March 22, 2004
Death of Hamas leader argued to bring more terrorism
It has long been known that terrorist organizations seek the destruction of their enemies. Even so, some still proclaim that any war against terrorism will bring more terrorism. But the question still lingers: Can an organization that seeks absolute destruction credibly commit to even more absolute destruction?
Sept. 11 came out of the blue. We had scored no political victories over al Qaeda, nor had we even started to wage war against terrorism as we now know it. Sure, some had disparaged our presence and so-called “meddling” in the area, but as far as the active pursuit of terrorism, it was unprovoked.
And since then, we have suffered no similar attack.
But following the recent killing of Hamas leader Ahmed Yassin, the subsequent vowing of revenge by assorted extremists, the Israeli left seems to think this victory against terrorism is a bad thing.
One member of the Israeli cabinet said that Yassin's death could bring even more terrorist attacks.
Statements like that perplex me. Especially when considering terrorist groups such as Hamas have already vowed terrorist attacks against Israel. Or is that pushing them into the sea business just figurative?
And of course this has American repercussions: Will some political leaders rue the day we caught bin Laden for the same reasons? I'm sure they're out there. But sane America doesn't need to hear it.
Posted by Deleted Author at March 22, 2004 12:49 PMAnd since then, we have suffered no similar attack.
We haven’t. But our allies have, in Spain, in Indonesia, and Iraq. The fact that they can do so overseas, indicates that they still have the Wherewithal to inflict terrorist attacks. And as the old saying goes, Al Quaeda only has to be right once.
I think Israel’s assassination of this guy is a case apart from Al Quaeda, because it’s wrapped up in the Palestinian cause. Right now, they are people with nothing to lose, except for their leaders. Take that away from them, and they will flock to somebody else, and probably not somebody with an opposing point of view.
My feeling is, the Israelis have seen little progress since the latest intifada started, and they started using these strong-arm tactics and isolating off the Palestinians. What Sharon would be best advised to do would be to improve the situation of the average Palestinian until such a point that the Palestinian would have something to lose by going radical.
Sharon, unfortunately has responded by doing precisely what the terrorists want: demonstrating that they are no better than the terrorists in the means they will use to strike at their enemies. It is this moral queasiness that terrorists thrive on creating. We can only remedy it by producing an equal or greater counterbalance of moral queasiness in Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims for what is being done by the terrorists. Arrests and evidence rather than suspicions and summary executions. Take away the excuses extremist have for such behavior, and you take away their effectiveness.
The way to win the war on terror is to stop acting out of irrational fear, but instead from enlightened self-interest. Be the good guy, don’t just call yourself one.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 22, 2004 01:10 PMAhmed Yassin’s well deserved killing isn’t likely to make things worse for Israel. He was the leader of a group which was totally committed to using any means (and especially bombing civilians whenever possible) with the long term goal of totally exterminating Israel.
When you are already committed to using any means you can get your hands on for the total extermination of your enemy, you can’t escalate.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at March 22, 2004 01:14 PMMore hate in the brewing. That’s what this murder will bring about. More volunteers to Hamas and Islamic Jihad’s camp. More aggravations for the Palestinian People. More anger and frustration, more reasons to demonise Israel (this time rightly).
How come someone even think this despicable act will not engender more terrorism?
And by the way, some people might argue that G.W. Bush deserves being killed too. He’s responsible for the death of thousands of Afghan and Iraqi civilians. Many more than Mr. Yassin.
Murder is wrong, and perilous, Sebastian. Always. Have you heard of courts and fair trials? I don’t know how close I am to critiquing the messenger here (I apologise in advance!), but defending an assassination is terribly wrong.
Germán
Madrid, Spain
Yassin’s death will only bring more entropy to an already disorganized faction. Al Qaeda may be a world organization and headed by a small group of people but that does not mean that individual cells do not have a latitude to work in. With him gone, those cells may take it upon themselves to either step up operations or commit independent attacks. Israel may just have precipitated a very grivous attack against themselves.
Posted by: Adam at March 22, 2004 01:42 PMThe situation is a lot more complicated than Sebastian and Dustin realise. These kind of issues are not suitable for the unsubtle reductionism much favoured by the right.
