"Palestinians hit by sonic boom air raids"

[doG]

Consider this:

 

Hamas, a terrorist thug organization living among the Palestinian people makes a random attack on innocent Iraeli civilians resulting in a death. Does that make it OK for the government of Israel to cause the death of a random innocent Palestinian?

 

IMO, the answer is no.

[phcatlantis]

And yet, that hasn't worked out at all, has it?

 

Sure it has. Israel has lost nearly 10,000 in five overt wars lasting a combined two years with its neigbhors, more than five times than the number of Israelis killed in five years worth of Palestinian intifada.

 

Israel's neighbors lack the capacity to send battalions of tanks about the region, but they seem to have no shortage of able-bodied volunteers ready to blow themselves up for the cause.

 

Which, as horrific as it is, doesn't come close to matching the lethality of Israel overt conflict with her neighbors. In short, I'll take suicide bombers over Syrian brigades nearly overrunning the Heights anyday.

 

You did a good job linking the details of the first intifada. I recommend reading up on the details of the second one.

 

I linked both. Hence the 1 and 2. And that's to make the point that Palestinian violence against Israel is relatively new and has only in recent years risen to within an order of magnitude of the deadliness faced by Israel twenty years ago. That was in response to your claim that Israel has faced this threat for 50 years. They haven't, and that contradiction undermines your entire perspective on the conflict.

 

And low and behold, guess what kicked that one off. An ultra-conservative Israeli politician who thought the Palestinians would just roll over from a non-violent show of superiority.

 

I don't think there's any evidence whatsoever that Ariel Sharon underestimated the impact of his presence on Temple Mount. There's a question as to whether he cared, or whether he should've. As far as I'm concerned, if the Palestinians feel that's justification for engaging in violent anti-Semitism, I grow less and less concerned with their national aspirations or physical well being for that matter.

 

Kinda like... sonic-booming a civilian population. Imagine that.

 

So by that reasoning, riot control is an exercise in futility.

 

And that's exactly the kind of misunderstanding that perpetuates senseless violence in the region.

 

It's not a misunderstanding. It's a perfectly understandable reaction to the barbarity of a would be nation that for reasons ranging from its own making to conditions imposed on her refuses to to join the modern world. And the question whether the mere satisfaction of securing the territories once and for all is worth enduring some years more of European scorn is a subjective matter.

 

The reason they should be making "land for peace deals" is that it's not their land.

 

Sure it is, as much as Spain can declare Basque territory its own. Surely you wouldn't argue that the Northern United States, whose populations by definition did not live in the South, had no right to force the Confederates back into the Union?

 

(Any chance we can skip a boiler-plate moral justification for the Israeli land grab and just go right to the usual denoument and just agree to disagree?) ;-)

 

Sure, and then we can get to the more satisfying discussion about whether or not this tactic will work. And if you can do that without appealing to moral indignation, then we can start right now.

[doG]

I direct you back to my post 34. Surely not all Palestinians like what Hamas and Hezbollah are doing, but do factors such as mal-education, many of them support terrorism.

I have no doubt that there are Palestinians that support Hamas and Hezbollah and it is certainly wrong. That does not make it right to cause the death of any random Palestinian because of it.

[phcatlantis]

Consider this:

 

Hamas' date=' a terrorist thug organization living among the Palestinian people makes a random attack on innocent Iraeli civilians resulting in a death. Does that make it OK for the government of Israel to cause the death of a random innocent Palestinian?

 

IMO, the answer is no.[/quote']

 

So if an innocent Iraqi is inadvertantly run over by a HMMVV in the course of an offensive against a known terrorist holdout in a crowded Iraqi city, does that invalidate the entire moral foundation of the operation? If you're consistent, you're answer is still no. And this is why it is impossible to take the far Left seriously on matters of war.

[ecoli]

Consider this:

 

Hamas' date=' a terrorist thug organization living among the Palestinian people makes a random attack on innocent Iraeli civilians resulting in a death. Does that make it OK for the government of Israel to cause the death of a random innocent Palestinian?

 

IMO, the answer is no.[/quote']

 

Consider this:

 

All of the terrorist attacks by Terrorists have been targeted at civilians.

 

Most of the deaths of Palestinians have been 1) mistakes (Israeli soldiers had reason to suspect that the citizen was a terrorist) 2) actual terrorists detained at the boarder or other places.

 

I have no doubt that there are Palestinians that support Hamas and Hezbollah and it is certainly wrong. That does not make it right to cause the death of any random Palestinian because of it.

