Another example of Israeli stupidity

[Anonymous]

Another reason NOT to ask them for advice on how to deal with terrorism.

A few months ago, Israeli leaders came up with an ingenious new way to stop Palestinian attacks: Assasinate their leaders.

Seemed like a good idea, to a moron.

Well this morning the other shoe fell. An Israeli hawk, a former general and an influential leader in their government, was killed by Palestinians.

Previously, the Palestinians hadn't targeted Israeli leaders, but now Israel's assasination policy gives them the moral right to respond in kind.

Stupid stupid stupid.

Chess is a boring game IMO, but it teaches you one valuable skill. The ability to think a few moves ahead. I think it's a good idea to use that skill in the war on terrorism; Israeli leadership obviously doesn't.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Voice of Reason on 2001-10-17 11:25 ]</font>

[Aaron Brachowitz]

Previously, the Palestinians hadn't targeted Israeli leaders, but now Israel's assasination policy gives them the moral right to respond in kind.

Yes, the Palestinians had shown utmost restraint prior to this, targeting for example 15-year-old girls standing in line at dance clubs.

You're right, they should just leave the poor terrorists alone and then everything will be fine and we can all hold hands and sing Kum-ba-yah together.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Aaron Brachowitz on 2001-10-17 11:47 ]</font>

[Anonymous]

I didn't say that. I just said thinking assasinations are a magic bullet is pitifully idiotic.

It made a bad situation worst. Previously, leaders weren't targeted, now they are. Worst of all, Israelis started it so they lost some moral ground.

Don't you think we should think a few moves ahead before doing anything? Is that too much to ask?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Voice of Reason on 2001-10-17 11:51 ]</font>

[City Slicker]

In other words, it's "worse" somehow to kill a politician than a teenager. Or, following your logic, Israelis would be morally justified in setting bombs in Palestinian youth clubs. What morality.

[Anonymous]

FYI, Israel has been killing Palestinian civilians, including children, for 50 years. The only reason they don't kill civilians in discos is because Palestinians don't have any discos.

But that's not what I want to talk about. I wanted to talk about thinking two moves ahead in the war on terrorism.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Voice of Reason on 2001-10-17 12:46 ]</font>

[City Slicker]

FYI, The U.S. and Britain also killed innocent children in WWII. They were killed in the same context as the Israeli's situation -- defending their citizens from a hostile enemy. Try to justify bombing a disco with that.
As for thinking two steps ahead -- firstly, I don't think whoever decided to attack the US was thinking two steps ahead. Secondly, the rationale generally given is that killing leaders of violence is better than a) killing civilians or b) letting killers escape punishment. I'm talking in a military framework, where bringing people to justice in a bilaterally agreed upon is not an option, as it is here -- would we let bin Laden get tried in front of an Islamic court? I would hope, almost assume, he could get convicted, but what if he does not?

[aNoNo]

To: Voice of Reason

Would you apply your same logic to the U.S. response to the terrorist attacks on 9/11?

What do you feel would be a more effective way for Israel to respond to bombings of civilian populations?

Let's try and think symetrically as follows:

Case 1:
Terrorist attack civilians in U.S.
U.S. response is to mount a bombing campaign against the perpetrators. V of R - do you approve of this U.S. response?

Case 2:
Terrorist attack civilians in Israel.
Israel response shoud be ??? (any suggestions Voice of Reason???)

[Anonymous]

My contribution was to ask everyone to think two steps ahead, not to do the actual two step ahead thinking.

[Double High C]

On 2001-10-17 13:37, Voice of Reason wrote:
My contribution was to ask everyone to think two steps ahead, not to do the actual two step ahead thinking.


Ask not what your fellow posters can do for you.

Ask what you can do for your fellow posters!!!

[Anonymous]

EB, you're trying to say that assasinations aren't a new Israeli policy. I completely disagree. There may have been an occasionaly assasination in the past (about one a year), but it never went on to this extent (now it's about 1 a week).

Furthermore, I think the fact that the people I'm debating don't address the point of my posts (namely thinking ahead), and instead try to change the subject, proves how solid my arguments are.