Ahmed Yassin may well have been as deserving of assination as anyone but the fact is, this will not bring Isreal any closer to secruity. An equitable, political, two state solution is the only thing that will end this problem. Killing someone in contravention of international law will always be an obstacle to peace. This action has and will be condemned by almost every country in the world. Can they all be ignorant anti-semites? Does Tony Blair’s total and vocal oppostion to this act mean anything?
The fact is that it might not be possible to cause Hamas to act in a more violent and ugly manner, but is not obvious that such terrorist organisations rely upon the oxygen of support from the general populace? You cannot radicalise Hamas any further, but what about the rest of the Arab world, or young Palestinians living wretched shitty lives? This is just the sort of action that terrorist organisations share a symbiotic relationship. They thrive upon it. This will lead to only more bitterness and bloodshed.
Posted by: Bob Hope at March 22, 2004 01:43 PMAgain, from Israel’s perspective, what did they have to lose? Hamas’ charter: “There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.”
http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm
How can you incite more hate than there already is?
Every time a Hamas leader has been killed, there has been a wave of retaliatory terror attacks. That fact is irrefutable.
I believe his death will result in more troubles for Hamas in the long run, but in the short term it’s going to be a painful time for Israel.
Posted by: ceejayoz at March 22, 2004 02:33 PM“An equitable, political, two state solution is the only thing that will end this problem. Killing someone in contravention of international law will always be an obstacle to peace.”
Sure, but Arafat doesn’t want a two state solution. He wants a one state solution with Israel ceasing to exist. He is willing to engage in intifada to try to get it. He rejected, out of hand and with no willingness to negotiate, two 2-state solutions which were offered to him in 2000. He responded with an increased terrorist war. The Israelis are willing to have a two state solution. Palestinians are not. Until they are, the war will continue.
“Every time a Hamas leader has been killed, there has been a wave of retaliatory terror attacks. That fact is irrefutable.”
I’ll agree with the sentence if you omit the word ‘retaliatory’. Hamas has expressed a complete willingness to engage in terror attacks no matter what the political situation. The fact that they are willing to accelerate planned attacks in response to media events is completely unsurprising. But their worst attacks were before Sharon, back when they were trying to derail the 2000 talks. In that case they were retaliating against the possibility of a two state solution.
“You cannot radicalise Hamas any further, but what about the rest of the Arab world, or young Palestinians living wretched shitty lives? “
This is at least a valid concern. The rest of the Arab world would destroy Israel if they dared. Making sure that they dare not, is wise.
Palestinians living their wretched lives need to realize that they could be 10 years into their own state if Arafat hadn’t been a complete monster. Not that living in yet another dictatorship would be that fun after you have experienced living in Israel—even as a Palestinian.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at March 22, 2004 03:58 PMSharon, unfortunately has responded by doing precisely what the terrorists want: demonstrating that they are no better than the terrorists in the means they will use to strike at their enemies.
The only thing the terrorists want is death, destruction, and above all victory. They are not fighting to make us better people. They are not fighting to bring peace or prosperity.
If the left put half the energy it does into opposing terrorists that they do in opposing conservatives… well, no use wishing is there? The idea that we need to understand terrorism, or try not to provoke them is completely alien to me. I don’t know what planet that idea comes from. It’s not assasination when you kill troops or generals in the field of battle.
More volunteers to Hamas and Islamic Jihad’s camp. More aggravations for the Palestinian People. More anger and frustration, more reasons to demonise Israel (this time rightly).
Dare I say it? …”Bring it on.” Line em up, and watch them fall.
Until they understand that they cannot win through terrorism, there will be no peace. At this point they do not want peace as you and I understand it. The latest Al Qaeda order to cease operations in Spain notwithstanding, we are at war and Spain is also at war.
This is just the sort of action that terrorist organisations share a symbiotic relationship. They thrive upon it. This will lead to only more bitterness and bloodshed.
I agree. But not for the reason you put forward. It will lead to more bitterness and bloodshed, only because neither side has acheived victory. Victory is defeating the enemy’s will to fight. That’s why appeasement seldom works. If the palestinians wanted a two state solution they’d have their own country already. That’s not even an issue to them. The destruction of Israel is.
