The USA changes the Middle East

BTW, BigMick,

You're acting kinda like a bully. Is this sort of thing necessary? Try and calm down. Try not to second guess so much.

Judd

OK,

Let's look at this thread for a moment (we'll get to the earlier ones soon, I promise). If you think I'm moving the goal posts, even once, I'll concede the argument without even challenging your assertion. Your honest answer is all I ask. This is long as Fuck. Sorry. As I promised BigMick, I wrote it in one sitting with no deliberation.

Arye started this thread with the notion that at least some US foreign policy has played a positive role in the middle east. He cites (1) Asad going to Turkey,
(2) Asad talking to Isreal,
(3) Libia talking to Isreal

My FIRST post inthe thread makes the following points:
(1)Certain Isrealis are an obstinate as certain Palestinians,
(2)Isreali protests against settlement destruction indicate that Isrealis don't want peace,
(3)Just as Arafat screwed Camp David, Isrealis are screwing up this latest round
(4)Sharon needs to step up.

Now, what part of this post is pro-Isreali and contra-palestinian? You can read it yourself. I think it sets forth pretty clearly who I think is to blame for this problem - BOTH OF THEM.

Any goalpost moving yet?

My next post indictates that I concur with Ayre's original suggestion. To wit,
(1) maybe recent US foreign policy in Iraq and Aghanistan played no role in the developments Arye cites. But they "MAY have played some part here".
(2) To support my point, I quote the Boston Globe, which adds to Arye's list (a)inspections in Iran, (b) Libia promises to disarm, (c) Asad overtures to Israel.
(3) I add that we have had a very open access in NK of late as well.
(4) "MAYBE" these are not coincidences.

So far, have I moved the goalposts? Two posts into this thread, I've blamed Israel for the current impasse, and I've suggested that MAYBE US policy has played some role in what little progress there has been in the region. One or two posts following from other people seem to agree that there is something to what Arye and I are saying. Where have I taken the positions Harvey and BigMick are accusing me of?

After yelling at PR in my next post for posting something stupid about how Americans don't know thier geography (or something), I agree with Arye in another post that Sharon didn't surround Arafat's compound last year on just a whim. In making his point (a small one) he made a funny, which tickled me.

So far, any undying devotion to Israel? Any suggestion that I place all the blame on the Palestinians? And movement of goalposts?

In my next post, I express my distaste for Harvey's rhetorical style in suggesting (merely as an aside) that the US supplied money to the IRA, all in the course of (Harvey) arguing that it is counterproductive for both sides to kill people in the street. I said that it was typical (of Harvey - though I am guilty here of lumping him in with people like PR) to make a snide remark about US policy in the context of an unrelated issue. That is, I didn't see how alleged US funnelling of money to the IRA was relevant to whether killing people in the street was counterproductive.

My next post is longish, and is in reponse to Patrick's reasonable question of what I think the US should do. Although not strictly responsive, I make the following points:
(1) I don't know, but I think destroying the settlements is the best first step.
(2)I suggest that Isreali withdrawal from the Palestinian territories and establishment of clear borders (even imperfect ones) MAY end the conflict (only PART of me thinks this way, that's why I say "MAY" end the conflict).
(3) The conflict may NOT end because
(a) Hamas and PJ positions to destroy Israel as the final goal, (b) not all interests of the Palestinians can be satisfied (particularly right of return) because this obviates the UN partition in the first place.
(4) I suggest that if you respect the UN partition, right of return is inconsistent,
(5) and that maybe the Palestinians do have a right of return, though this would obviate the UN partition, which I gather would not bother some people.
(6) That Camp David II should be revisited. Although the borders set down there were not perfect, they represented concessions on both sides.
(7) I critisize the current US administration for not being able to locate Israel on the map (confirming PR's suspicion, unwittingly ) and suggest we revisit Camp David II with the next administration.

Now, where have I gone wrong. At what point did I take a position in favor of Israel and killing and death of Palestinians? Was it when i said that the problem would go away of Israel would destroy settlements and withdraw? Was it when I suggested that Camp David II be revisisted? Or was it when I suggested that there was still the Hamas and IJ position that Israel be pushed into the sea?

Where is this disgusting, anti-arab position I'm being accused of?

