With a cease-fire like this, who needs war?

[Mycroft]

It seems someone else would also like to see more done to crack down on militants:

Israel rejects prisoner release demand

Israel has halted the release of Palestinian prisoners, demanding that the Palestinian Authority crack down on militants before anyone else is freed.

The decision followed a declaration last week that Israel would not hand over three more West Bank towns to Palestinian control for a similar reason - a claim that Palestinians have not moved against militants in the two towns they took over patrolling since the February 8 truce.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/World...-release-demand/2005/05/09/1115584883396.html

Palestinians have not moved against militants in the two towns they took over patrolling...what a shock!

 

[Skeptic]

When the Palestinians do something "mild"--like killing israeli soldiers--then "The Fool" explains to everybody how this is really justified resistance.

When they do something horrific--like firing anti-tank weapons at a schoolbus--"The Fool" switches gears and explains to everybody how this report is merely zionist propaganda.

This is the exact same "reasoning" used in the 30s and 40s: when reports about Nazi persecution of jews began in the 30s, people like "The Fool" explained how this is justified resistance by the Germans to disgusting jewish beahvior.

Once reports of gas chambers and mass shootings started surfacing later on, the same people explained that it's just war propaganda spread by dishonest jews.

 

[Mycroft]

Fire a rocket at a bus full of children? Hey, Arabs will be Arabs, after all. What do you expect? Not civilized behavior. Besides, they wouldn’t hurt anyone except Jews.

Originally posted by The Fool
I suspect that the PA may feel that ordinary palestinians don't want to see people they regard as fighting thier oppressors from being prosecuted for taking revenge for the killing of Palestinian children...

It would be unreasonable to expect the Palestinian-Arabs to prosecute their Jew-killing heroes. We can’t expect those Arab barbarians to forgo their lust for revenge; it’s in their blood, you know. Besides, they wouldn’t hurt anyone except Jews.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Would Palestinian children stop dying if they didn't blow up a bus of Jewish children?

Well, I guess literally speaking, it wouldn't make Palestinians immortal. They would still die from diseases, etc. But in the context of this thread, yes, absolutely. If Palestinian terrorism were to stop, the IDF would stop killing children.

They have no reason to think so,

Are you serious?!? What, the IDF kills for fun? What possible reason would they have for killing kids if they were not in mortal danger?

so blaming possible future deaths of Palestinian kids on retaliation for their retaliation is probably not something they would even consider.

The IDF does NOT kill children in "retaliation", they kill people in self defense, and sometimes children get in the way.

If Palestinian children have died, and will probably continue to do so, then they would never blame the cause of their deaths on themselves, but on the IDF or whoever in particular is directly responsible.

Well, if someone throws rocks at someone with a gun, and gets killed, I'd say that the rock thrower is directly responsible for his own death.

I'm not so sure that was the specific reason for the bus attack. More Palestinian children have died than Jewish children; that alone might be enough for them to target children in an attempt to even the score.

There's a massive fallacy in thinking that merely because more Palestinians have died, that means the score isn't "even". Since when do people have the right to demand that the exact same number of people die on both sides? Would a German be justified in killing a bunch of Americans because more Germans died in WWII? Is this going to be part of the final peace negotiations? "Let's see, we've had X more people die, therefore, as part of the peace settlement, you must agree to allow us to kill X Israelis"?

Not all young Palestinians who die are teenagers or have been throwing stones.

And yet a disproportinate number of them are, as well as being male. Why is that? Are the Israelis going out of their way to target male teenagers? Or are male teenagers going out of their way to put themselves in situations where they will become "martyrs"?

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Mephisto
I just wonder if you are sympathetic to my posts, or if you're just not willing to apply standards of behavior to liberals when they question assertions that a cease-fire should end.

Not clear who you are referring to as liberal or what standards of behaviour you are suggesting I'm not willing to apply. I believe that every form of terrorism is wrong whether applied by sub-national or national bodies.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Mycroft
BTW, E.J.Armstrong is on ignore by many for trollish behavior. He’s sympathetic to your posts because he wants to bait someone into a long and pointless exchange with him.

A long long time agon, in a glaxay far far away Mycroft invented a claim. Many many eons have passed since simply asking him to define his terms. Notice how he makes another claim yet declines to support it with evidence. Plus ca change.

Yeah verily by their non-skeptic behaviour shall ye know them.

Does rewriting others words into what they didn't say count as trollish behaviour? Hmmmn.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Art Vandelay
What a hypocrite you are.
You complain about Mycroft misrepresnting others' positions, then you do it yourself. Killing schoolchildren is not their "answer", it's an unavoidable consequence of the Palestinian decision to use them as cover. And in addition, you seem to be using "Palestinian dead" as a synonym for "killed by Israelis".
.

The difference is that I posted what the IDF actually did. What Mycroft did was to invent something the other person did not say.

Presumably you will now produce evidence that there actually was any fire from 'Palestinians' and that they were using the schoolchildren for cover rather than the IDF having contempt for the lives of innocent children as demonstrated when Sharon orders the assassination of untried people in circumstances that guarantee the deaths of innocent children.

