Maybe covertly when they're not in the middle of a street crowded with civilians. Snipers are pretty useful sometimes.
When appropriate. What do you think is a better idea? Whacking this guy in broad daylight with a bunch attack helicopters on a crowded street and setting off a cycle of violence and giving all that much more motivation to Hamas (which they capitalized on within 24 hours) and likely permanently derailing the roadmap plan that they had looked like they were making progress on the last few weeks? or holding off a bit and showing some restraint in terms of time, place, and manner? I don't want to get into a substantive debate about this. I don't understand why you can't accept that there is a middle ground between "not going after terrorists" and going after terrorists in the way that they did. That's the point I was trying to make.
this point has been made again and again throughout this thread, yet some foolish people cannot understand the simple logic of the point. the mess over there is only going to get worse, and israel has no one to blame but themselves. gunships
I don't care for the timing by sharon either, but don't make it sound so simple. If your family had been killed by a suicide bomber sent by those hamas leaders, and your gov. suddenly became aware of their location, wonder what you would have wanted.
Or maybe not... IDF And Hamas Say Simultaneous Attacks A Coincidence http://www.arutzsheva.org/news.php3?id=44835 (IsraelNN.com) Both IDF and Hamas spokesmen announced this evening that the suicide bombing in Jerusalem and the IDF elimination of a car full of terrorists were unrelated to the events of the last 24 hours. The Hamas spokesman, while warning that the organization intends to take revenge for yesterday’s IDF helicopter attack on Abdel-Aziz Rantisi, admitted that his organization is incapable of organizing an attack on such short notice and called the timing ‘a fortuitous coincidence.’ The IDF, in turn, said that the attack in Gaza was launched on a purely military basis and was carried out without relation to this evening’s bombing in Jerusalem.
Yes, I understand your point. But I don't think there really is a real middle ground. "When appropriate"?? It sound ridiculous to let terrorists go until there is a "better time." That's just my view.
I don't care who kills my family, I wouldn't want another innocent person to go through the same thing. That's like saying you're for the death penalty, and you don't care if the murderer's innocent neighbors die with him. Don't mistake my posts for having a side in this, I honestly don't. For everything I have an opinion about, I've honestly never taken a side in this horrible conflict.
Actually there is a new book coming out that citing that as the main cause for the latest intifada. But I would believe that it could be a straw that broke the camels back.
Do any of you really think the Palestinians wouldn't be outraged if Israel had taken out Rantisi with a sniper? That's crap. Hamas terrorists are heroes to the Palestinians. Their children collect Hamas trading cards. When the Palestinians renounce terrorism, then there will be a real chance at peace. The real problem with the peace negotiations, and the reason that Israel seems less commited than they could, is that in every proposed deal, Israel gains nothing. The Israeli concessions are invariably the occupied territories (land) to different extents. In some cases the Palestinians ask for a right of return for refugees. What does Israel get, a non-guaranteed stop to the terrorist attacks against them. Whoop-de-freakin'-do. The Palestinian leadership, which claims to not be in control of the terrorists, agrees to stop the terrorists? And there is no consequence for failure to do so? Where can Israel sign up?
Israel could also gain normalized relations with their Arab neighbors. They could also gain increased world standing for no longer violating the 4th geneva convention. They would also be doing the just and sensible thing. And while it's not guaranteed that the terrorism would stop, what is guaranteed is that if they keep doing what they are now, terrorist attacks will still keep happening. Seriously what are they thinking? It hasn't worked the first thousand times we've reacted this way, and so we'll react this again, because for some reason this might be the one to stop it all? That goes terrorists, and the ISraeli govt. To keep doing the same unsuccesful thing over and over is stupid. What did the whites in S. Africa gain from ending apartheid? A fair system of governement. They lost some power, but it was still the right thing to do. One big difference is that there was a huge world wide boycott against S. Africa for their oppression. Israel however doesn't face such pressure. Maybe that kind of incentive for them to change their tactics would be a start. Palestinians resort to terrorism more than Israel, Israel oppresses Palestinians based solely on nationality. The cycle is endless. Both sides need a change of tactics.
Mr. Clutch and others backing Sharon's Actions: Poll says 58% of Israeli's are against it. And 67% believe they should end occupation. Poll: Israelis Oppose Military Strikes Fri Jun 13, 7:34 AM ET JERUSALEM - Most Israelis oppose the latest round of airborne strikes against Palestinian militants, according to a poll published Friday in an Israeli newspaper. The survey in the Yediot Ahronot newspaper found that 58 percent of Israelis believe that Israel should temporarily halt the killing of militants to give the new Palestinian prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas, time to establish himself in his position. Under the requirements of a U.S.-backed peace plan, Abbas must rein in militant groups, but so far he's been unable to broker a cease-fire with the Islamic Hamas, which has been responsible for most of the suicide bombings that have killed 368 people over the last 32 months of fighting. Last Friday, Hamas called off truce talks with Abbas. This week Israel launched four airborne raids against Hamas members. The strikes have prompted calls for revenge from Hamas supporters. The group dispatched a bomber who blew up a bus in Jerusalem Wednesday, killing himself and 17 other people. Nine percent of those questioned in the poll said they wanted the military strikes to stop altogether and 30 percent said they should continue. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (news - web sites) said this week that he would fight militants "to the bitter end." Israel says it has no choice but to strike at militant leaders. The attacks often kill civilian bystanders and Palestinians criticize them as crude assassinations. The poll also showed that 67 percent of Israelis agree with recent statements by Sharon that Israel must end its occupation of Palestinian areas. Sharon made the remarks ahead of the launch of a U.S.-backed Mideast peace plan that envisions the creation of a Palestinian state by 2005. The survey, conducted by the Mina Tzemah/Dahaf polling company, questioned a representative sample of 501 Israelis this week and has a margin of error of 4.5 percent.