Then we come to Harvey's first response to me. First he accuses of having a chip on my shoulder (let's assume I do) and claims to have lot's of American family (OK). Then we get this quote from him:

"Failure to join you in your unquestioning support of the shocking policies of the Israeli state and this administration's dubious plans in the wider Middle East, doesn't mean that I or any of my family love the US any less than you. It could actually be argued that by letting others know that the people of the US haven't all turned into a marauding group of jingoistic neocons, we may actually help to stem the explosion of global anti-US feeling that this adminstration and opinions like yours have
engendered"

What!!!????

Despite what I have written in this thread:
"It's pretty clear from my perspective that certain sectors of the isreali population are as obstinate as certain of those sectors in the Palastinian population. The protests this last week regarding the settlements is a clear case of simply not wanting this process to work." and

"Sharon needs to make the hard choices." and

"I've no doubt that removal of the settlements will be a step in the right direction. This may lead to ceasefire, which could, I suppose, pave the way to talks about statehood" and

"Part of me thinks that Isreali withdrawal from the territories and establishment of clear borders (even if they are not 100% acceptable to both sides) will end the conflict."


I am accused by Harvey of "unquestioning support of the shocking policies of the Israeli state" and part of a "marauding group of jingoistic neocons".

Where is this "unquestioning support", Harvey? My wanting to revisit Camp David? My opinion that Israelu withdrawal from the territories will stop the conflict? My opinion that Israeli citizens who won't give up settlements are an impediment to peace? Which is it? Where is the unquestioning support?

Or, Harvey, does ANY criticism of Arafat and Palestinian policy equal "unquestioning support" of Israel in your eyes? Was it when I said that Hamas wants to drive Israel into the sea. Perhaps it was when I suggested that perhaps US foreign policy may have played a positive role in the developments mentioned by Arye and the Boston Globe. Does the mere suggestion that US policy may work some good rather than evil translate into "unquestioning support" of Israels "shocking policies"?

Anyway my next post accuses Harvey of taking a irrelevant jab at the US. And that ones friends (be them jewish, american or whatever) don't lend merit to positions. Only arguments do.

Anyway, some bickering back and forth about whether Harvey loves Americans, and whether I accused him of bashing America, and whether a I address substantive arguments against US policy with accusations of America bashing (or, as I state) whether un-argued collateral jabs at the US on unrelated topics suggest much the same.

And then we get to one of BigMick's posts. He says,

"I do loathe your empty arguments and despair at your lack of vision, no matter which words you choose to use or how you spell them, but that is not you and maybe you'll see, experience or read something that will convince you that violence rarely solves anything."

Which empty arguments are those, BigMick? Was it the one where I suggested that destruction of settlements would end the conflict? Was it the one where I suggested that pro-settlement protestors were an impediment to peace? Perhaps it was the call for clear borders? No no no, it MUST have been the when I suggested that US foreign policy may have played a positive role in Asad's reproachment with Israel, Libia's about-face and inspections in Iran and North Korea. That must be it. Is ANY suggestion that US foreign policy may have played a positive role in the region grounds for accusing me of "empty arguments" and "lack of vision". Is ANY derogation of Palestinian policy (nevermind when coupled with equal derogation of Israel and US policy) and suggestion that "violence solves" anything?

And then Harvey again:

"...the argument that's broken. Neither history nor logic supports the idea that either the Israelis or anyone else can kill their way to peace."

To which I reply "I have not made this argument".

To which I state again here, I HAVE NOT MADE THIS ARGUMENT!!!

Finally, BigMick closes out the dispute by accusing me (prospectively) of moving the goalposts. So where, BigMick, have I gone wrong here. Where have I been guilty of this thread in defending the positions that Harvey accuses me of (ie, "unquestioning support" of the "shocking" policies of Israel).

To be fair, BigMick (if he is unable to find goalpost moving in this thread) will want to drag in the last thread in which a similar dispute arose between us. I'm happy to. But this is getting long. So, let's address what is written here first - and then we'll get to the collateral damage issue - i promise a full hearing.

So let's keep each other in line here. If you think everything I have written regarding THIS THREAD is bullshit, spell it out here. On the other hand, if you think that as far as THIS THREAD is concerned, you have been unfair to me in your rendering of my positions, admit as much and we'll move on to the next (previous) thread.

Judd

You know what, BigMick and Harvey, I'm tired. We could go on and on like this for years and years. Vetting these thread takes too long and gets us nowhere.