You seem to be using 'Palestinian' as a synonym for 'terrorist'.

Who bulldozes the homes of innocent Palestinians?

 

[kimiko]

Well, I guess literally speaking, it wouldn't make Palestinians immortal. They would still die from diseases, etc. But in the context of this thread, yes, absolutely. If Palestinian terrorism were to stop, the IDF would stop killing children.

I wasn't talking about Palestinian terrorism in general, but the bus attack in particular. Anyone can see attacking a schoolbus is particularly vicious, so what sets the motivation for that tactic apart from the typical suicide bombings, etc? I think it is the difference in death tolls between the children of the two groups.

Are you serious?!? What, the IDF kills for fun? What possible reason would they have for killing kids if they were not in mortal danger?

I have no doubt that many Palestinians believe the IDF kills their children on purpose. Besides, even if they accepted that they were accidents, accidents, by their very nature, won't stop.

Well, if someone throws rocks at someone with a gun, and gets killed, I'd say that the rock thrower is directly responsible for his own death.

No, the rock thrower may have instigated the response, but he didn't kill himself.

There's a massive fallacy in thinking that merely because more Palestinians have died, that means the score isn't "even".

Fallacy? The numbers aren't even. They see that their children die in the struggle in greater numbers than Israeli children. I'm not asserting some kind of right that people can demand equal deaths, I'm just saying people will see inequality in the death rates and think it unfair. That may be the motivation for their targeting of a schoolbus.

And yet a disproportinate number of them are, as well as being male. Why is that? Are the Israelis going out of their way to target male teenagers? Or are male teenagers going out of their way to put themselves in situations where they will become "martyrs"?

A sex difference suggests the male teenagers are going into dangerous situations and the females are not. But why are the situations dangerous? Depending on who showed up on the scene first, that will affect how the responsibility for any deaths is apportioned.

 

[The Fool]

Or worse, just too unimportant to worry about.

Originally posted by The Fool:
Much of this violence seems (to me) to be simple lawlessness.

Fire a rocket at a bus full of children? Hey, Arabs will be Arabs, after all. What do you expect? Not civilized behavior. Besides, they wouldn’t hurt anyone except Jews.








Originally posted by The Fool
I suspect that the PA may feel that ordinary palestinians don't want to see people they regard as fighting thier oppressors from being prosecuted for taking revenge for the killing of Palestinian children...

It would be unreasonable to expect the Palestinian-Arabs to prosecute their Jew-killing heroes. We can’t expect those Arab barbarians to forgo their lust for revenge; it’s in their blood, you know. Besides, they wouldn’t hurt anyone except Jews. [/B]

sometimes I think that you are not a wierdo like skeptic...sometimes I realise I'm wrong. Pardon me if I don't just take a short break from your wierd little rants.

 

[zenith-nadir]

Dear The Fool, kimiko, demon, E.J.Armstrong and Mephisto,

Please allow me to lay some foundation. Attacks by islamist paramilitary groups predate the "occupation". I would hazard to say that so many attacks have come from Gaza and the West Bank since 1948 - by so many groups - I think it would be impossible to catalogue them all. You will at the very least grant me that.

Many of those old attackers are now cronies in the Palestinian Authority. The PLO morphed into the Palestinian Authority but it didn't evolve. It has allowed islamist paramilitary groups - and their cells - to operate freely in Gaza and the West Bank. Their bases of operation are hidden amongst the Palestinian civilian population, there are no army bases. They dress like civilians on purpose, they do not wear recognized uniforms. They conceal bomb vests and other weapons in disguises, they do not carry arms openly. Sometimes they even operate out of official Palestinian Authority buildings and police stations. It is so well documented and well-known that I need not 'prove' it to you, you may google it at will.

At this point in history Israel has had to literally build a barrier to keep out terrorists, man hundreds of checkpoints to weed out combatants from civilians, block off farm lands and put down barbed wire to stop mortar and rocket launching. The islamist paramilitary groups are so defeated they are reduced to shooting it out with the IDF on Palestinian streets and launching anti-tank rockets at buses full of kids.

This isn't a new phenomenon, for decades islamist paramilitary groups have continued to launch terror attacks at Israel from Gaza and the West Bank.

I sometimes marvel at characterizations of the occupation, as it was earlier in this thread by Mephisto, as;

"justification of violence for violence by the Israeli government".

I wonder if Mephisto remembers Black September or the Munich Massacre or the Maalot Massacre or the Rome airport Massacre and why he thinks Israel want's any of this nonsense. The justification for the occupation is to protect Israeli civilians from islamist paramilitary groups from operating freely in Gaza and the West Bank.

The result is hell on earth for the non-combatant Palestinian civilians. Of course it is unjust and terrible. The same crap happened to them in Jordan - see: Black September - and in Lebanon, see: the civil war. Palestinian civilians have been caught in the crossfire between the PLO and the Jordanian army, the PLO and the Lebanese army and now the IDF and Hamas, Hizbollah, Al Aqsa and Islamic Jihad.

For over a decade Arafat promised to stop islamist paramilitary groups from operating freely in Gaza and the West Bank. He utterly failed to do so. Now Abbas promises to stop islamist paramilitary groups from operating freely in Gaza and the West Bank. Yet the islamist paramilitary groups still continue to operate.

