ISO - semi-informed opinions

[Drunken Master]

Personally, I'm not shedding any tears about the "targeted killing" of Sheik Ahmed Yassin. Terrorists can't complain if they find their ass being blown off one day - even if that ass is 80 years old and permanently residing in a wheelchair. Impractical the killing may have been - I'm hard pressed to see what it will accomplish in the long run - but I'm not convinced it was unjust.

My question concerns the kind of conflict in which this killing took place. I can accept that, in a state of war, you don't necessarily have the time to question the relative guilt of your enemies - so in that sense Israel has a right to kill whoever it wants without benefit of arrest and trial, and long as they can say that such actions will increase the security of their populace. But then, isn't that right reciprocal - in a state of war, wouldn't the Palestinians be justified in taking the same kinds of actions?

If this isn't a state of war, then what rules apply? If it is a state of war, a civil war in fact, then why doesn't the US or the UN apply a solution which has worked (with admittedly sporadic success) in the past - occupation and peace-keeping? Wouldn't the world be better off if, rather than see this hopeless conflict continue, which is firmly in the control of extremists on both sides, peace was "enforced," as it has been in, say, Crete and Kosovo?

I pose this question as a bit of devil's advocacy - I'm well aware there are massive logistical and political concerns which make such a solution impossible - on top of the repugnancy I feel in suggesting any Western power take it upon themselves to "occupy" a Jewish state. My real question is - what kind of conflict is this? If it is a war, then arn't most actions justified - even the targeted killing of civilians, as both sides did in WWII? If it isn't a war, then don't different rules - like due legal process - apply?

These kinds of questions may seem specious while people are dying - but before we can even begin to solve a conflict, hadn't we better decide what kind of conflict it is?

 

[n_v]

If this isn't a state of war, then what rules apply? If it is a state of war, a civil war in fact, then why doesn't the US or the UN apply a solution which has worked (with admittedly sporadic success) in the past - occupation and peace-keeping? Wouldn't the world be better off if, rather than see this hopeless conflict continue, which is firmly in the control of extremists on both sides, peace was "enforced," as it has been in, say, Crete and Kosovo?

As long as the US has a veto in the UN Security Council the UN will never 'occupy' Jewish land, regardless of the amount of innocent lives that are lost.

I pose this question as a bit of devil's advocacy - I'm well aware there are massive logistical and political concerns which make such a solution impossible - on top of the repugnancy I feel in suggesting any Western power take it upon themselves to "occupy" a Jewish state.

Why do feel it is repugnant ?

 

[xarir]

If this isn't a state of war, then what rules apply?

Silent enim leges inter arma

This phrase was (allegedly) uttered by Cicero around the year 52BC as part of his defence speech in favour of Milo. Milo was a Roman citizen who killed a fellow Roman citizen in a chance encounter on the Appian Way. Depending on who's version of the story you believe, Milo was first attacked then killed his attacker in self defence.

The thrust of Cicero's argument was to promote the concept of self defence. Specifically he was arguing that if you are attacked, you have the full right to protect yourself by deadly and violent means if necessary.

The Latin phrase is roughly translated as "the law falls silent in times or arms (war)". To that end, I think Israel would likely claim self defence as the "justification" for killing Sheik Ahmed Yassin, much the same way the Bush Administration does for going after Osama in Afghanistan and likely will try to claim for their current dealings in Iraq.

While there is obvious validity in this stance, it clearly does not take into account the ever increasing cycle of violence. As more Palestinians are killed, rightly or wrongly, more extermists will try (rightly or wrongly) to take similar actions through suicide bombings.

An enforced solution would be difficult to say the least. After you toss a few people into jail for increasing periods of time, what steps do you take next? Do you execute people? If you do, the third party enforcer draws perilously close to being a full-blown party to the conflict. Suddenly a duality becomes a triumvirate and nothing constructive has been accomplished.

 

[Chivas Regal]

Re: Re: ISO - semi-informed opinions

Silent enim leges inter arma

It never ceases to amaze me what I learn on this board! Thanks for that trivial bit xarir.

I have posted a refrain on this topic in a similiar thread regarding York Region.

Suffice it to say religious conflicts lead to physical conflicts. We are in for an interesting couple of weeks. My personal view is that the UN should stay away from this political hot potato, but with the anti hate propaganda against terrorism the last few years, the world will view what Sharon did as justification for his actions.

Just MHO.

Chivas Regal

 

[Veronika2]

DELETED

I suppose I hold some unpopular opinions and I did not join this forum to discuss politics. Bad for business.

 

[The Shake]

yet anyone who criticizes this is immediately branded as a hatemonger or even a neo-nazi. There are two sides to every story and our media is extremely one-sided-- pro Israel.

That is absolute garbage. The amount of scrutiny that Israel receives in the media compared to other similar (or worse) abusers of human rights is staggering. Does the word Chechnya ring a bell?

There are obviously media outlets (the National Post being a prime example) that are blatantly biased in favour of the Israeli position, but other outlets (the CBC and the Toronto Star) provide more balanced coverage.