Ignore what I wrote above (if you like) and engage me anew on the issues, on the merits. write as if you've never read me before. We'll agree to be civil.

I'll start:

In the conduct of an armed conflict, the killing of some non-combatants in the act of targetting and killing a combatant does not, in and of itself, render the act impermissible as long as non-combatant deaths are unintentional and minimized (though perhaps forseeable).

Tell me where I have gone wrong here. Use counterexample, arguments, reason, logic, whatever, except personal insults, accusations of bloodthurstiness, etc.

Judd

I thought that I'd killed this thread. Unfortunately or fortunately actually, I can't give this any time as I've got the afternoon off to do the 202 vs 282 challenge and got to crack on with work.

I appreciate the effort that you've gone to here but I think you've massively overcomplicated the matter.

quote:

---

In the conduct of an armed conflict, the killing of some non-combatants in the act of targetting and killing a combatant does not, in and of itself, render the act impermissible as long as non-combatant deaths are unintentional and minimized (though perhaps forseeable)

---

If this was a one-off and actually solved anything, then just maybe one might have to reluctantly accept that some innocent may be lost. It doesn't make it "permissible". What galvanizes the majority of people on these threads against Israel's attitude in this regard is that the permissible death of innocents is taken to it's limit and seen as a green light to kill men, women and children on fairly regular basis and then explained away these attacks using your "permissible non-combatant deaths" principle. When so many people are being killed to no end, it must be considered an unjustifiable, indefensible and failed policy. This policy, against the background of land seizures, collective punishment and oppression is what jars me personally and appears to have some resonance throughout the posters here. You and Ayre are generally happy with the way that the IDF use the permissible deaths principle. I am not.

IMO the other US stuff you kinda brought on yourself by overeacting to a factually correct and retrospectively relevant aside. BTW being as much American as I am British, I think it a bit odd to be lambasted for being objective enough to have a pop at my own country and family.

quote:

---

In the conduct of an armed conflict, the killing of some non-combatants in the act of targetting and killing a combatant does not, in and of itself, render the act impermissible as long as non-combatant deaths are unintentional and minimized (though perhaps forseeable).

---

The problem for me with this statement is that whilst it may be applicable in war where war rules apply, this is not a war and the law of the land should not be disregarded. The Israeli army has a duty to conduct itself in a lawful manner, and surely that includes a duty of care to innocent citizens - just as the British army had in N Ireland.

The problem with recent US policy (and there have been some benefits too), is that it has encouraged Israel to 'take out' those it sees as Terrorists, and to suspend International Law where it sees fit, just as the US has.

One of the advantages of the recent more peaceful times in N Ireland is that there has been an influx of money (much from the US) to boost the local economy. IMV this needs to be heavily sold to the Palestinian people. If the militant, mad, Israeli right were marginalised by what I hope is the majority of reasonable Israelis, there may then be a basis for peace. But the Israeli and Palestinian people need to work together; trying to enforce borders with relative rich on one side, and relative poor on the other will never work.

If there is ever peace, it will not come overnight - both sides will have to be fully committed so that when the inevitable 'lapses' occur, they will not send the whole process back to square one.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Harvey:

If this was a one-off and actually solved anything, then just maybe one might have to reluctantly accept that some innocent may be lost. It doesn't make it "permissible". What galvanizes the majority of people on these threads against Israel's attitude in this regard is that the permissible death of innocents is taken to it's limit and seen as a green light to kill men, women and children on fairly regular basis and then explained away these attacks using your "permissible non-combatant deaths" principle. When so many people are being killed to no end, it must be considered an unjustifiable, indefensible and failed policy. This policy, against the background of land seizures, collective punishment and oppression is what jars me personally and appears to have some resonance throughout the posters here. You and Ayre are generally happy with the way that the IDF use the permissible deaths principle. I am not.

.

---

Well, at least we are getting somewhere on this.

I'm sympathetic to the notion that this principle is most valid in isolated (what you call "one off") instances. But remember that I proposed the principle as an explanation for why the two actions (that of blowing up buses by Palestinians and that of firing hellfire missles at command targets in the street) are morally distinct. I did NOT offer it to, as you say, "explain away" the attacks by Israel in the occupied lands. Like you, I happen think they are wasteful and counterproductive. But in that, I am unwilling to concede what little distinction between the conduct of the conflict on both sides there is. Which is that the combatants on one side intend to kill innocent people for political gain while the others intend to kill people who plan the killing of innocent people.

