According to Benjamin Franklin, '"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." By this definition we can conclude that the government of Israel is insane. Why else would they continue to assassinate leaders of Hamas and Islamic Jihad as a way to hinder terrorism? Because, as everyone knows, such actions only lead to more terrorist violence, right?
Wrong.
The Israelis live in a land that is considered strange and foreign to many American editorial writers and pundits. And no, the land in question isn’t the Middle East but rather a place called 'Reality." To live within the realm of Reality requires accepting logic, facts, and certain hard truths that don’t always fit conveniently within a preconceived theory of how the world is supposed to work. This requirement often excludes many otherwise intelligent people from accepting citizenship in that land.
Since the state of Israel, however, would cease to exist if it ever believed the perceptions portrayed in many areas of the American media, it’s probably worth examining some of these differences:
Perception -- Assassinating leaders of Hamas doesn’t hinder terrorism.
Reality -- Killing the leaders of Hamas and Islamic Jihad have a significant impact on future terrorist activity. As David Plotz explained in Slate almost three years ago:
The military logic of assassination is this: Murdering operatives saps the effectiveness of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Assassination not only neutralizes the dead man, it also forces other terrorists to go underground. Since they know Israel may kill them, they spend much of their time running and less time plotting terror. Without skilled bomb-makers and planners, Hamas and Islamic Jihad should have more difficulty infiltrating Israel and carrying out deadly assaults. There are already hints that this is happening. The quality of bombers seems to be dropping. Numerous Palestinians have been killed or wounded in bomb-making accidents, several bombers have been caught before they could detonate their explosives, and some of the bombers who have detonated have not managed to kill any Israelis. So even though Israel knows that assassinations enrage Palestinians and swell the ranks of would-be bombers, it is counting on degrading Hamas and Islamic Jihad faster than the new volunteers can restore them.
Perception -- Most Palestinians don’t support terrorism.
Reality -- A poll taken in September 2003 showed that 79% of the respondents don’t’ consider Palestinian bombings of Israeli buses and restaurants to be acts of terrorism. On the other hand, 84% of the respondents do consider attacks by Israelis against Hamas and Islamic Jihad leaders to be acts of terrorism.
Perception --Palestinian terrorism is due to Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza
Reality -- The Palestine Liberation Organization was created three years before the occupation in 1967.
Perception -- Suicide bombing is caused by the Palestinian’s despair over not having their own homeland.
Reality -- Suicide bombing started after1993 Oslo Accords, which provided Palestinians with their best opportunity for an independent state.
Perception -- The success of suicide bombing is dependent on the number of willing martyrs.
Reality -- The success of suicide bombing is dependent on such factors as: the capacity to get past Israeli security, the ability to fashion hidden explosive devices, and the ability to obtain professional-grade explosives.
Perception -- Retaliation creates more people willing to become suicide bombers.
Reality -- There are 3.7 million Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza yet there have only been 127 bombings in the last ten years (2004 -- 5; 2003 -- 22; 2002 -- 44; 2001 -- 36; 2000 -- 4; 1999 -- 0; 1998 -- 1; 1997 -- 3; 1996-- 4; 1995-- 4 ; 1994-- 4). Even if Israel were to concede to every demand of the Palestinians a handful of the populous would continue to seek the annihilation of the Zionist state.
Joe, there is an interesting (if dated) article recounting some of the "strangeness" of the Israeli experience here. I found it quite interesting.
The first "Intifada" was pretty much ended when Israel asassinated Arafat's #2 (I forgot his name). Israel has wanted to remove Yassin for quite some time, and actually tried last Autumn.
Removing the head will always have a detrimental effect on the snake.
If what Israel is doing now is working, then why is there a dramatic increase in bombing activity since 2001 as opposed to the previous seven years? (Years during which, I might add, the "failed" Clinton Administration was actively trying to promote peace between the two sides...)
tgirsch:
Why use the scare quotes around "failed". If it had succeeded, wouldn't things be completely different? It actually did fail. Sorry, "fail". "You" "failed" yet "again" to make a "relevant" "point".
Joe, you might be interested in a book, "One New Man" by Reuven Doron, a native Israeli. In it, he explains how the land called "Palestine" was never ruled by "Palestinians" but instead inhabited by the soldiers of each conquering army. There are many fallacies and blatant lies regarding the history of this land and too many journalists have bought into fiction instead of fact.
The bottom line is this land has been torn apart and divided among empires for centuries. The Jewish people are the sole survivors of an ancient land and have maintained an uninterrupted link to it throughout history. Britain was commissioned to reconstruct the area and return it to the Jews in the Balfour Declaration in 1917 but it wasn't until 1948 that Israel was declared a sovereign state. (And what a scrapper she was...resisting attack on all sides for her survival.)
It's a deeply complicated issue but the Jewish people have every right to defend their homes. They have conceded time and time again and what do they recieve for it? More terrorist attacks. And yet who gets blamed? The Jewish population.
Meanwhile, I am convinced that those terrorists will not be satisifed until they follow Egyptian President Gamal Abdul Nasser's call in 1965 to "drive the Jew into the sea."