Posted by: Eric Simonson at March 22, 2004 09:43 PM“Even so, some still proclaim that any war against terrorism will bring more terrorism.”
I believe that attacking and killing terrorists can result in a victory on the War on Terror, but only if it is coupled with actions that simultaneously diminish some of the base reasons for terrorism - murder, oppression, colonialism, extortion, and religious insensitivity(the last one is complicated).
One surefire way to cause more terrorism is to murder and oppress the terrorist’s “constituents.” This is exactly what we have done in Iraq. By killing over 10,000 Iraqis in a war that was unjustified, and whose goals could have been accomplished via peaceful means, we only serve to drastically increase the possibility of terrorism against our citizens, friends, and interests.
Israel should seek out and kill the terrorists that are targeting its civilians. It should not, however, fire missiles into residential areas in an attempt to do so. (incidentally, it does not help America’s image that those are U.S. missiles fired from U.S. helicopters) This is the same principle: If you truly desire peace, do not needlessly kill people.
It is not as simple as, “either you kill the terrorists at all costs or you give in to them totally.” I know it doesn’t sound-bite well, but the solution is rather more complicated. I believe that explains one of the reasons that Bush maintains the popularity that he has - his approach sound-bites incredibly well: “Terrorists are evil. We will bring them their final justice. God Bless America.” It makes him look like a fierce leader in time of war… and it also makes us less secure.
Posted by: Gaelen Burns at March 22, 2004 10:48 PMHow can you incite more hate than there already is?
George, unless you are an advocate of killing all the Palestinians (solutions like that have worked in the past, but I just want to hear you say it), the only question that makes sense is the ‘touchy-feely’ sounding, how do we get them to stop hating?
Israel should have finished the fence before killing Yassin, in my opinion. I don’t see what short-term strategic goal this is achieving, though Yassin got what he had coming.
This has brought things to such a maximum boil right now that Israel might very well be warming up to do the previously unthinkable—send Arafat to his just reward. What do they have to lose? Even more ululating in Gaza and bellowing from the madrassas? Even more hollow indignation from the impotent capitals of Europe?
Posted by: Martin at March 23, 2004 01:31 AMOr better yet, how do we remove the support for terrorists and make them irrelevent, which would have the same effect.
Finish the fence? Murder?
How about building the fence on Israeli, not foreign, soil? Using missiles to kill people IS TERRORISM. It’s been quite a long time since Israel has lost their moral ground ion denouncing terrorism. You can’t be a victim and a perpetrator.
I’m completely appalled at most of the things I read here. Why can’t just one person try to empathise with the Palestinian People (and please note, I never said Palestinian TERRORISTS)?
We stole land from them to create Israel, we deported their people outside Israel’s new borders, denied them their right to return, tolerated the occupation of the rest of their territory for 35 years. We allowed Israel to build settlements in their remaining land -thus annexing territory- and now, on top of it, we allow Israel to build a wall in their country -thus annexing MORE territory-!!
How can anyone be surprised there is terrorism? How can anyone be surprised that most Palestinians support Hamad or Jihad or indeed any b*st*rd that promises them liberation? Do you really think they’re a wicked people? I’m sorry guys, they’re just like you and me.
American one-sidedness on this matter goes beyong my understanding. And it’s the most important security problem this planet has.
Yes, you read well.
Germán
Madrid, Spain
And also like you and me, German, are the Jews who Germans (no relation I’m sure) exterminated on a massive scale—an atrocity which, when the world recoiled in horror against it, led to the establishment of the state of Israel—a place where Jews could finally defend themselves.
Also like you and me are the Jews blown up on buses and in restaraunts for being Jewish—a result of fanatical anti-semitism (aided whenever possible by the Arabs’ European accomplices and sympathizers).
I pity the Palestinans as well—pity them because their Arab neigbors refuse to let them into their own Arab countries (where they belong) and prefer to let them suffer for decades in “refugee camps”—all to foster a dream of destroying Israel and firing up the gas chambers and ovens once more. And pity them because their delusions are nursed by a morally bankrupt Europe.
Yes, this is the most important security problem the planet has—Europe’s moral impotence joined to its intellectual and military impotence.
The fantasies of genocide this engenders on the part of Islamic racist fanatics.