If we abandon the distinction entirely (while still believing the policies on both sides are stupid) why does Israel expend $500,000 hellfire missles instead of simply using cheaper roadside bombs designed to take out passing Palestinian buses?

Why doesn't Israel engage in a tit-for-tat targetting of civilian populations wholesale?

I'm interested in why you think Israel does not do this?

Judd

quote:

---

Originally posted by Patrick Dixon:
The problem for me with this statement is that whilst it may be applicable in war where war rules apply, this is not a war and the law of the land should not be disregarded. The Israeli army has a duty to conduct itself in a lawful manner, and surely that includes a duty of care to innocent citizens - just as the British army had in N Ireland.

---

Wait a minute now. Geneva IV deals with "occupations" and armed conflicts even when neither side considers it a "war". These rules apply in accupations as much as anything else.

But let's go with your train of thought anyway. Assuming both sides are equally responsible for the current conflict (after all, war crimes don't deal with this question at all, only with the conduct of the parties during the conflict), does this mean that Israel is prohibited, in your view, from attacking a Hamas leader unless he happens to be alone. Or would, in your view, there be limited circumstances in which a Hamas leader may be attacked by Israel even if he is not alone?

Please answer that question for me.

Judd

quote:

---

The Israeli army has a duty to conduct itself in a lawful manner, and surely that includes a duty of care to innocent citizens - just as the British army had in N Ireland.

---

I'm reluctant to enter this discussion, but I would like to make one point. The English often compare the Palestinian situation to the one in Northern Ireland. However, the two are so different as to make any comparison absurd.

• England does not share a border with Northern Ireland.
  
• England does not share borders or close proximity with other hostile nations sympathetic to the Northern Irish, and who would seize on any weakness in England to invade it.
  
• England, while small, is nowhere near as small as Israel, either in size or population. England is also not as difficult to defend militarily.
  
• England is not a young country formed by the victims of persecution who are determined to survive - rightly or wrongly - by any means necessary.
  
• The clear goal of the IRA was to remove the English from Northern Ireland. It was not to remove the English from England.
  
• The Palestinian territories do not contain an equally numerous non-Palestinian population who oppose the aims of the Palestinian Authority/Hamas/Hisbollah.
  
• The IRA did not receive hundreds of millions of dollars from Europe (or anyone else) for the express purpose of improving the Northern Irish economy. If it had, it is unlikely that the leaders of the IRA would have embezzled most of that money.
  
• England does not contain religious sites sacred to the Northern Irish and which the Northern Irish would like to control.
  
• The legitimacy of the existence of England is not called into question by the IRA.
  
• It was clear that if the English relinquished control of Northern Ireland, the IRA would cease terrorism. If Israel relinquished control of the Palestinian territories, it is not clear that terrorism or threats to Israel's population or existence would end, and in fact it is likely that they would not.

This is not necessarily a defence of all of the actions of the IDF. However, I think it is clear that the Northern Irish situation is so different as to make it ridiculous to draw any parallels between the two.

Ross

• England does not share a border with Northern Ireland.

I’m assuming that by England you mean Britain, which in the eyes of the Irish, has been the occupying power in Northern Ireland. As Republicans see it, the disputed territory was in effect annexed from the rest of Ireland and occupied, so I don’t really see how the border issue is relevant.

• England does not share borders or close proximity with other hostile nations sympathetic to the Northern Irish, and who would seize on any weakness in England to invade it.

Over the years, the British government have spent a small fortune deploying significant numbers of troops along the border with Eire, closing all but a few main roads, erecting a line of watchtowers and manned lookouts to restrict movement across the border in either direction. The government and the Ulster Unionists have seen the Irish Republic as a haven for Republican terrorists, allowing them free rein to train, raise money, maintain arsenals and generally offering tacit support to the armed struggle. It is only in the last decade that that Ulster Unionists have shown a smidgen of trust in respect of the motives if the Irish government. FWIW, and as Harvey mentioned earlier in this thread, most Unionists also feel that successive US governments have turned a blind eye to substantial funding and arms supplies to the IRA and have thus been utterly hostile to the existence of Northern Ireland.