Editorial: Sabotaging Peace 13 June 2003 The pattern of violence in occupied Palestine and Israel is all too familiar. Every time there are diplomatic moves toward peace, they are hijacked by a wave of bombs and bloodshed carried out by the extremists of both sides. It has happened again, and the question is: Will it kill off the US-led road map to peace? Almost everyone with an interest in the issue has quickly responded to the violence by saying that it must not be allowed to destroy the chance of peace, that there is no option but to continue with the road map. That makes sense. But emotion, not reason, has always been the guiding force in the Palestinians-Israeli problem. The demands for revenge and threats of further attacks being screamed yesterday by both sides could sweep the process into the sea regardless of what the rest of the world wants. Washington will have to be very determined if the road map is to survive. That determination must include ordering the Israelis to stop their policy of assassination. Did Sharon set out specifically to sabotage the peace process by ordering the assassination of the Hamas leader? It looks highly likely. No one believes that his ostensible support for the US-backed road map is genuine. Vigorous supporter that he is of new settlements and bitter opponent of a Palestinian state, it is impossible to believe that Sharon has suddenly changed. He has gone along with it because he has to, because after the Iraq war, George Bush needs to placate Arab opinion. Sharon therefore has the motive for trying to sabotage the peace process. He had the opportunity as well. It is impossible to say whether the suicide bomb in Jerusalem on Wednesday would have taken place had the Israelis not tried to assassinate Hamas’ political leader, Abdul Aziz Al-Rantissi; probably some such attack would have happened; like Sharon, Hamas wants to destroy the road map. Nonetheless, the Israelis know that Palestinian militants always mount revenge attacks in response to assassination attempts. When Sharon gave the order to kill Rantissi, he knew that there would be a suicide bomb in response. The fact that the Israelis were braced for one on Wednesday is proof of that. By provoking it, Sharon is as much to blame for the 16 deaths in the Jerusalem bus bomb as Hamas or anyone else. It is encouraging that George Bush has said that the peace process must go forward, just as it is encouraging that he has condemned Israel’s assassination bids. But that is not enough. Israel has twisted the road map into a demand that the Palestinians end violence and the US has gone along with it. As a result, Sharon thinks he has a green light for the destruction of Hamas. Washington had better disabuse him of that view — and fast.
Since you didn't quite 'get it', I'll elaborate: I said it wasn't as simple as some try to make it seem. People on both side want vengence, justice, whatever. I don't argue for a cycle of violence.
Sharon may be partly to blame for the lack of peace in general (from what I beleive is a too-far-to-the-right stance), but to claim that he is just as much to blame as hama for a suicide bombing is outright lunacy. If we knew that when we attacked obl in Afghanistan (to bring him to justice) , that the likelihood of future terrorist acts would increase, would we then be 'responsible' for those acts when they took place?
Originally posted by Rocketman95 I don't care who kills my family, I wouldn't want another innocent person to go through the same thing. That's like saying you're for the death penalty, and you don't care if the murderer's innocent neighbors die with him. I don't want the innocents to die either. I was not arguing 'for' the strikes, just arguing against those who think this is some simple issue. I don't believe those people have the answer, I just think they cannot or will not empathize with the affected parties. (BTW, there are some serious differences, but also conceptual similarities to the innocents we killed in Iraq) Don't mistake my posts for having a side in this, I honestly don't. For everything I have an opinion about, I've honestly never taken a side in this horrible conflict. I don't. Did it seem like I did? Okay if you do, anyway. Reasonable people could go both/either way on this topic, IMO.
Israel could also gain normalized relations with their Arab neighbors. They don't need this. They never suffer anything (overtly) from their Arab neighbors. Really haven't for almost 40 years. They could also gain increased world standing for no longer violating the 4th geneva convention. Since the US apparently does this as well, I don't think Israel is all that concerned. Also, by simply claiming the land for themselves, they could accomplish the same thing. They would also be doing the just and sensible thing. They probably feel what they are doing now is the just and sensible thing. Submitting to the will of terrorists doesn't seem all that just or sensible to me. And while it's not guaranteed that the terrorism would stop, what is guaranteed is that if they keep doing what they are now, terrorist attacks will still keep happening. Seriously what are they thinking? It hasn't worked the first thousand times we've reacted this way, and so we'll react this again, because for some reason this might be the one to stop it all? That goes terrorists, and the Israeli govt. To keep doing the same unsuccesful thing over and over is stupid. So, since the attacks will continue either way, they should choose the method that legitimizes the terrorism and proves its effectiveness as a weapon against them? There are ways to stop the terrorism in Israel. Giving in to Arafat and Hamas is not one of them. What did the whites in S. Africa gain from ending apartheid? A fair system of governement. They lost some power, but it was still the right thing to do. One big difference is that there was a huge world wide boycott against S. Africa for their oppression. Israel however doesn't face such pressure. Maybe that kind of incentive for them to change their tactics would be a start. S. Africa gained the ability to sustain themselves. They were fighting a losing battle when they had no real allies and the vast majority of their population was against them. Israel is hardly in the same situation. Palestinians resort to terrorism more than Israel, Israel oppresses Palestinians based solely on nationality. The cycle is endless. Both sides need a change of tactics. Agreed. Where we disagree is on what tactics they should adopt. The Palestinians should end all terrorist activities. If they do so, and show that they can continue to do so, including providing guarantees with very harsh reprocussions for relapse, then Israel should give them statehood, something similar to the Oslo deal. If the Palestinians do not show an ability and willingness to put a stop to terrorism, then Israel must realize that no peace can be made with the Palestinians, claim all of the land for themselves, and eject the Palestinians to take what chance they can in the neighboring countries (or wherever else they can get, outside of Israel).