Of course, the Palestinians have their reasoning, too. To play devil's advocate for a moment, let's consider it.
First, while a majority (62%) of Palestinians do support attacks against Israeli civilians (though the number drops slightly below 50% when you ask about attacking citizens outside of the territories). Their reasoning is pretty straightforward: without the violence, Israel has no reason to negotiate with them. Israels building of settlements only reinforces this logic. In essence, the Palestinians' argument is similar to the Israelis': if they do not attack, their sovriegnty will cease to exist (or the possibility of it will).
Note also that support for the suicide bombings, up until the start of the second Intifada, was below 1/5 Palestinians. These bombings were not designed to get a Palestinian state, or even the right of return (which Israel will never grant). They were designed to destroy Israel. The second Intifada is seen by many Palestinians as an attempt to get what they thought they would get after the Oslo accords. Of course, many still do want to destroy Israel, and the continued cycle of violence only perpetuates this.
Which brings us to the larger point: the cycle of violence will not stop, no matter how many terrorists Israel kills. The Palestinians can breed them faster than Israel can kill them. Israel has to make a choice. Do they give in to the bombers, and compromise now? Do they attack all out, take over full control of the territories, and turn them into Israeli police states? Do they continue the cycle of violence as it is now? Or do they use a primarily defensive strategy, acting offensively (as the best defense) only when absolutely necessary?
The first two are obviously out of the question. The third is their current strategy, but it will not end the violence. It might diminish it, somewhat, but how much? Suicide bombings have diminished over the last year, but are still extremely common, and it's not likely they will decrease much more in the future. Furthermore, there are multiple Palestinian terrorist groups, some of which do not have very centralized leadership. Even Hamas is locally driven, with the central leadership having little to do with most individual attacks.
The fourth is the only really rational option. It involves doing everything possible to defend, while doing as little as possible to perpetuate the violence. Doing everything possible in the name of defense includes working toward political change in the PLO (something that almost happened last year, but which was undercut by that snake Arafat). It also means working closely with (including supplying and training, if necessary) the Palestinian security forces. Getting Arafat out has to be the ultimate goal, because he will never allow PLO moderates to have much of a say, though assassination is probably counterproductive (it would only lead to a more militant PLO).
Ultimately, Israel has to think long-term. The short term strategy of killing as many militants as they can will only produce militants faster than it kills them. Will it produce less-skilled militants? Sure (though the claims in the article were really non sequiturs... bombers have been blowing themselves up while making bombs since the beginning, and the increasing numbers of captured bombers is due primarily to better Israeli security). But 100 less skilled bombers is hardly better than 10 more skilled bombers. The best route for Israel is to work very closely with moderates and Palestinian security forces to achieve change from within, and then make the route towards a peace agreement less bumpy.
Israel will never have peace until they pursue a policy of fairness to the unjustly displaced and dispossessed Palestinians, and maybe not even then. How willing would Europe have been to forgive Hitler had he suddenly straightened up? The creation of Israel was an ill-conceived manifestation of guilt ,bungling, and a desire to help God fulfill biblical prophecy. This mistake has been compounded by our government's blind support of this Middle East bully. Without our unconditional help, Israel might have been forced to commit to the peace process when it had a chance of success. Instead, now we are paying the price of their cruelty and intransigence. Does anyone believe 9/11 would have happened if we had an even-handed mideast policy? I cannot support suicide bombers or anyone who murders innocents, but I can understand the despair and anger that provides a fertile soil for this deadly harvest.
"Does anyone believe 9/11 would have happened if we had an even-handed mideast policy?"
Yes, I do. Because the Russians have an "even-handed" Mideast policy. So do the French. So do the people of Bali. Were they protected by their even-handedness? The Russians have voted with the Araby in every single UN vote: their theater gets taken over by Muslims, hundreds die. The French, quite famously, have kowtowed to every Mideast dictator (hell, why be specific? They kowtow to every dictator), Saddam included, and they get an oil tanker blown up, 19 killed. Bali: hundreds of Australian and Asian tourists killed.
"I cannot support suicide bombers or anyone who murders innocents, but I can understand the despair and anger that provides a fertile soil for this deadly harvest."
I love comments like that. "I don't support the suicide bomber, but I sure can understand it".
You can? Try "understanding" a Jewish parent who bury their child because some death cult member wanders by a bus stop, or into a restaurant, or into a synagogue, with bombs strapped around himself.
"First, while a majority (62%) of Palestinians do support attacks against Israeli civilians (though the number drops slightly below 50% when you ask about attacking citizens outside of the territories)."
Great. So have of Palestinians support the killing of Israeli civilians, inside Israeli territory? You make our arguments for us--as long as the Palestinians live, they will attack Israelis, whatever Israel does.
I disagree with the "you can't kill them fast enough" argument. Why not try it? If the satanic Muslims believe that paradise awaits after death at the hands of the Israelis, and the Israelis want life, wouldn't a carpet bombing of the Palestinians just make everyone happy? Unless, the Palestinians don't really like death so much, after all . . . I never understood why there's all the a'wailin' and the a'moanin' about a terrorist leader killed--he's in Paradise now, right? boffing his 29 virgins? For damn sure he wasn't having a lot of luck with the chicks when he was tooling around in a wheelchair! Why doesn't Hamas send the IDF a thank-you card?