Also, that guy was an important member of the conservative Israeli coalition. Read up on it.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Voice of Reason on 2001-10-17 14:00 ]</font>

[Aaron Brachowitz]

Thinking ahead is of course preferable to not thinking ahead. But we shouldn't let it paralyze us into inaction by viewing every action on our part as the cause of some response by the terrorists. Terrorists don't need to be provoked into action. They have adequate self-motivation, as we have seen -- the 9/11 attack was not an obvious response to a particular US action.

[Patience]

On 2001-10-17 13:53, Voice of Reason wrote:
...There may have been an occasionaly assasination in the past (about one a year), but it never went on to this extent (now it's about 1 a week)....
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Voice of Reason on 2001-10-17 14:00 ]</font>


So basically one important Palestinian has been dying every week. and in retaliation Israel has lost one person. You're right this is moronic. Equivilant to blowing yourself up to kill a dozen people at a beach or in a disco.

At least its now political targets

[Anonymous]

Right. Here's what I'm saying. If I were Sharon's advisor when he suggested the idea of targeted killing, I would have said:

1. I don't think it's going to decrease terrorist attacks or impair these organizations' ability to function. Their leaders seem easily replacable.

2. It might cause them to assasinate our leaders.

3. The world (including the US) will condemn this policy.

So the net result would be no reduction in terrorist attacks, world condemnation and some of our leaders dead. I say go back to the drawing board.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Voice of Reason on 2001-10-17 14:28 ]</font>

[Anonymous]

Dear Voice:

You are getting reamed. You say toe-may-toe, your detractors say toe-matto. Let's call the whole thing off, okay?

Frankly, I think both Isrealis and Palestinians leave a lot to be desired in the peace process. Face it, they hate each other and each assassination makes it that much more unlikely that they'll ever resolve diddly.

Maybe we should send Rodney King out to the Gaza strip so that he can implore "Can't we all just get along?" I'm sure THAT will stop the violence (for 2 or 3 seconds, before many bullets are fired in his direction).

[Damn, Dirty Ape]

VOR:"Furthermore, I think the fact that the people I'm debating don't address the point of my posts (namely thinking ahead), and instead try to change the subject, proves how solid my arguments are. "

This actually made me laugh out loud!

Billsterfl: When you said of VoR "You are getting reamed", I read "renamed" (probably in a Freudian twist of neurons). That's not a bad idea!

Okay, back to the question: "Don't you think we should think a few moves ahead before doing anything? Is that too much to ask?"

Yes, of course we need to consider the consequences of our actions. But we can't always predict those consequences with certainty. An action can have several consequences (some totally unexpected), and each consequence can have several counter-actions, we can't really know what the counteraction will be.

Assasination of leaders of a particular enemy is NOT stupid, as you suggest. Several consequences of that action can be very rewarding.

You're saying that assasination of Palestinian leaders has caused palestinians to target Israeli leaders. Presumably, this will reduce attacks on women and children. The targeted leaders have the means to properly defend themselves. Is that so bad? You seem to think terrorism is a better alternative to assasinations. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

(I can't believe I'm actually taking the time to argue this... I must be ill.)



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: d*mn, Dirty Ape on 2001-10-17 17:17 ]</font>

[Anonymous]

I don't think it'll reduce attacks on civilians. They'll just do both.

[Damn, Dirty Ape]

Of course they will do both. But they have limited attackers and planners. So those who would normally be attacking civilians will instead work on the leaders. Hence, fewer attacks on civilians.

[Actuary321]

Israel is attempting to stop terrorism. They have increased security about to the limit that the civilians will allow. It has not stopped the terrorism. They have attacked the terrorist bases in neighboring states and within the Palestinian areas. It has not stopped the terrorism. They decided to attack directly at the top of the terrorist chain of command. That seems like a natural progression. You have tightened security and attacked their soilders with no success, go for the head if body shots don't work. Will that leave you open to attacks at your top? Yes, but everyone has been waiting for this kind of reaction from the terrorist for a long time anyway.

Maybe this was the plan all along. Nothing Israel had done had provoked the Palestinians to attack Israels leadership. With the leadership now attacked they can say "see we tried to work with them, we never targetted Arafat. Now they have attacked our leadership, we must destroy them."

