Since the Palestinians prefer to fight as terrorists and irregulars, what targets do you consider legitimate for the IDF to attack? Mango
I don't really think that terrorism used by the Palestinians is at all beneficial. I don't think it matters who they target it won't help their cause. Just like heavy handed retaliations by the ISraelis won't help them have peace. They've tried that and it hasn't helped. If it comes down to fighting then I'm not an expert on strategy so I'm not sure what targets the Palestinians should target.
FranchiseBlade, So the term <b>IDF</b> has no meaning to you in the context of the Israeli - Palestinian conflict which is the base discussion of this thread? Mango
Yes the IDF has meaning to me in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It has to have meaning in the conflict since they are the soldiers involved. But I don't think that the Palestinians are a match for the IDF in a showdown of violence. I don't know how Israeli Defense Forces wouldn't be involved in the conflict. The base of discussion for this thread is when will the carnage end, pointing out Israel's rocket attack on the building in Gaza. I don't think that attack will help stop the carnage in anyway, nor do I think the Palestinians suicide bombings will help stop the carnage.
Any action that targets innocent civilians is wrong. It can be reasonably assumed that firing missiles at an apartment bulding will most definitely kill innocents. There is no rationalizing that.
The target was the Hamas leader. He was a legitimate target. Just like when the US hit the SUV of the Taliban leader and they said his family was inside. If you're going to wage guerilla war from your home, your home is a legitimate target. Otherwise the home would be some sanctuary. It'd be the same as letting the NVA run back across the border into Laos and Cambodia. The Hamas leader chose to wage guerilla war. The Hamas leader chose to stay with his family. The Hamas leader is just as culpable, if not more so, for putting his family in danger. Unfortunate, yes. Immoral, no.
HayesStreet, Just because the US did something does not provide support for its morality (BTW, were we aware beforehand that the family was in the SUV?). The Laos/Cambodia is not a good analogy since targeting the NVA was not immoral. Rationalizing civilian deaths (again, those that were expected beforehand) is what our enemies do: 'the Koran says not to kill innocents, but we can kill Americans civilians because...', or what some Palestinians do:'we can kill Israeli civilians because...'. In the Hamas leaders case, maybe he did put his family at risk. It does not change the fact that his children are clearly innocents and have NO responsibility for what their father did. Neither did the neighbors' children in that building.
It wasn't even just his children. Other innocent civilians that weren't his family died as well. If Osama Bin Laden happened to be in the U.S. and walked into a mall in the middle of a U.S. city would it be ok to blow up the whole mall? Or even if Osama went into a pre-school in the center of Houston, would it be ok for the U.S. to blow up that pre-school? Intentionally killing civilians isn't ok.
It is perhaps unfortunate that "innocent" civilians die, but tactics of War against terrorists have proven to be best utilized in taking the offensive... You have 3 choices: 1. Do nothing (this includes supposed "peace negotiating"...You don't negotiate "peace" with terrorists...and if terrorists cite peace, this is mere tactics to better position themselves to strike HARDER! Terrorists aim is not peace, people. Cows wish for peace, and this is good, but terrorists sole purpose in life is to wreck death and destruction - as simple as that. They rather die than have a life of peace. They already made that choice... bad decision. 2. Be defensive ...probably a better choice than #1, but logic says you can't be too many places at once...You will eventually be picked apart till their is nothing left from terrorists... 3. Be offensive ...Being offensive is the only rational choice for any nation-victim to consider...This means you go into the dark caves where these wretched scum hide and you hit them where it hurts and you hit them HARD. You put unrelenting pressure on the terrorists...so they cannot ever regroup. You show no mercy. You pick them apart one by one if needed and you don't ever give any apologies about it...It's as simple as that. I agree targeting civilians is wrong, but if I'm a civilian I would get out of dodge if Mr. Hamas comes strolling into my apartment building...I would offer no haven, no sympathy and if necessary I'd move out in the middle-of-nowhere to avoid any implication of harboring terrorists... After all, I'm a civilian and I'm about peace, no?...Hamas? what is Mr. Hamas about?...That's right, ....terror...and how to deal with terrorism?...That's right, you go for the throat.
H*ll Roxran, why not just nuke all Palestinian cities? It is perhaps unfortunate that "innocent" civilians die, Perhaps? Rather callous, don't you think? but tactics of War against terrorists have proven to be best utilized in taking the offensive... Even War has very specific 'rules'.
Please, when your enemy does not respect "the rules", then all bets are off. The Palestinians don't respect the lives of their children, so why should I? When Nazified Palestinian culture is crushed, and peaceful Arabs can live with peaceful Jews, then we can talk about "rules" again.
Not by itself, no. But it is a similar situation (enemy targeted, innocents killed). It was not immoral for the US to target the SUV, it was not immoral for the Israelis to target the Hamas house. I doubt the US KNEW there would be innocents in the vehicle, but the probability certainly existed. Targeting Hamas is not immoral. If you declare where they hideout a sanctuary because there are also innocents there you give them a safe haven. You can also bet your buns that every terrorist would then SURROUND themselves with innocents (actually they already appear to be doing this). Cohen, I'm not saying it GOOD that innocents die. But in WAR it happens. EVERYTIME. The nature of the action makes it impossible to insure only combatants get it, and that is when two STATES go at it. With standing militaries. When facing a guerilla war there is NO OPTION but to attack them where they hide. They HAVE NO fixed positions to attack. Our enemies have no such problems. You can find a US military installation or forces everywhere on the globe. They have a military to military recourse. No doubt. Today Brit tabloids all have pictures of these kids who were killed on their front pages. I must say I thought seriously about this as I also have a child. They are clearly innocents and it is horrific that they were caught in the middle of this conflict. But again I say Israel has no choice but to attack these guys where they can find them. When have the Palestinians ever presented a united front of non-violence? In India, Ghandi was able to force his agenda of non-violence. First through reasoning and diplomacy, and then by publicily sacrificing himself for the goal (when he went on hunger strike to stop the violence). If the Palestinians united behind an agenda of peace, and used non-violence, this would all be over quick. Israel would not be able to continue to bludgeon the everyday Palestinian population without the excuse of security from violence themselves. But violence and non-violence do not work together. I seriously believe that Americans would not continue to 'blindly' (some would say) support Israel if they did not see Israelis getting blow up on a constant basis. When we see both sides getting blow up it is a war in our minds, and you expect strikes in a war, and deaths, and 'collateral damage' which generally means the death of innocents.