• England, while small, is nowhere near as small as Israel, either in size or population. England is also not as difficult to defend militarily.

Northern Ireland itself is seen as much a part of Britain as Scotland, England or Wales and to British eyes, phenomenally difficult to defend as the enemy, is within, without and attacks both the disputed territory and the mainland. I’m too weary to check and need a drink, but I’d guess that NI is probably smaller and certainly less populous than Israel.

• England is not a young country formed by the victims of persecution who are determined to survive - rightly or wrongly - by any means necessary.

Nobody denies, forgets or excuses the horrific legacy of a persecuted people or an abused child, but whilst one can understand how abused children become child abuser, it can’t ever make the subsequent crime right. The hope in respect of Israel, would be that recent memories of persecution should make them more qualified than most to the horrors of the suffering and indignation currently being experienced by the Palestinians as a result of Israeli policies. NI is populated largely by people who believe that they have been in a large measure either persecuted or let down.

• the clear goal of the IRA was to remove the English from Northern Ireland. It was not to remove the English from England.

The goal of the Republicans was and is a United Ireland which can only be achieved by Northern Irish state ceasing to be part of Britain, being dissolved and subsumed into a United Ireland. Not really sure how this is relevant?

• The Palestinian territories do not contain an equally numerous non-Palestinian population who oppose the aims of the Palestinian Authority/Hamas/Hisbollah.

I really don’t understand you’re saying here.

• The IRA did not receive hundreds of millions of dollars from Europe (or anyone else) for the express purpose of improving the Northern Irish economy. If it had, it is unlikely that the leaders of the IRA would have embezzled most of that money.

Some from Europe, tons from the US and some from Eire and you most be bloody joking to your last statement.

• England does not contain religious sites sacred to the Northern Irish and which the Northern Irish would like to control.

Armagh, situated in Northern Ireland has been the spiritual capital of Ireland for 1,500 years and the seat of both Protestant and Catholic archbishops. It is the seat of the Catholic Archbishop and surprise, surprise, the Protestant Archbishop. Neither party has exclusive control over or access to such sites. It is the most venerated of Irish cities and yes, to people so inclined, sacred religious sites could easily be used as an obstacle on the road to peace.

• The legitimacy of the existence of England is not called into question by the IRA.

The illegitimacy of Northern Ireland as an intrinsic part of Britain is at the core of Republican beliefs. Underlying the reality of discrimination and persecution of the Nationalist community, it was this perceived lack of legitimacy that drove the armed
struggle.

• It was clear that if the English relinquished control of Northern Ireland, the IRA would cease terrorism. If Israel relinquished control of the Palestinian territories, it is not clear that terrorism or threats to Israel's population or existence would end, and in fact it is likely that they would not.

You’re correct in that the immediate cessation of terrorism or threats is unlikely. However, terrorism needs the support of an angry, aggrieved and vengeful community. A community without hope such as exists in the occupied territories. The word “control” doesn’t really do justice to the despicable way in which the Palestinians are being treated. The Nationalist community in Northern Ireland have been treated like shit over the years. Housing, jobs, education, political clout, violent, heavy-handed and sectarian policing, not to mention a hostile British troop deployment. Slowly but surely, the British government and the Unionist community realised that they could neither push the nationalist community south of the border or convince them to continue to accept the repressive status quo. This signal was enough for the coin to drop with the IRA that they likewise couldn’t push the Unionists into the sea or bomb their way to a United Ireland. So the current situation is neither side have got all they want, but when people have hope, dignity, prosperity and equity then they’re more inclined to progress matters by shouting rather than shooting. Not too long ago a Republican terrorist cell would be spoilt for choices as to where to stash explosives, weapons, car bomb or where to find safe haven.

Whilst thing’s aren’t perfect, today’s Nationalist community has gained a lot and has too much to lose to feel inclined to help terrorists. Likewise, if there were a terrorist incident, the authorities wouldn’t consider a policy of missile attacks on apartment blocks or vehicles driving don the Falls Road, in the hope of taking out a terrorist suspect, but with the likely cost of dead innocents and the repercussions in the community. I can’t believe that any clear thinking person thinks that Israel has no lessons to learn from this conflict.

If I’m wrong about any of this please feel free to correct me.