 

I'll address this, but phcatlantis said it already. The death of a "random Palestinian" is sad and regretable, but unfortunate unavoidable. True, it does it make it right, and I wish all wars were called off, because they countries involved were concerned about innocent civilians.

[doG]

So if an innocent Iraqi is inadvertantly run over by a HMMVV in the course of an offensive against a known terrorist holdout in a crowded Iraqi city, does that invalidate the entire moral foundation of the operation?

No. If an innocent civilian is killed by the shrapnel caused by the missile that blows up the Hamas headquarters in the middle of some neighborhood it is unfortunate, but does not undermine the operation.

 

I simply object to the Israeli government taking an action that is not even directly aimed at Hamas or Hezbollah that results in the death of an innocent civilian. If they fly over some neighborhood in the middle of the night with the intent of causing a frightening boom that sounds like a bomb solely with the intent of trying to scare the innocent people of that neighborhood to voice their opposition to the terrorists and some old man dies of a heart attack then the Israeli's have murdered that old man unjustly.

 

It is one thing to have consequential deaths when targeting terrorists and quite another to cause a death when targeting innocents. As far as I know these night time fly overs are specifically aimed at the innocent, not the terrorists.

[phcatlantis]

No. If an innocent civilian is killed by the shrapnel caused by the missile that blows up the Hamas headquarters in the middle of some neighborhood it is unfortunate' date=' but does not undermine the operation.

 

I simply object to the Israeli government taking an action that is not even directly aimed at Hamas or Hezbollah that results in the death of an innocent civilian.[/quote']

 

That's a pretty untenable position to take. You have two operations, one obstensibly lethal aimed at a shooter and the other psychological and obstensibly non-lethal and aimed at the support base, and you prefer the one with the greater risk of collateral damage.

 

If they fly over some neighborhood in the middle of the night with the intent of causing a frightening boom that sounds like a bomb solely with the intent of trying to scare the innocent people of that neighborhood to voice their opposition to the terrorists and some old man dies of a heart attack then the Israeli's have murdered that old man unjustly.

 

Yet, like in the missile strike against a Hamas holdout, the innocent casualty is unintended. And in fact, the risk of unintended innocent death is far less in the case of these non-lethal measures.

 

It is one thing to have consequential deaths when targeting terrorists and quite another to cause a death when targeting innocents.

 

The operation doesn't target innocents. It targets those who aid and abet the enemy. A nation-state's centers of gravity are its industrial sites. If it is wrong to target those who harbor, supply and finance terrorists in known holdouts, is it then wrong to target industrial facilities of materal worth to the enemy?

 

As far as I know these night time fly overs are specifically aimed at the innocent, not the terrorists.

 

You've conveniently defined innocent to include anyone who doesn't qualify as an operator.

[Sisyphus]

You've conveniently defined innocent to include anyone who doesn't qualify as an operator.

 

Actually I think he means innocent in the sense of having nothing to do with it. It's entirely indiscriminate. Unless you think simply being a Palestinian is enough to convict you of supporting terrorism, which I think is called racism. The fact that it's (for the most part) merely psychological makes it not nearly as bad as if they were just indiscriminately bombing, but it's still pretty clearly wrong. I mean, there are terrorists living in every country of the world; are we going to shatter everyone's windows until they do something about it? No. That's ridiculous.

 

Not only that, but it's a stupid tactic. What effect could something like this possibly have but encourage yet more hatred for Israel among Palestinians, and turn people who WERE innocent into terrorists and terrorist-supporters? Yeah, good work, guys. Stop terrorism by making them as angry as possible. I'm sure that will work...

[Pangloss]

Whether it is a morally valid course of action is not something that I've commented on.

 

You did. Precisely where I entered the discussion' date=' in fact. In your words: "THAT's what he called [b']'two wrongs making a right'[/b], and his assessment was correct." I specifically entered the conversation to refute the characterization of this truism as an assessment.

 

I guess you're right, I have "commented" on it, though I haven't rendered an opinion on its value. I was, as you put it, summing up his point. I don't have a problem with you correcting my use of the word "assessment", although it seems like a rather fine nit to pick.

 

 

My question was whether or not you'd entertain such a position, not whether you'd adopt it.

 

Oh I see. In that case the answer is "yes". (I.E. as a moderator I have no objection to you presenting that position; as a participant I'd probably ignore it.)