Posted by: Martin at March 23, 2004 03:16 AMMartin,
So let’s see if I understand it. Because of what the Germans** and other Europeans did we had the duty to wash away our sins by evicting the rightful inhabitants of Palestine and handing their lands over to the survivors of the Holocaust? That’s great reasoning. Two wrongs make a right.
Again, apparently defending the Palestinian People equals defending terrorism. No argument can be held on that basis.
I completely disagree with you. Palestinians belong in Palestine, not other countries. On what exactly do you base that argument?
You’re absolutely right, we’re morally bankrupt. We happen not to execute minors or retards over here. I suppose that makes us morally unworthy of having an opinion on what happens around us. And pretty close, I should add!
Thanks for your kind ‘intellectual impotence’ remark. May I suggest you burn every European book you can find? Let’s see how many you’re left with.
Oh, and let me thank you for not calling me anti-semite. Pointing out that Israel’s occupation of a foreign country violates international laws, that every settlement built on foreign territory is a new obstacle to peace (and, of course, an illegal annexation at that), and that building a separation fence on foreign land is outrageously illegal, almost always results in someone (especially someone from the US) calling you anti-semite. So I guess I should thank you for sparing me. One tends to forget that you have to approve of anything that Mr. Sharon does in order not to succumb to the temptation of firing up the gas chambers again.
(**No relation with my name, of course. It’s Herman, Hermann or Germain, in Spanish!)
Germán
Madrid, Spain
Good morning Lee: First let me say that my post was only a response to the argument that Israel was going to breed more terrorism by killing Yassin. I wasn’t really advocating a solution because a real solution is a pretty elusive thing. Unless, that is, you are willing to kill all of the Palestinians as you suggest. You could also kill all of the Jews as Hamas advocates, but neither of those options is really palatable to most people.
As to your question of how we get them to stop hating, I think it is important to look at how Hamas gets people to begin hating. One good thing is that Mr. Yassin put forth his strategy in writing via the Charter which states, “Mutual social responsibility means extending assistance, financial or moral, to all those who are in need and joining in the execution of some of the work. Members of the Islamic Resistance Movement should consider the interests of the masses as their own personal interests.”
As I understand Hamas provides many of the social services within the occupied territories. Since the 80s they have used this support as a means of spreading their message of hatred while appearing to be the caring organization that is fighting for the rights of the Palestinians. They also are heavily involved in the education system if I am not mistaken. It has taken years to develop a social structure that “breeds” hatred, and has happened while the rest of the world tried to work a negotiated settlement to the problem. But again, according to their Charter, “”Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.”
The answer then, at least to the Israelis, is to destroy Hamas and replace its leaders with people who are at least willing to negotiate. I don’t know if that will work either, but I don’t think they have much to lose by trying.
Who are “the rightful inhabitants of Palestine?” It’s a very debatable question. So who are the rightful inhabitants of Spain—the Moors? The rightful inhabitants of Russia—the deer and the elk? Where does this kind of thinking end?
Politically-motivated shiftings of populations have happened throughout history, and at some point you just have to face it. The suffering of the Palestinians could be relieved in one second if the Arab countries around them would absorb their populations. This won’t happen, however, because corrupt Arab leaders find it convenient to keep using Palestinian suffering as a distraction from their own inept rule.
Americans (who do not go on vacation while leaving thousands upon thousands of their elderly parents and grandparents at home to die each summer), do not need to defend itself in the eyes of self-righteous and no longer politically, militarily or culturally relevent old Europe. The reasons for this are so numerous and obvious that I won’t bore anyone or myself by listing them all.
Martin,
Well, Americans don’t go on vacation AT ALL. So that’s hardly surprising. Do you mean by your comment that we do that to our elderly? Well, you lock them up in retirement homes, don’t you? And frankly, are we going to stay for long in the mud?
Politically motivated “shifting of populations”. It sounds so inevitable. How about “politically motivated elimination of populations”? Well that has happened many times, too. Is it any fairer because of that?
No, Spain does not belong to the Moors for the same reason Palestine did not belong to the Jews: they are not here anymore. They have not for 500 years. They have no right to come back and claim the land.