It’s quite a common and suspect refrain from governments with dubious repressive policies and human rights abuses that their situation is different, that they need no outside interference, that they know how best to deal with their internal unrest and that nobody else can really understand the problems they have. The contention is that, as such, parallels cannot be drawn and they have no lessons to learn. Recent contenders: Zimbabwe, China, Burma, Iran, Liberia, Haiti Indonesia, SA under ANP, Israel to name but a few.

I suggest that this isn't great company to be keeping.

As you all know, Sharon wants to leave the Gaza Strip and evacuating all the settlements there. The IDF intelligence is warning that such a move will increase the terror against Israel and there are already statements from the Hamas leaders in Gaza Strip to say that it is a victory to the terror.
The question here is if to believe the IDF intelligence as they said the same apocalyptic statements when we left Lebanon. Few of the experts here are saying that the fact that the
Hezbollah didn’t take terror acts against Israel in the northern border is only because of a great American influence by political threats against Syria and because of the war in Iraq.
If these experts are right, it strengthens the arguments that say that the USA changes the political situation here.

Arye

quote:

---

But let's go with your train of thought anyway. Assuming both sides are equally responsible for the current conflict (after all, war crimes don't deal with this question at all, only with the conduct of the parties during the conflict), does this mean that Israel is prohibited, in your view, from attacking a Hamas leader unless he happens to be alone. Or would, in your view, there be limited circumstances in which a Hamas leader may be attacked by Israel even if he is not alone?

---

I'm not really interested in apportioning equality of responsibility (both sides clearly share a degree of blame), more in how the conflict will end.

Please forgive my naivety in this 'cowboy' world, but if this 'Hamas leader' is a criminal shouldn't he be arrested and tried before being 'punished' for his crimes?

This is where I have a big problem with recent US policy; the US suspends the rule of 'law' where it sees fit. So we only have GWB's word (or Tony Blair's) that the 'bad guys' really are the bad guys. In England the Magna Carta ended the absolute rule of monarchs, but the US seems to be adopting an absolute rule of Presidents - which is very worrying (to me). And before you fly off the handle Justin, it's relevant, because the US is setting precidents for the behaviour of Israel and others in dealing with terrorism and it's threats.

Bigmick, excellent post.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Patrick Dixon:


Please forgive my naivety in this 'cowboy' world, but if this 'Hamas leader' is a criminal shouldn't he be arrested and tried before being 'punished' for his crimes?


.

---

Who's responsible for arresting him? Israel or the PLO?

And

Would the arresting party serve him with a warrant at his place of address, or could they arrest him while he's out for his morning walk?

Judd

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justin:

Who's responsible for arresting him? Israel or the PLO?

And

Would the arresting party serve him with a warrant at his place of address, or could they arrest him while he's out for his morning walk?

Judd

---

Dunno but the IDF blew him to fuck.
Vulgarity intended, the man is mince and there is no doubt that there will be tit for tat ( crass phrase ) retaliations.

Clearly you view "collateral" deaths as valid and justifiable. I question the issue.

Mike

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justin:

why does Israel expend $500,000 hellfire missles instead of simply using cheaper roadside bombs designed to take out passing Palestinian buses?

---

Why does the US still sell the IDF Hellfire Missiles?

quote:

---

Why doesn't Israel engage in a tit-for-tat targetting of civilian populations wholesale?

I'm interested in why you think Israel does not do this?

Judd

---

Possibly because even Israel sees that this would be a catastrophic PR disaster.

Mike

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justin:
why does Israel expend $500,000 hellfire missles instead of simply using cheaper roadside bombs designed to take out passing Palestinian buses?

...Why doesn't Israel engage in a tit-for-tat targetting of civilian populations wholesale?

I'm interested in why you think Israel does not do this?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mike lacey:
Possibly because even Israel sees that this would be a catastrophic PR disaster.

---

Mike probably forgot to mention that his answer was intended to be read in the voice of Daffy Duck. Unless it wasn't. It's Loony Tunes either way...

quote:

---

Possibly because even Israel sees that this would be a catastrophic PR disaster.

---

Undoubtedly true. This would stretch the considerable sugar-coating abilities of Fox News to breaking and it's unlikely that the US domestic audience would react kindly to this.

Whose contention was it that the IDF were targetting Palestinian civilians? I rather gathered that the primary issue was that they were proceeding with counter-productive policies irrespective of the growing number of resultant civilian deaths.