 

 

And that's exactly the kind of misunderstanding that perpetuates senseless violence in the region. The reason they should be making "land for peace deals" is that it's not their land.[/quote'] what land are you talking about? Gaza' date=' or Israel?[/quote']

 

Pardon my lack of clarity. I was referring to the occupied territories (Gaza and the West Bank; now just the West Bank).

 

 

Sure it has. Israel has lost nearly 10' date='000 in five overt wars lasting a combined two years with its neigbhors, more than five times than the number of Israelis killed in five years worth of Palestinian intifada.

 

Which, as horrific as it is, doesn't come close to matching the lethality of Israel overt conflict with her neighbors. In short, I'll take suicide bombers over Syrian brigades nearly overrunning the Heights anyday.[/quote']

 

And yet here they are considering (and even carrying out) giving up the occupied territories in the hopes of peace. We can go around and around on this, but I doubt you're going to convince anyone that Israel has been a peaceful and stable country these past five years. And last I heard, most Israelis were in favor of giving up the occupied territories, and disgruntled with the hard-liners. (Or are you going to buck the consensus of every single analysis I've read and try to tell me that Sharon is leaving Likud to start a party that's FARTHER to the right?)

[5614]

How much can you guys post whilst I'm away!??

 

I've read through all of it and I'm not going to continue an argument based on different opinions which is 30 posts old.

 

I would like to bring up one old thing though:

 

Pangloss said that Israelis have been using the war technique for the past 50+ years as opposed to what? An alternative? I assume you mean a peaceful solution.

 

If you look back a while to the 6 Day War when Israel was attacked by countries on all of it's borders, Israel fought back, won and from that war and wars following (all started by the surrounding Arab countries) Israel gained land from the Arab countries.

 

Israel then gave back the majority of that land for peace treaties. That worked for a bit, but not as a permament solution.

 

Israel has just given up Gaza, have the problems stopped?

 

Over the last 50 years Israel has tried/sometimes had political meetings and treaties with nearly all of its Arab neighbours, none of these have permamently worked.

 

This problem is caused by extremists and terrorists, I think we would all agree... these extremists who are the suicide bombers and the people who fire missiles into civilian areas will not stop until Israel no longer exists.

 

If Israel gives up much of its land and sign peace treaties it is getting the Arab politics on its side. But the politicians are not the problem! The Arab politicians have little control over the extremists and the extremists will still lanch attacks against Israel. The extremists are the problem so to solve the problem Israel must do what the extremists want, which is to, well, not exist, this is not an option for the Israelis.

 

To tie this back into the thread:

 

Israel has tried peaceful solutions and it doesn't work as a permament solution. Looking at extremes if peace doesn't work then Israel must use war. But Israel is not extreme like that. It is using non-lethal warning audio bombs against its enemies.

 

I'm sure old men could have heart attacks from such loud bangs... but better 1 old man might die than explosives land and certainly kill many. Although these audio bombs do have a negative effect it is the best effect compared to all of the other options Israel has left.

 

=====

 

And Pangloss, just in reply to your last post: Whilst the small majority of Israelis were for giving up Gaza the vast majority are against giving up the West Bank.

[doG]

Actually I think he means innocent in the sense of having nothing to do with it. It's entirely indiscriminate. Unless you think simply being a Palestinian is enough to convict you of supporting terrorism' date=' which I think is called racism. The fact that it's (for the most part) merely psychological makes it not nearly as bad as if they were just indiscriminately bombing, but it's still pretty clearly wrong. I mean, there are terrorists living in every country of the world; are we going to shatter everyone's windows until they do something about it? No. That's ridiculous.

 

Not only that, but it's a stupid tactic. What effect could something like this possibly have but encourage yet more hatred for Israel among Palestinians, and turn people who WERE innocent into terrorists and terrorist-supporters? Yeah, good work, guys. Stop terrorism by making them as angry as possible. I'm sure that will work...[/quote']

I'm glad somebody gets it. That's better than none....

[5614]

So what? Would you rather that Israel:

 

a) Kills the Palestinians?

 

b) Ignores the Palestinians and let them keep bombing Israel?

 

c) Peacefully find a solution? (By giving up land or through political talks or treaties)

 

But 'c' won't work, we know this from past experience and read my previous post. So we only really have the ignore/war options. Surely the non-lethal warning option (the one you are ruling out) is the best???

 

I'm not saying that the effects are positive, but I'm saying it is the best available option.

[ecoli]

So what? Would you rather that Israel:

 

a) Kills the Palestinians?

