for suicide bombings. Israel is effectively destroying the only moderate Palestinians. Moderate Palestinians are therefore encouraged to become the new bin Ladens. We will only reap the extremist violence that George Jr has sown years from now.

Both NPR and two consecutive episode of Nightline last week made that obvious. Koppel's concerns in tough questioning of Barak made that obvious. But then Barak is only operating in an ambassador function. His answers only deflect criticism rather than answer the questions.

One must remember that Sharon has prospered and advanced using massacres, instability, outright lies, and insubordination. We may eventually add assassination to his long list of 'reasons for promotion'. His actions today may result in a future WTC disaster in America because George Jr now endorses Israeli terrorism against even honest, innocent West Bank Palestinians. George Jr stopped calling for restraint in the Middle East. Sharon has been all but told, do as you wish. God save the innocent both in the Middle East and later throughout the world who will die because of extremist, anti-humanity Zionism at the expense of UN 242 and the Oslo Accords.

The appropriate response is a direct compliance with UN 242 and the Oslo Accords. But that cannot happen since 242 and Oslo are exactly the opposite of Likud's clear objectives. Things will only get worse because there is no alternative to Sharon and Likud - since both successfully engineered the assassination of Rabin.

[jaguar]

WIth Sharon blowing up Arafat's choppers i'd be shitting myself if I was him.

Its one of those permanat insolveables, Northern Ireland, Palastine and Kashmir, all equally unsolveable because the hatred runs so deep there will never be an agreement tht can keep everyone happy enough not to blow things up. Extreme religions is of course always there too.

[serge]

Until Israel becomes a true secular state, it's religious concepts (sacred land, pure Jewish state, etc.) will never allow for any kind of long-lasting peace.

As someone mentioned above.. look at Ireland.. 2 religious sects fighting for the same territory... same story here (at a basic level).

I'm wondering how long the Israelis who really want to make peace are going to take it. (people who'd give up control and would share the land right now)

tw -

How would you respond if your citizens were being killed? If innocent children were being targeted?

[ Edited: to add space between "being" and "targeted" ]

[tw]

Originally posted by dhamsaic
How would you respond if your citizens were being killed? If innocent children were beingtargeted?

Americans have been regular targets since the world changed - 1 Aug 1990. American citizens have been killed just because they are Americans and are therefore enemies of those terrorists. Nothing logically changed on 11 Sept other than another in a long series of direct attacks on Americans.

As I noted, how easy to hype public opinion after a major event. 12 Sept. What changed in your opinions compared to 10 Sept. If you had a major opinion change, then either you responded emotionally, or did not realize what was happening in the world. IOW either your responded emotionally or logically.

Maybe you don't remember VietNam. We could not withdraw even though we were the enemy of the Vietnamese people. Why? Emotion. We were under seige by communism. The domino effect, etc. Therefore the greatest enemy to the Vietnamese people was the same nation that Vietnamese leaders had asked for protection only ten years earlier. We were so emotionally attached to our thinking in part because we were denied facts eventually revealed in the Pentagon Papers.

My point is that if emotion is part of your opinion, then one is his own worst enemy - as VietNam demonstrated. Proper decision making is made only from logical facts. Only at the end, emotionally ask, "Does this make sense". Only after all logical facts are considered, does emotion play any part in decision making - and only to question the final result.

Yes, I am angry about WTC bombing I and II - both of which were equally violent - only one of which was as successful as planned. However you are encouraged, now that some of the emotion has died off, and review some of those post 11 Sept posts.

My first posts warned of an emotional response for good reason. My greatest fear was how emotionally and therefore irresponsibly Americans would respond. I am please to report that most responded logically - not emotionally. Maybe it was the many post '11 Sept' events such as the special West Wing episode that kept us logical. However, in Israel, there are no moderates anymore because emotion has empowered all extremists.

Logically, all terrorism both by the Likud government and by extremist Palestinian groups are directly traceable to no settlement according to UN Resolution 242 and the Oslo Accords. Who fears those provisions? Extremists. How does one undermine those provisions? Make people emotional so they will support extremists. It is a vicious cycle because too many people don't know how to maintain logical thought when emotion runs amuke.

How does the world end middle east terrorism? Logically, one effective method is to enable both side equally to obtain destructive terrorist weapons. IOW the only logical way at this point - especially with our own right wing government encouraging more terrorism on the Israeli side - is to sharply increase the death tolls equally on both sides. It will not happen and it would be condemed by those who only see the bloodshed and not the solution. But at this point, the only way a Middle East settlement will happen is if both sides suffer sharp and equal numbers of deaths - to drive the emotional back to a logical viewpoint.

Why are moderates gaining power in the Balkans and Ireland? The people now and emotionally remember the altnernatives. It is why Sen Mitchell and why Ambassador Holbrook could be so successful. Neither tried to use power to solve the problem. Both empowered moderates.

I consider the current Middle East situation treacherous. The original question is irrelevant because it asks me to be emotional. Notice the cold blooded logical response I have just advocated. Now I emotionally ask myself, is this acceptable? I don't like the solution, but I know of no other because the Middle East contains no moderates of any consequence. Extreme death rates well beyond a trivial 24 killed in a recent suicide attack are necessary to empower moderates. Yes, the death rate by terrorism in the middle east is really quite trivial at this point - especially when you consider the hundreds killed by other non-reported terrorist attacks against the Palestinians. A big event is only 24 dead? Peanuts compared to what is required to cause a settlement.

Moderates are not even being impowered by our reduced intelligence President apparently because he sees the entire situation in terms of power and not in terms of what provokes the current massacres. Therefore I emotionally reget having to see sharp increase in death rates as the only viable and logical alternative.

[tw]

BTW, a classic example of silly emotional reporting by irresponsible members of the press. They go into the street to ask the common man a question similar to, "How do you feel about the current suicide bombings in the Middle East?" That just begs for an irresponsible emotional response. It asks questions as silly as the fictional Leno interview cited previously. It asks for an emotional response rather than a logical response. The question only encourages emotional tirades at the expense of logical thought.

The word "feel" is the kicker. They are asking irrelevant questions that don't belong in any newscast {did you hear that KYW-AM and your reports on a Jewish Rabbi murder trial?}.

[russotto]

Originally posted by tw
The word "feel" is the kicker. They are asking irrelevant questions that don't belong in any newscast {did you hear that KYW-AM and your reports on a Jewish Rabbi murder trial?}.

As opposed to a Christian Rabbi?

[tw]

Originally posted by russotto
As opposed to a Christian Rabbi?

Are Rabbi only Jewish? Is there no other religious organization that also has Rabbi? Priest are not limited to Catholics. Ministers not just to Lutherans. Are Rabbi limited only to Jews?

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by tw
Are Rabbi only Jewish? Is there no other religious organization that also has Rabbi? Priest are not limited to Catholics. Ministers not just to Lutherans. Are Rabbi limited only to Jews?

To my own knowledge, yes. I've never heard or seen the term "rabbi" used with any other religion other than Judaism.

[jaguar]

THe man has aponit. Priest is generic, same way you don't hear of Islamic Bishops i guess.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by jaguar
THe man has aponit. Priest is generic, same way you don't hear of Islamic Bishops i guess.

Actually, I've never heard the term "Imam" used with any religion other than Islam.