[alex]

Where is the evidence that all the people israelis are assasinating are terrorists? I think alot of them might just be "Dangerous" leaders, or just examples to would be leaders of palestinians. They kill some specific target, maybe kill or wound a few bystanders, maybe even a "settler", and they justify it to the world as an attack on terrorism. Meanwhile, there ain't much difference, morally speakin, 'tween a terrorist and a soldier. You gotta look at their cause, folks. A terrorist fight for the liberation of palestine is arguably not equivalent to some dude topping off the federal building in Oklahoma city. Likewise, a nazi soldier ain't the moral equivalent of an american on Dday, though the world did have an amazing capacity to forgive the nazi soldiers for "just following orders". Remember, soldiers are oh soo important, we just can't do without them - ever.

[alex]

Israel is cutting off all ties with the palestinians in response to the assassination. What room does israel have to criticize on this one? They say it's terrorism, it is, but aren't their assasinations terrorism, too, just state sponsored, and reflecting the will of the israeli people (it's a democracy, after all), while the palestinian action represents a fringe group,and not the will of the palestinians. By virtue of the israeli government's ( a democratic extension of the israeli people) assasination policy, I say the israeli people are parties to terrorism.

[Anonymous]

EB EB EB, you're so sad. I deleted it myself because I don't like getting too caught up in these arguments. But since you reposted it, I want Aaron Brockovich to answer also.

Is there anything morally wrong with assasinating other leaders, then crying terrorism when your leaders get it?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Voice of Reason on 2001-10-17 23:27 ]</font>

[Laocoön]

On 2001-10-17 18:16, Actuary321 wrote:
Israel is attempting to stop terrorism. They have increased security about to the limit that the civilians will allow. It has not stopped the terrorism. They have attacked the terrorist bases in neighboring states and within the Palestinian areas. It has not stopped the terrorism. They decided to attack directly at the top of the terrorist chain of command. That seems like a natural progression. You have tightened security and attacked their soilders with no success, go for the head if body shots don't work. Will that leave you open to attacks at your top? Yes, but everyone has been waiting for this kind of reaction from the terrorist for a long time anyway.


If Israel really wants to stop terrorism, it should accept impartial justice. This means hearing the merits of Palestinian complaints about Israel's confiscation of Palestinian land and property in 1948 and 1967, and accepting an impartial adjudication for a just resolution. It is clear to me that Israel will never do this. Having left no alternative to violence in resolving these disputes, Israel has no moral ground from which to condemn violence.

I only wish that my nation were not taking a side in this knife fight.

[Aaron Brachowitz]

On 2001-10-17 23:19, Voice of Reason wrote:
Is there anything morally wrong with assasinating other leaders, then crying terrorism when your leaders get it?

I'm not sure if the Israelis said that the assassination of their minister was terrorism. I don't think it is -- it lacks the randomness and pointlessness of, say, reducing a 15-year-old girl to small pieces of flesh and bone. In the same way, the Israeli sniper killings of selected Palestinian leaders are not terrorism, rather an operation with a very specific target and identifiable purpose. You can argue the plusses and minuses of both killings, but I don't think they are terrorist in nature.

[Anonymous]

I don't care that you posted it. It was a great point and I don't mind it being attributed to me. The only reason I deleted it was because I'm trying not to get too into these arguments.

I try to get out, but they keep pulling me back in!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Voice of Reason on 2001-10-18 12:54 ]</font>

[roz]

12-year old palestinian girl killed in her classroom today by israeli soldiers. It's not only the palestinians who kill children.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: roz on 2001-10-18 15:46 ]</font>

[Aaron Brachowitz]

"...killed in her classroom by Israeli soldiers" implies that Israeli soldiers came into her classroom and shot her dead. The reference I found isn't quite so black-and-white -- the classroom was struck by a round from an Israeli tank engaged in a street battle, possibly quite a distance away. A tragedy nonetheless.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Aaron Brachowitz on 2001-10-18 16:17 ]</font>

[Hierophant]

Taking it back to the top, VOR suggests we should not follow Israel's advice. OK, then perhaps we should follow the lead of the Palestinians? The Israeli's target the Palestinian leadership, so the Palestinian's retaliate by assassinating an Israeli leader.

So, who has been targeted in our country? The President (assuming the White House was the primary target for the Pentagon plane).
The Senate Majority leader.
The leadership of our media (Brokaw, now Dan Rather.)

By the Palestinian model, we are justified in going after Bin Laden, as well as Saddam (presumably) and the Taliban.

[Damn, Dirty Ape]

VoR: "I'm trying not to get too into these arguments".

Can you please try harder? Thanks.