 

b) Ignores the Palestinians and let them keep bombing Israel?

 

c) Peacefully find a solution? (By giving up land or through political talks or treaties)

 

But 'c' won't work' date=' we know this from past experience and read my previous post. So we only really have the ignore/war options. Surely the non-lethal warning option (the one you are ruling out) is the best???

 

I'm not saying that the effects are positive, but I'm saying it is the best available option.[/quote']

 

 

Option C goes back to the "all or nothing" mentality from the late 40's, although the terrorists they've left off the "nothing" part, and are willing to accept "some" with intent on taking the rest.

[Pangloss]

Israel has just given up Gaza' date=' have the problems stopped?

[/quote']

 

Too soon to say. Sure there've been bombings since then, but from what I understand the current frequency of attacks is far less than it was at the height of the second intifada. I'm not saying that's due to the Gaza pullout, I'm saying that we need to give it a little more time before answering a question like that.

 

I agree that most Israelis are not in favor of a total pullout from the West Bank, but most are in favor of leaving some of that territory. I think that's a reasonable compromise, and if it produces a situation in the future where there's peace in the region, and Israel still holds some of the West Bank, then I'm okay with that.

 

Of course it's not up to me, I'm just expressing my opinion on it.

[ecoli]

Too soon to say. Sure there've been bombings since then, but from what I understand the current frequency of attacks is far less than it was at the height of the second intifada. I'm not saying that's due to the Gaza pullout, I'm saying that we need to give it a little more time before answering a question like that.

 

many would say that the fence is responsible for the dramatic decrease in suicide bombers.

 

I agree that most Israelis are not in favor of a total pullout from the West Bank, but most are in favor of leaving some of that territory. I think that's a reasonable compromise, and if it produces a situation in the future where there's peace in the region, and Israel still holds some of the West Bank, then I'm okay with that.

 

I think, as you suggested, wait till we see what Gaza's like before Israel gives up any more land. It may be a useless gesture.

 

Of course it's not up to me, I'm just expressing my opinion on it.

 

As are all of us. In fact, as my mother refuses to talk about her opinions on this matter with Israelis, because she says she doesn't live there, so she can't know the true scope of the matter. And it's true. We can debate the matter all we want, but unless we experiance both sides of the situation, we really don't know what's like for members of either side.

[Pangloss]

many would say that the fence is responsible for the dramatic decrease in suicide bombers.

 

Could be. I doubt it was sonic booms.

 

You're mom's a smart woman. I often think that myself (not that I'm as smart, since obviously I end up opening my big mouth anyway ;->), but I guess it's okay to discuss and pay attention to a thing without diving into it in a partisan way. We can keep open minds, express our concerns, and make sure the people who live in that region understand that (a) they're being observed, (b) we support their efforts to end the violence, and © we want the end result to be fair.

[ecoli]

Could be. I doubt it was sonic booms.

 

You're mom's a smart woman. I often think that myself (not that I'm as smart' date=' since obviously I end up opening my big mouth anyway ;->), but I guess it's okay to discuss and pay attention to a thing without diving into it in a partisan way. We can keep open minds, express our concerns, and make sure the people who live in that region understand that (a) they're being observed, (b) we support their efforts to end the violence, and © we want the end result to be fair.[/quote']

 

oh absolutely. Discussion helps us keep an open mind, but you never know when you could deeply offend someone, just because you don't understand their situation. ( but I suppose talking about the situation could help relieve that, rather keeping silent and staying in ignorance) However, I'm afraid I'm going off topic now.

[john5746]

As are all of us. In fact' date=' as my mother refuses to talk about her opinions on this matter with Israelis, because she says she doesn't live there, so she can't know the true scope of the matter. And it's true. We can debate the matter all we want, but unless we experiance both sides of the situation, we really don't know what's like for members of either side.[/quote']

 

Yes, I wonder if Mexicans were coming over the border and suicide bombing us, how we would react. Would we give them a couple of states? I guess we are lucky that we had our manifest destiny early enough so no one could referee.

[Pangloss]

Yes, I wonder if Mexicans were coming over the border and suicide bombing us, how we would react. Would we give them a couple of states?

 

The more accurate way to phrase that would be to ask whether we would capture a couple of Mexican states in retaliation, and then give them back later in exchange for peace, only keep a couple of them because thousands of Americans had settled them during the interim.