[This message was edited by bigmick on SATURDAY 14 February 2004 at 10:14.]

Justin:

quote:

---

why does Israel expend $500,000 hellfire missles instead of simply using cheaper roadside bombs designed to take out passing Palestinian buses?

...Why doesn't Israel engage in a tit-for-tat targetting of civilian populations wholesale?

I'm interested in why you think Israel does not do this?

---

Mike Lacey:

quote:

---

Possibly because even Israel sees that this would be a catastrophic PR disaster.

---

bigmick:

quote:

---

Undoubtedly true...

Whose contention was it that the IDF were targetting Palestinian civilians? I rather gathered that the primary issue was that they were proceeding with counter-productive policies irrespective of the growing number of resultant civilian deaths.

---

bigmick, your position appears self contradictory - how does "undoubtedly true" square with your second paragraph?

The problem, as I see it, is that If you think Israel's current policies are counterproductive because of the resultant civilian deaths, which is what I understand you to mean, then it is difficult to see how you can agree with Mike that the only reason why Israel is not deliberately targetting civilians is because it would be a "catastrophic PR disaster". The reason being that it is implicit (in the notion that civilian deaths render the current policy counter productive) that it is not Israel's intention to cause civilian deaths. If you accept this, it is rather difficult to claim that it is only the fear of a "PR disaster" that prevents Israel from bombing the civilian population wholesale - unless you provide an objective that might be gained only through wholesale bombing of the civilian population.

Jeremy, you assume that the Israeli Government is as rational as you.

The Israeli Government is not deliberatly targeting civilians - although it's not that bothered if a few get killed through collateral damage. Any rational person would see that this is a PR disaster; the Israeli Government does not (partly because they think the same arguement works for the US Government).

They do however see, that it would be a PR disaster to target civilians specifically - that doesn't mean they wouldn't do it though if they thought they could get away with it; after all, wipe out the Palestinians, wipe out the Palestinian problem.

The problem with Israeli politics, is that no leader is ever secure enough to think and act rationally and make some of the hard choices that have to be made to achieve peace. The only one who seemed 'big' enough was Rabin; and so some nutty right-wing extremist killed him.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mike lacey:


Possibly because even Israel sees that this would be a catastrophic PR disaster.

Mike

---

But why should it be a "catastrophic PR disaster"? The point being made by others on this thread is that what Israel does now (fire hellfire missles in the street) is not morally distinct from blowing up buses. That being the case, why would blowing up buses today be any more of a PR disaster than what Israel does now? As you (you collectively) have said, the two actions are not distinct.

Answer that for me.

Judd

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigmick:



Whose contention was it that the IDF were targetting Palestinian civilians? I rather gathered that the primary issue was that they were proceeding with counter-productive policies irrespective of the growing number of resultant civilian deaths.

[This message was edited by bigmick on SATURDAY 14 February 2004 at 10:14.]

---

Now who's moving goalposts, BigMick?

The primary issue was whether what the IDF does in the streets of the West Bank is morally distinct from what Hamas does in the streets of Telaviv (sp?). Whether the policies are counterproductive was asked and answered (uniformally in the affirmative - as if there was any question on this matter).


In any event, I detect a softening of your position on the real issue set forth above. Of course the IDF does not "target" civilians (of course, Hamas does). It is only one more step to see a difference in these two intentions, despite how universally counterproductive they might be.

Judd

quote:

---

Originally posted by Patrick Dixon:


They do however see, that it _would_ be a PR disaster to target civilians specifically - that doesn't mean they wouldn't do it though if they thought they could get away with it; after all, wipe out the Palestinians, wipe out the Palestinian problem.

---

Then take it one step further. WOULD it in fact be a greater PR disaster for Israel to target civilians specifically than it already is (irrespective of what Israel "believes" would be a PR disaster)? That is, would world public opinion (not just US opinion, comment on other opinions as well) of the actions of Israel change appreciably due to the change in Israeli policy to target civilians?

Judd

Israel can't target civilians as a soldier who'll do it will find himself in prison for murder.
Israel can (and have to) target murderers who are planning to murder civilians in Israel. Israel have to target these murderers as the Palestinians authorities don't sentence them and don't put them in prison after they "sentence" them.

Arye

Jeremy
Patrick's pretty much summed it up.
Given the litany of horrors unleashed by both sides in this conflict, only a naif would think that there's neither side weighed up how depreved an act they could get away with before they started to lose the sdvantage in PR terms.