Germán,
Madrid, Spain
Well, if they blow up a train or two, perhaps Spain will recognize the legitimate claim of the Moors to Spain, should they decide to make such a claim?
How about “politically motivated elimination of populations”? Well that has happened many times, too. Is it any fairer because of that.”
Nope, and that’s exaclty what we’re trying to avoid—even more European complicity in the mass murder of Jews.
I’m glad that you agree, though, that the simple reason that a population isn’t there anymore is enough reason to end their claim to the land. So let’s get those “Palestinians” even farther away. I suggest that they all migrate to Europe,—the land of the permanent vacation—where they can live care-free in a dying socialist utopia until things get so bad that America has to come along, like it always has in the past, and rescue the oh-so-superior Europeans from themselves.
Posted by: Martin at March 23, 2004 03:16 PMLet me clarify my earlier comment. What you have is literally a war of political violence. How people feel inclined to support one side or the other is important. Terrorists often try to provoke irrational retaliations and paranoid security lockdowns in order to alienate people from their political opponents on both sides. Terrorism, at it’s roots, is a social and political phenomena.
Military action is best used against states and standing armies. It’s what it’s built to go after. Terrorism, however, is often a localized, communal phenomena that bubbles up around territorial and political concerns.
In Spain it was Basque separatists, literally, people who want to break off the Basque speaking territories as a nation of it’s own. In Canada, it’s Quebec separatists, who want to disjoin the french speaking province. In Russia, it’s the Chechens, Muslims who wish their separation from the Russian nation. In the middle east, it’s Hamas, and Hezbollah, respectively of the occupied territories and Lebanon. One has to remember that Hezbollah got their start fighting against the Christian Phalangists over that country. The Taliban starts from guerrilla fighters striking at the soviets. So does Al Quaeda.
Their essential element in all those places is an alienated and/or downwardly mobile populace, people who have little else but what is in their head and in their hearts.
We have to help and to negotiate things to the point that social and political force begin to impose certain restraints on terrorists, in their freedom to move, in their support among those closest to them. The more dysfunctional Palestine gets, the worse off isreal will be.
Make the Palestinian territories a going concern, with income and lifestyle’s to lose, and you’ll find the people much more open to change.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 23, 2004 11:23 PM“Make the Palestinian territories a going concern, with income and lifestyle’s to lose, and you’ll find the people much more open to change.”
I agree that it’s worth a try, for humanitarian reasons if nothing else. But we can’t regard that as the whole solution and discount the role Islamicist ideology plays in this problem. Many suicide bombers in Israel have been upwardly mobile and well-educated (some were even doctors and engineers), which suggests that jobs and improved lifestyles won’t be enough. (In this sense, they mirror the 9-11 hijackers).
Martin:
So, the Jews were massacred in a horrendous fashion in Germany.Therefore, they have the right to do the same to the Palestinians?Am I right?Is that the reasoning here?
As for letting them back into Arab Land “where they belong”, frankly where they belong is where they are currently being pushed out off.
So now if tommorow, the Palestinians decide to lift anchor and move into say the UK,(nice little set of islands,prime location) you would support that endeavor?The whole conservative view point is shockingly biased with regards to this issue.
As for assuming that assasinating septuagenarian quadraplegics, will not provoke any further attacks, betrays a complete lack of understanding of how terrorism works.
If conservatives could just look past their noses into the real ways in which global situations
work, half the problem would be solved.
Martin,
Your remark on the trains was horrific. I won’t comment on that.
European complicity in the mass murder of Jews? Martin, for every Israeli dead in this conflict 3 Palestinians have died. You must be therefore an accomplice in a bigger crime, according to your reasoning.
You seem to resent the “fact” that we Europeans see ourselves as superior. Where did you get that absurd idea from? You got a Spaniard writing in an American political blog, and somehow you assume he despises you because you’re American or something? ??
Posted by: Germán at March 24, 2004 04:13 AMThe issue of becomming so upset with Israel over their targeting of a TERRORIST leader is somehow ignorant. If Israel were to do exactly what the terrorist do, they would just indiscriminantly lob missiles and bombs into palestine and try to kill as many as possible. Would the world be angry then? The world wants Israel to make peace with the terrorist in Palestine and that is as rediculous as telling the US to make peace with Al Qaeda. Would we listen? NO, I think not. Therefore we should not only stand behind Israel 100%, but we should join them and target Hammas as well as all the other terrorists organizations around the world. The only thing they respect is power, not peace.