I meant to type, "half" of the Palestinians . . .
Middle East bully?
Over 20 years ago Dylan wrote about the Neighborhood Bully
It seems that the times... they aren't a changin'.
Whoa. Powerfully articulate lyrics from a man who I wish would enunciate them more often. Thanks for the link, Rusty.
Does anyone believe 9/11 would have happened if we had an even-handed mideast policy?
I do. To slide a little from the topic at hand, 9/11 was a vile act of hatred. One of the terrorists, Mohammad Atta, wrote a paper about how much he loathed America's skyscrapers. To him, they ruined the landscape.
Why do you think skyscrapers really would tick off a terrorist? Think about it. I do believe part of the attack was linked to our support for Israel, but not all of it. I believe that if we were to pull out of Israel today, terrorists would still hate America.
Rob, you speak of fairness but how fair is it for Israel to relinquish control of certain neighborhoods with the promise of decreased attacks but yet nothing changes? Do you not see that no matter how much Israel concedes, it will never be enough for a group of bloodthirsty people who want nothing less than the total annilihation of the Jew?
There are plenty (though not a majority) of Palestinians who want to destroy Israel completely, expelling all the Jews. Those people will still exist even if Israel grants the Palestinians statehood. This is why Israel cannot do this right now. While terrorist attacks continue, giving in to Palestinian demands (some of which will have to be given in to) would be a validation of their terrorist acts, and they would see no reason to stop them even after they had been granted statehood. This is why Israel has to help the Palestinian moderates police the Palestinians.
Oh, and I can completely understand why Palestinians support suicide bombers, and why there are suicide bombers. Let's look at the facts:
Palestinians have been oppressed, without any real self-government, for 5 decades, facing a hostile military power a couple miles away (a nuclear power, no less!), and on top of all that, most of their land was taken from them.
Is suicide bombing the way to go? Certainly not. Killing innocent civilians is always wrong, and will never allow them to achieve their goals. But the Palestinians know that they cannot compete with the Israeli military, so they attack civilians. It's easy to understand. That doesn't mean you like it or agree with their behavior.
Really, Kevin. "Satanic Muslims"? "carpet bombing"? With cultural sensitivity like yours, how could the Muslims have problems with the U.S.? Yes, I do understand the pain suffered by innocent Israelis at the hands of murdering fanatics, just as I understand the suffering of the families of innocent Palestinians whose lives were snuffed out by an indifferently heavy-handed Israeli government. We would never allow the tactics employed by the Israeli military...wait a minute, let's see, Bush and neo-cons in power.., well, maybe we would. Anyway, that doesn't make it right. Your Christian love is underwhelming, Kevin. W.w.J.d.?
Tongue in cheek, again, Rob. Try following the threads for awhile before just jumping in somewhere.
I'm just exposing the hypocrisy of the suicide-bomber mentality--it's easy to SAY that dyin' while a-killin' the Jew pig is the same as getting your ticket punched on the way to all dem virgins in the sky, but when it comes to having Muslim blood spilled, they shrink from it. Just like Saddam Hussein, happy to send $25000 checks to the families of the suicide bombers, but where was he when the US came? Hiding in a hole.
And, yes, I believe that the death cult that is Wahibbism and Shiite is satanic. Ditto for Naziism, Fascism, and Soviet Communism. WWJD? Hmm. I guess you would say he'd kill himself with a giant bomb, and take out as many of the other side as he could in a giant act of self-immolation.
George:
The thing is, we'll never know if the plan would have succeeded or failed, because Bush didn't bother to carry on with Clinton's work in that area. It failed primarily because it was aborted.
Anyway, if Clinton's middle east peace work "failed," by your definition, then Bush must really be screwing it up. :)
Tone is hard to discern in a short post without the aid of emoticons, Kevin. I've followed this thread from the beginning, by the way. I'm sure you'll understand if I don't make study of all your postings on this site the subject of my doctoral thesis. Judging from the several I've seen, it seems reasonable to infer that you care very little about people whose worldviews differ markedly from your own.
"Judging from the several I've seen, it seems reasonable to infer that you care very little about people whose worldviews differ markedly from your own."
Guilty as charged, Rob. Then again, the Taliban didn't do exhaustive, state-by-state polling to see where crashing airliners would have the effect of hitting only their enemies.
The world views of voodoo priests in Haiti differ markedly from my own. Same is true of Indian Hindus, of Japanese Shinto, of Israeli Jews, and American Muslims. I advocate peace and love to all, but draw the line when we ourselves are singled out for annihilation. I spare them no quarter, and believe that the whole of our national will should be summoned for either their surrender, or their destruction.
I advocate peace and love to all, but draw the line when we ourselves are singled out for annihilation.
Where I have trouble with this is that when a small subgroup of group X has "singled [us] out for annihilation," you seem to have no qualms about annihilating the entirety of group X, rather than just the small subgroup.
Even if it's a large subgroup (maybe even a simple majority), that doesn't justify the elimination of the entire group.