As to your understanding of my statement, well you were completely wrong and the clue was in the different words. If I had wanted to imply a causal relationship I would have used the word "because" and "irrespective of". The policies are counterproductive for numerous reasons outlined already in this and other posts. The death of innocents, directly and indirectly on both sides is just one of a host of undesirable effects and is not of itself the reason why the policies are counterproductive.

I'm just in from a hard afternoon's watching rugby in the pub and must attend to a harrassed wife and a team of irrational, screaming children.

Speaking of, I've just looked at Justin's latest posts and I know that they'll bring tears of laughter to the wife. Cheers mate. I'll definitely get back to you on these gems. Oh my. Just fantastic; in pretty much all senses of the word.

quote:

---

They do however see, that it would be a PR disaster to target civilians specifically - that doesn't mean they wouldn't do it though if they thought they could get away with it; after all, wipe out the Palestinians, wipe out the Palestinian problem.

---

Let me get this straight. You're suggesting that Israel would engage in genocide of the Palestinians if it thought it could get away with it. Where's your evidence for this particular piece of bullshit?

You may recall - as just one example - that during the last major military incursion into the Palestinian territories which followed a string of suicide bombings (the one where the Jenin "massacre"* was said to have happened) to arrest terrorists (before which Israel had deliberately not responded to the bombings), ground forces were used instead of helicopters, in order to minimise Palestinian casualties even though this would increase Israeli casualties.

Your depiction of Israel an irrational, genocidal monster gives me a clearer idea of where you're coming from and the particular prejudices you're operating under. The fact that the Israeli government is the only representative democracy in the region (including Arabs in its parliament), that the hawkish Sharon government was only elected because previous Labour governments who were prepared to make peace deals (eg Barak) demonstrated that this was just seen as weakness by the Palestinians and achieved nothing, all of this is irrelevant to you. The fact that Israel only targets known terrorists while the Palestinians only target civilians is irrelevant to you. The fact that surrounding Arab states, including the Palestinians, have clearly articulated policies of wiping out every man, woman and child in Israel - and have attempted to do so several times - is obviously also irrelevant to you in deciding who is irrational and genocidal.

Israel is far from perfect and its treatment of Palestinians has many, many grounds for criticism - as a large number of Israelis and most of those sympathetic to Israel readily admit. However, accusing it of genocidal intentions to my mind just demonstrates your own prejudices and unfortunately I think those prejudices are widespread, especially in Europe. This is one reason why Israel is - I think, justifiably - sceptical of European involvement in the region.

You rather patronisingly say that no Isreali government is "rational" or able to make "hard choices" (personally, I would have said that successive Israeli governments have had to make nothing but "hard choices") yet you don't say what these "hard choices" would involve. Would it involve giving up land? This has been offered - cf the Barak plan which Justin referred to, and which offered the best land-for-peace deal which was practically achievable. A timetable to statehood within a short period? - ditto. What exactly do you think should be tried which hasn't already been tried in order to achieve peace, short of every Israeli packing their bags and leaving? What real, practical course of action - what "rational, hard choices" - do you think should be taken? To make it easy, let's concede dismantling of settlements in the occupied territories as the first step. What else? (This is a rhetorical question, by the way; I'm not interested in reading the response if your "Israel is irrational and genocidal" post is an indication of your views.)

Ross

*It was later proved that there had been no massacre, although this was a footnote in most newspapers, not the front page news the "massacre" had been.

PS Bigmick, putting a paragaph under each of my points with some mostly irrelevant information does not demonstrate that the Palestinian situation is in any way comparable with Northern Ireland (I won't waste my time with a point by point response), and again your suggestion that Israel should be lumped in with Zimbabwe or South Africa is just another example of the same prejudices that Patrick is demonstrating.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigmick:


Speaking of, I've just looked at Justin's latest posts and I know that they'll bring tears of laughter to the wife. Cheers mate. I'll definitely get back to you on these gems. Oh my. Just fantastic; in pretty much all senses of the word.

---

This isn't an argument. It's just ridicule by innuendo.

Make an argument. Explain to us why the rest of the world would consider IDF targetting of civilians any worse than what they do now, if, as you have made so abundantly clear, what they do now is not morally distinct from targetting civilians.

Judd