[ecoli]

The more accurate way to phrase that would be to ask whether we would capture a couple of Mexican states in retaliation, and then give them back later in exchange for peace, only keep a couple of them because thousands of Americans had settled them during the interim.

 

it's almost like Texas... except without the giving back part. I don't think too many Texans would be happy if we gave them to Mexico.

 

edit: on second thought... It's not the same thing at all. In the war of 1967, Jordan attacked Israel, and so Israel captured the West Bank and Gaza during the 6-day War. Had Jordon stayed out of the war, this land would have remained Jordanian land. Land won in the conquest of war is one thing. But, when the country that lost the land was the first one to attack... then they really have no right to complain. Especailly since it wasn't Palestinian territory that was taken, but Jordanian.

 

http://www.ujc.org/content_display.html?ArticleID=54818

[phcatlantis]

Actually I think he means innocent in the sense of having nothing to do with it.

 

If that's the case then his point fails on the fact that the Israelis are targeting only players; in this case, the populations that provide safe haven for terrorists.

 

It's entirely indiscriminate.

 

The Israelis are quite discriminating. They're targeting the civilian support base for the Palestinians with a pretty precise and non-lethal weapon.

 

Unless you think simply being a Palestinian is enough to convict you of supporting terrorism, which I think is called racism.

 

Of course you do, because through that magnificent lens of yours "simply being a Palestinian" includes hiding and feeding the terrorists amongst you.

 

I mean, there are terrorists living in every country of the world; are we going to shatter everyone's windows until they do something about it?

 

Are you an Israeli? What's all this "we" stuff?

 

Not only that, but it's a stupid tactic. What effect could something like this possibly have but encourage yet more hatred for Israel among Palestinians, and turn people who WERE innocent into terrorists and terrorist-supporters?

 

By that reasoning, riot control measures are not only futile, but principally counter-productive. Here's a thought. I can go with your gut on this matter, or the professional opinion of senior IDF officers.

[Pangloss]

it's almost like Texas... except without the giving back part. I don't think too many Texans would be happy if we gave them to Mexico.

Well, you have to start somewhere, and if you're going to start with events taking place after *now* then you might as well start with the current geopolitical situation. Go back far enough and you can make any case of prior ownership you like. Nobody knows who owned what first. It just gets a little silly.

 

So I think my version is equally valid, and points out the inherent flaw in the comparison.

[phcatlantis]

And yet here they are considering (and even carrying out) giving up the occupied territories in the hopes of peace.

 

You know, everyday millions of working Americans plan the lottery...

 

We can go around and around on this, but I doubt you're going to convince anyone that Israel has been a peaceful and stable country these past five years.

 

I think you'd have a hard time convincing anyone except those on the most lunatic fringes that Israel is not a stable country.

 

And last I heard, most Israelis were in favor of giving up the occupied territories, and disgruntled with the hard-liners.

 

Most Israelis are. Which says nothing about their support for punishing Palestinian supporters of terror, now does it?

 

(Or are you going to buck the consensus of every single analysis I've read and try to tell me that Sharon is leaving Likud to start a party that's FARTHER to the right?)

 

I'd much rather watch you go one and one with your own strawmen.

[phcatlantis]

The more accurate way to phrase that would be to ask whether we would capture a couple of Mexican states in retaliation, and then give them back later in exchange for peace, only keep a couple of them because thousands of Americans had settled them during the interim.

 

The other guy's refering to the fact that much of the Southwest and California belonged to Mexico a century and a half ago. Or is there some sort of statute of limitations on territorial justice?

[Pangloss]

Wow, you're really dead set on spinning every possible thing your way.

 

We can go around and around on this' date=' but I doubt you're going to convince anyone that Israel has been a [b']peaceful and stable[/b'] country these past five years.

 

I think you'd have a hard time convincing anyone except those on the most lunatic fringes that Israel is not a stable country.

 

K, I'm taking that as a consession on your part.

 

I'd much rather watch you go one and one with your own strawmen.

 

There's a difference between a straw man and a valid example. Sharon was the hard-liners' hard-liner, and now he's becoming a moderate. It's valid, it's exemplary of the overall situation, and it fits the discussion.

 

I'm disappointed in your tone and your animosity, phc. I was hoping for a more objective and less ideological discussion from you. I hope you're going to be happy here, because our discussions tend to be a little more congenial. It's been my experience that people who are more interested in talking than listening are not happy here over the long haul. But perhaps it will work out, and I respect your opinion on it, even if it's pretty clear you don't respect mine.