In this day and age, I am continually disgusted by the fact that people can't just smarten up and LEARN TO SHARE LAND.

Agreed, but the Palestinians are equally culpable in this regard.

 

[tompeepin]

One person's "terrorist" is another person's freedom fighter, you must remember.

True. That makes the "freedom fighter" Ahmed Yassin an enemy combatant and therefore a valid target. He ordered the killing of innocent civilians if not "pulling the trigger" himself. Thus he is a terrorist and should be sentenced to capital punishment IMHO. So two good reasons to kill him.

Israeli occupation and the treatment of Palestinian people is nothing short of an atrocity, yet anyone who criticizes this is immediately branded as a hatemonger ...

Again this is true. However, remember the self-interest rule and as xarir pointed out "the law falls silent in times of arms (war)". When there is guerrilla warfare the "POWERS" that be, must take strong measures against it. Remember from day one Palestinians and surrounding Arabs have continually attacked Israel.

In this day and age, I am continually disgusted by the fact that people can't just smarten up and LEARN TO SHARE LAND.

Both sides are culpable.

Any enemy combatant is a target (Israeli solders, Hamas, etc). And sure there will be unfortunate collateral damage. However when the target IS innocent civilians, that is when it IS terrorism.

 

[DATYdude]

No easy answers here.

I would agree with others that Veronika's post displays ignorance of the reality of this conflict. I don't blame you for being sick of all the killing.

You may not be aware of it, but Israel HAS agreed to share the land, back in 1948 under the UN partition plan (call it fair or unfair), and in 1994 under Oslo and at Camp David in 2000 (call those deals fair or unfair), and a majority of Israelis still believes that the Palestinians deserve a state and have been willing to give up land in exchange for peace. WHile the devil is in the details, the Palestinians under Arafat have used violence as a negotiating tool over and over again. Hamas is a different story because they don't accept Israel's existence at all.

A few other points:

1) There is no parity between what Hamas does (targets innocent civilians) and the beliefs it espouses (Israel does not have the right to exist, and non-Muslims must leave the holy land) on the one hand, and Israel's actions (targeting combatants and their leaders, albeit in civilian areas because that's where they ARE) and its beliefs (it has already agreed in principla to a Palestinian state). So when people refer to a "cycle of violence", they miss the point. It's not tit-for-tat.

2) Israel would not allow UN/multinational or other outsiders onto its soil to "keep the peace". They don't trust outsiders to keep them safe (one of the very reasons for Israel's existence). For another, it's pretty clear that peacekeeping wouldn't work. Peacekeeping works when there are 2 armies on opposite sides of a border. Here you have one army (Israel's) fighting small, loosely organized groups of snipers and trying to catch hidden bombers and collapse arms-smuggling tunnels. While the peacekeepers could easily report on and to some extent control the Israelis, they would not be able to find or stop the Palestinian fighters/terrorists.

 

[beaver cleaner]

I don't see why this is so complicated, if you kill civillians and children, you are a terrorist. You are not fighting anyone. When you read on the board that an incall escort was raped, do you say, well she was breaking the law. Aterrorist and a rapist are not fighters they are chicken shit bastards. I don't care if he was 90 years old and on a respirator, he plans attacks on innocent civillians, he is a threat, and he must be stopped.

 

[Drunken Master]

DATYdude: Your reasons against a peace-keeping occupation are precisely those which cause me to feel repuganance for the idea - The fact is, whatever the benefits might be of such a solution, the Jews have suffered under rule of others for too many millenia to make such a solution very palatable. What bothers me is that such a solution is never even entertained as a possibilty, as it would be in the case of any other civil war - which tells me that we really just don't have a clear idea of what this conflict is all about.

I must take issue with your assessment of Israel's motives, however. Let's not forget that the extremism on the Palestinian side is mirrored by an extremism on the Isreali side which wishes to see Holy Land as the exclusive enclave of the Jewish people - hence the motivation to create the settlements. The fact is, I don't think either extremism represents the hopes and aspirations of the average Palestinian or Israeli people - but there is also no doubt in my mind that it is the extremists who are currently controling the agenda.

xaxir: Glad to see you found the source of that excellent Cicero quote. Rest assured I plan to quote it from now on as if it were a product of my own research

 

[doubledown]

You may not be aware of it, but Israel HAS agreed to share the land, back in 1948 under the UN partition plan (call it fair or unfair), and in 1994 under Oslo and at Camp David in 2000 (call those deals fair or unfair), and a majority of Israelis still believes that the Palestinians deserve a state and have been willing to give up land in exchange for peace. WHile the devil is in the details, the Palestinians under Arafat have used violence as a negotiating tool over and over again. Hamas is a different story because they don't accept Israel's existence at all.

Isn't the biggest stumbling block control of Jerusalem?

 

[DATYdude]

["Your reasons against a peace-keeping occupation ... What bothers me is that such a solution is never even entertained as a possibilty, as it would be in the case of any other civil war - which tells me that we really just don't have a clear idea of what this conflict is all about."