Posted by: William Pritzker at March 24, 2004 09:24 AMWilliam,
That sounds very principled, but the facts are stubborn. And these are the facts:
- Israel is ocuppying another country since 1967
- Israel is slowly annexing bits of that country by beuilding settlements and
- The inhabitants of that country, many of which were expelled from Israel proper are impoverished, very angry and very, very desperate.
Who could be surprised these terrorists, fierce enemies of Israel, enjoy ample support in Palestine? These are not “evil people” out of the blue. This is not a black-and-white world, especially when the invaders enjoy “good-guy-status” with the American public.
You’re absolutely right in saying that Israel should not negotiate with Hamas. But it’s time for Israel, a democratic nation, to right a few wrongs it has created.
Germán
Madrid, Spain
Suhasini: “So, the Jews were massacred in a horrendous fashion in Germany. Therefore, they have the right to do the same to the Palestinians?Am I right?Is that the reasoning here?”
Absolutely not! They have the right to do the same—where did that come from? Are you really accusing Israel of massacring Palestinians? Expecially of massacring them by the millions? It’s the Palestinians, remember, who deliberately kill Israeli civilians, not the other way around.
German: You can’t just throw out a figure like “three Palestinians killed for every Israeli,” pretend that they’re equivelent situations and hope that nobody will notice the truth. Almost all of the Palestinians killed are combatants (whenever civilians are killed, it’s of course tragic, and will headline five nights in a row on all the news outlets of Europe). The VAST majority of Israelis killed are civilians trying to ride a bus or eat a meal in a restaurant, for gods sake. The failure to recognize even this simple fact (and also ignore the real history of the Arab-Israeli conflict while repeating Arab propaganda like the idea that Israel is occuping “another country”) is why the majority of Americans do not take Europe seriously on this subject anymore.
What we see in a parrallel reality created by Arab propogandists which the Europeans have decided to live in. No massacres of Palestinian civilians are routinely made up by Palestinian and European propogandists, as with now-infamous “Jenin Massacre” which even the Palestinian Authority now admits never happened. And then we have those infamous pictures of a father and son shot in a crossfire—once again broadcast all over Europe and the Arab world, although it’s since been proved that the bullets that killed them were Palestinian. But of course none of this matters in the end for Europe, who can simply just not understand why when Israelis get blown up on the way to work, they don’t just surrender, give the terrorists what they want, elect whoever they want—after all, why not surrender once you know as Zapatero does that “force will never work?”
Martin,
So we’ve finally come to the point where it’s clear that, in your mind:
a) Palestinian deaths are worth less that Israeli ones.
b) Palestinian deaths are “combatants”. Tell me, combating where? I wasn’t aware of an overt war going on, with “combatants” and all. Combating where, Martin? Have you ever wondered?
c) Arab propaganda exists. Israeli propaganda doesn’t. Aha. That’s enlightening.
d) Israeli propaganda does not exist? Israeli propaganda has accomplished having Palestinian deaths disguised as “combatants”. Israeli propaganda has misled Americans into believing that offering the Palestinians to keep 17% of historic Palestine (instead of the 22% not already in Israel proper) as offered in Camp David, was a “good deal” that Arafat should have accepted. What kind of “partition” is that?
e) Propaganda cannot disguise the bare facts: Israel is occupying the West Bank and Gaza. Israel is building settlements even today.
And maybe you should take us more seriously. Just because we spend our tax money in social services, healthcare and education instead of arms and military “aid”, doesn’t mean we’re completely ignorable. And by the way, who’s feeling superior now?
Germán
Madrid, Spain
And Martin, honestly, learn something about Spanish politics. I have posted some comments elsewhere that you might find useful.
Your remarks on Spain would be very offensive were they not completely based on fallacies, like the “appeasement” thing. If you know as much about the Middle East as you seem to know about Western Europe, I don’t think I should bother to reply to you any longer.
Please take no offense, that is not my intention.