First, war 'rules' broken by some of an enemy do not mean that you simply ignore all rules yourself. If any of you argue that, your logic leads to the concept of Israel matching terrorist act for terrorist act, essentially advocating a terrorist State. HayesStreet, If Palestinians 'hide' behind innocents, or put innocents in military vehicles or buildings, there will certainly be innocent deaths that are the responsibility of the Palestinians. I'm not saying that innocents don't die in each and every war, I'm saying that you don't target them. When children are sleeping in their beds, they should not be killed so Israel can rid itself of an enemy. You cannot just shoot at every target without consequences. Israel is paying for this one. They knew that there were children in that building. Taking a leap to discuss non-violence is interesting. It seems like your argument is since some Palestinians suicide-bomb and since many others support them, that all Palestinians, including children, are targets. Don't get confused about where I stand on this issue overall. I do not defend or support the Palestinian approach to this conflict at all. Re. the Brits, they (i.e. BBC) were particularly upset that the Israelis knew that there were children in that building. CNN grilled an Israeli government spokesman about the same issue.
Israelis Ask if Price of Gaza Attack Too High http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=worldnews&StoryID=1243997 Sadly, Israel carried out the attack one day after Hamas's spiritual leader, wheelchair-bound Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, said the group would consider halting suicide attacks if Israel withdrew from occupied West Bank cities. My belief that Sharon has a patholigical war mentality grows with every action he takes.
Roxran, The Israelis have certainly taken the offensive. They've taken the offensive time and time again, and it hasn't proven to help them at all. In fact, contrary to your statement, taking the offensive has only proven that it doesn't work. In fact the longest halt to suicide bombings did come during the previoius peace negotiations. Why some people think that heavy handed tactics like this will succeed when the past has PROVEN time and time again that they don't is incomprehensible to me. What do the Israelis think? 'Maybe this time when we attack them and kill one bad guy and fifteen innconent civilians it really will stop them. It hasn't worked the past eighty times we tried it, but this time might be the one.' Roxran, you forgot option number 4 in your post. That includes stopping the discriminating, apartheid like laws, and oppression they place on the Palestinians. Then Israel could stop illegal settlements, and possible withdraw from previous illegal settlements. As a start that would probably do far more to stop terrorst bombings in Israel than killing innocent civilians. And on another point, I think it's just the right thing to do. Doing the right thing may or may not matter to Sharon, but it would probably help. It's also not like the innocents that died in ISrael's attack couldn't have been avoided. If they knew the leader was in the building, they could have surrounded the building, sent in troops or a special ops force to get him. Israel could have kept it under surveilance until he left the building. They had other options, but the one they chose was the one that would kill the most people, regardless of their guilt or innocence.
A little off-topic, but interesting. Palestinian-Americans: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-07-22-palestinians_x.htm
HayesStreet, I agree 100% that a unified non-violent approach would be a much better tactic for the Palestinians. Their suicide bombings hurt their cause horribly, and have zero chance of success in relation to their long term goals. They keep trying them over and over, and still haven't learned that they don't help. It's much the same as the Israeli's heavy handed responses. The tactics both sides are using don't work. I also know that inncoent civilians will die in any war. The only thing I think about the most recent Israeli attack is that it was avoidable, and they knowingly killed the civilians. To add insult to injury, Sharone then referred to the attack as one of Israel's 'Greatest Successes'. To me that seems to show that he has no regard for civilian deaths.
Well I just take exception when you say they 'targeted' children. That's not really accurate. They targeted the Hamas leader. I just saw Perez on CNN and he revealed that they had mounted operations to bag this guy on eight separate occasions, but that there were too many civilians around to act. They are not just firing missles indiscriminately into Palestinian territory. And even assuming they knew there were civilians in the building that does not mean that the call to act would or should have been any different. Hamas kills hundreds, and will kill hundreds more. If this guy was central to their planning, then a straight 15-20 dead Palestinians to save hundreds of Israelis would make sense and i'm not sure how its immoral. Carpet bombing is not immoral and its a far cry from precise. Not this was more to address the claims that we (Americans) are desensitized to the Israeli violence, or that the Palestinians are just peaceloving folk who are getting massacred by Israelis with American weapons. I think the US does not react harshly to Israeli action because we don't expect the Israelis to sit there and negotiate while Hamas blows up their citizens. However, I am saying that if you are a guerilla, and you hide among civilians, you can expect innocents to get hurt. You cannot expect hding among innocents to save you. Cool. And I don't think the Israeli reaction is perfect either. But I do understand it. And I do think we'd do the same thing if we were in their situation. I don't understand the Hamas viewpoint. Ghandi was smart enough to realize that ARMED struggle was only going to lead to the slaughter of his people. The British were too well armed and trained. The Palestinians need to learn the lesson and not hold out for everything.