1. This is not a civil war but a war between two nations. The lines are unclear (i.e. Israeli Arabs) but there are lines.

2. Peacekeeping/UN/etc... IS an idea which is supported by people in Israel (it's not hard to find all sorts of ideas around in the Israeli press and among its political thinkers, since Israel has a free press), it's just not very popular for the reasons I mentioned.

"I must take issue with your assessment of Israel's motives, however. Let's not forget that the extremism on the Palestinian side is mirrored by an extremism on the Isreali side"

You're right and wrong. Polls have shown that 85% of the Palestinians support bombing civilians. Hamas has the support of huge numbers of Palestinians. The Israeli extreme right, which at this time has generally given up on the idea of a "Greater Land of Israel" and commands little popular support, NEVER attracted more than about 10% of the population (I think 5% would be accurate today).

"... which wishes to see Holy Land as the exclusive enclave of the Jewish people - hence the motivation to create the settlements."

Wrong! Those extremists represent a small number of the settlers and only a small part of the reasoning behind the West Bank settlements. Most came bacause they were offered cheap housing. I think the settlements were more political than ideological. Here was a large Palestinian population in territory conquered in 1967. Israel tried to enter into negotiations with Jordon withet intent of giving back the territories to Jordan, but Jordan didn't want them back, partly because the Hashemite minority which rules Jordan was happy to be rid of Palestinians which it saw as a threat (Jordan is still more than 50% Palestinian). Israel had hoped to control the territories and to create "facts on the ground" by anticipating a later time when a new border would be drawn.

"The fact is, I don't think either extremism represents the hopes and aspirations of the average Palestinian or Israeli people - but there is also no doubt in my mind that it is the extremists who are currently controling the agenda."

I agree, but this is a truer statement when applied to the Palestinians. Find me a moderate Palestinian, or one willing to speak out against the pizzeria and commuter bus bombings.
Want to find Israeli moderates? Google any of these words: Ha'aretz (Haaretz), Beilin, Sarid, Peres, BeTselem.

 

[Benhur]

The Shake, DATYdude, Drunken Master, beaver cleaner & tompeepin....thank you guys for being so well informed.....when I see threads like this one pop-up, I always wish my english would be good enough for me to be able to express my anger at stupidity like Veronika's post, so I'll take time to say this.....comparing an army that targets terrorists, and occasionnally it is true kills civilians (but when terrorists hide in the skirts of women and where children play, what can you expect) to fanatics who blow themselves up in cafes and restaurants, triggers the worst emotion inside of me......strangely enough, this weekend I spent a good hour telling an SP friend of mine, on the topic of some of her co-workers ignorance and lack of class, that people who are ignorant are not responsible for it, less education, family background, etc, that we shouldn't be angry or look down on them....life is strange sometimes how it teaches us lessons....I guess there is out there a certain type of ignorance that makes me want to puke.

 

[Drunken Master]

Wrong! Those extremists represent a small number of the settlers and only a small part of the reasoning behind the West Bank settlements. Most came bacause they were offered cheap housing. I think the settlements were more political than ideological. Here was a large Palestinian population in territory conquered in 1967. Israel tried to enter into negotiations with Jordon withet intent of giving back the territories to Jordan, but Jordan didn't want them back, partly because the Hashemite minority which rules Jordan was happy to be rid of Palestinians which it saw as a threat (Jordan is still more than 50% Palestinian). Israel had hoped to control the territories and to create "facts on the ground" by anticipating a later time when a new border would be drawn.

I can't deny any of this, but (and correct me if I'm wrong) a sizable majority of the people living in the settlements are actually expatriot Americans, most of whom are living in the West Bank not (obviously) in deference to any pressing desire for cheap housing but because of their political and religious beliefs.

I agree, but this is a truer statement when applied to the Palestinians. Find me a moderate Palestinian, or one willing to speak out against the pizzeria and commuter bus bombings.
Want to find Israeli moderates? Google any of these words: Ha'aretz (Haaretz), Beilin, Sarid, Peres, BeTselem.

The late great Edward Said was a passionate and extremely artriculate advocate of the Palestinian cause, and vigourously condemned suicide tactics and the leadership of Arafat. The moderate Palestinians are out there - but the political structure of Arafat's banana republic admittedly makes it difficult for their voice to be heard.

 

[DATYdude]

You are wise oh Drunken Master.

There are a lot of Brooklynite militant Orthodox Jews in the territories, but not a majority at all. They are the most militant of all.

Too bad the only "moderate" Palestinian you can point to is dead. Yes I'm familiar with Said, and he was a strong advocate for his people, but I question how interested he was in a reconciliation between the peoples.

Crazy how Abu Ala, Arafat's second banana, referred to Yassin as a "moderate" in Hamas... Meaning he was willing to bide his time before the Jews are thrown into the sea...

 

[Drunken Master]

DELETED

I suppose I hold some unpopular opinions and I did not join this forum to discuss politics. Bad for business.

Well, personnally I did not entirely agree with what you said, but I think it would be silly for any potential customer to stay away because of something said on the board.