Regards,
Germán
Madrid, Spain
-Israel is ocuppying another country since 1967 - Israel is slowly annexing bits of that country by beuilding settlements and - The inhabitants of that country, many of which were expelled from Israel proper are impoverished, very angry and very, very desperate.
1) Israel is a nation older than Islam.
2) There has never been a state of Palestine.
3) Jews began peacefully immigrating back to the area and bought land since before WW1.
4) The original plan of the creation of Israel was a ‘partition’ of the area into two states.
5) This was unacceptable to the Arab’s at the time, who invaded the newly partitioned Israel to destroy it.
The Arabs not only rejected partition, but attacked Israel from all sides. On the day that Israel declared its independence, the Arab League Secretary, General Azzam Pasha declared “jihad”, a holy war. He said, “This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades”.1 The Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin Al Husseini stated, “I declare a holy war, my Moslem brothers! Murder the Jews! Murder them all!” 2 The armies of lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Iraq invaded the tiny new country with the declared intent of destroying it. eretzyisrael.org
5) Since then Israel has been defending itself, territory annexed is in fact territory annexed in war.
6) Palestinians were not expelled per se, they rose up to destroy Israel, and lost.
7) Jews were expelled from every country in the middle east and their possessions confiscated. There were formerly larger portions of Jews throughout the mideast but they are virtually nonexistant now except for in Israel.
The goal of Hamas is not independence or peace, but eradication of Israel. If it is your contention that the problem is that the palestinians are refugees and Israeli’s are occupying their country, then the problem is Israel in your mind. Because palesetinians
Hamas combines the ideas of Palestinian nationalism and religious fundamentalism. Its founding charter pledges the group to carry out armed struggle, try to destroy Israel and replace Arafat’s government with an Islamist state on the West Bank and Gaza, and raise “the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine.” Hamas leaders gloated openly over a March 2002 suicide bombing that killed 28 Israelis at a Passover seder, calling it “a great success,” welcomed Israeli retaliation as a way to recruit more supporters, and hailed the weapon of suicide bombings as the “F-16” of the Palestinian people. Hamas believes “peace talks will do no good,” said the group’s main spokesman, Abdel Aziz al-Rantisi. “We do not believe we can live with the enemy.” -cfrterrorism.org
In essense the Arab policy is: no jews living in the middle east. Shall we examine the policy of jews being able to return to the other mideast countries they were expelled from?
Posted by: Eric Simonson at March 24, 2004 05:27 PMEric, you and I are opposite sides of most issues but, your last comment on the history of the Israeli - Arab conflict appears accurate according to what I have read and learned of the situation. I also agree with your assertion that the annexed territories were in fact annexed as buffer zones after horrible attacks upon Israel by its neighbors. They were justified in establishing that buffer zone from just outside their borders.
I would blame the Israeli’s however for permitting Jewish settlements to occur in those buffer zones. That I believe was a tactical and strategic oversight or out and out mistake. It appears Sharon recognizes that fact now as well.
Come on Martin,
If I’m guilt of believing European propaganda, then I could say you were equally guilty of believing Israeili propaganda.
The point is there’s so much propaganda fying arounf these days, that its hard to tell the truth from the lie.
Anyway, while I in no way supprot the terrorism that groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad etc advocate, my general views on the subjest are based upon my understanding of the history of the situation, which goes something like this , with minor changes though:
www.ifamericansknew.org/history
But anyway a debate on who owns the land could go on forever, the real point I want to make is
that if a solution to the conflict could be reached that was acceptable to the majority of Israeli’s and Palestinians, then groups like Hamas would be much easier to tackle, because they would lose their moral standing.You don’t get those solutions by carrying out an attack like that, which you well know will inflame passions.
I believe that this would be a much more effective way to tackle terrorism, because attempting to obliterate entirely with missiles practicaly will not and cannot work.Terrorsim is a like a weed, you have to get it at the root, otherwise it’ll just keep coming back. (Don’t you just love those crappy analogies? :-) )
george,
The answer then, at least to the Israelis, is to destroy Hamas and replace its leaders with people who are at least willing to negotiate. I don’t know if that will work either, but I don’t think they have much to lose by trying.
Nothing except the moral high ground and the respect of the Western world.