It is because they continue to hide amongst the civilian population is the reason more Palestinians die than Israelis kimiko. It should be the responsibility of the Palestinian Authority to A) seperate the combatants from hiding behind civilians and B) stop combatants from dictating Palestinian military policy in regards to Israel. But after a decade they have yet to do either.

 

[Skeptic]

What I see in all these replies is that the poor, opressed Palestinians who fired the anti-tank rocket at the schoolbus are automatons. They acted out of "irrational revenge", or to avenge the "death of Palestinian children", or whatever--it is simply beyound their moral and intellectual capacity to not take revenge by killing schoolchildren, or to note that however they might want revenge for something, this does not make blowing up schoolbuses acceptable.

Far from showing the "real reason" for terrorisms, however, all these excuses--if they were true, that is--would mean only one thing: Palestinians are simply dangerous animals without any ability to act nonviolently, and their natural prey is, of course, jewish children. It's not that they CHOSE to act this way, mind you--it's just the "irrational" actions of "rage" or the inevitable sad result of their "opression", etc., etc., etc. They could do no other; they are Palestinians, after all--what would you expected them to do EXCEPT kill jews? The natural conclusion is that Palestinians should be fought in the same way germs or man-eating lions are: to be contained at destroyed on sight, since they are inherently dangerous creatures.

The Palestinians are treated by these "caring" and "considerate" people the same way the poor or the blacks are treated by the same people: if a poor or a black person commits a crime, is not THEM that really robbed the store or stole the car; it's really an uncontrollable reaction to "racism", "economic inequality", and so on and so forth. Well, in that case, shouldn't we lock up all poor or blacks in preventive detention, for the protection of the community, until they prove that they are not one of those infected with the uncontrollable desire to crime? The mere fact that this unctonrollable desire is due to "racism" or "capitalism", and thus not their fault, is besides the point; after all, we quarantine both mentally and physically ill people who are a danger to the public until they can be shown to no longer be such a danger, and nobody thinks this is because they are to blame for their SARS germ or schisophrenia.

But this of course is totally unacceptable. The Palestinians should be free of moral blame because they cannot do otherwise to kill jews... AND they should not be quarantined or destroyed to prevent them from killing jews--just like criminals are not to blame because it's all "the system"'s fault... but at the same time they must not be put in detention because they have rights for free trial, habeas corpus, etc.

Why is this? Well, because the "concern" for the Palestinians--like the "concern" for criminals--by these "humane" and "understanding" people is merely a show. The "it's not the terrorist's fault and you are not allowed to do anything to him anyway" view is simply a fashion statement, like wearing certain clothes brands or driving certain cars, showing that you are "understanding" and "liberal". It's a matching pair, like a Gucci bag that comes with a set of gloves (or whatever): you must believe BOTH that the group in question is essentially violent inhuman automatons AND that nothing should be done about it by the intended victims in order not to violate their "human rights".

That this dehumanizes the perpetrator and abandons the victims to their fate is besides the point--after all, it's only Palestinians that are being dehumanized as automatons, and they're only killing jews, so what's the big deal? It's only blacks or poor that are portrayed as essentially dangerous monsters, and they only tend to kill other poor people, so who cares? Isn't me looking caring and humane and "with it" more important?

 

[Art Vandelay]

The difference is that I posted what the IDF actually did. What Mycroft did was to invent something the other person did not say.

1. You did not post what the IDF actually did, you posted an alleged position of the IDF. Whether the IDF murders children and whether the IDF considers murdering children to be the "answer" are two different issues.
2. Mycroft did not "invent something the other person did not say", he posted his opinion of what Mephisto's position is, just as you posted your opinion of what the IDF's position is.
3. You say that the two are different because your statement is based on actuality, yet you have not proven that Mycroft was wrong.
4. Your "evidence" is ridiculous. You simply presented examples of people who had been killed, without any evidence that the IDF killed them, or that they had been murdered.

Presumably you will now produce evidence that there actually was any fire from 'Palestinians' and that they were using the schoolchildren for cover ...

What?!? YOU'RE the one making the claim, YOU'RE the one with the burden of proof. What evidence do you have that there wasn't any fire from Palestinians?

rather than the IDF having contempt for the lives of innocent children as demonstrated when Sharon orders the assassination of untried people in circumstances that guarantee the deaths of innocent children.

See, here's the thing. In order for you to say that the IDF has "contempt" for the lives of innocent children, you must, at the very least, show that there is a clear alternative. I started a thread to see what people alternatives people think there are, and I don't remember anyone presenting any. In fact, I'm pretty sure that you didn't post at all. Seeing as how no other methods of defending themselves have been presented, it seems to me like you really have a problem with Israel defending itself in general, and your alleged concern of "innocent children" is just an excuse.

You seem to be using 'Palestinian' as a synonym for 'terrorist'.

You seem to be "inventing something the other person did not say".

 

[epepke]

Please allow me to lay some foundation. Attacks by islamist paramilitary groups predate the "occupation".

We've been through all this before. You'll just be told that "in retrospect, they had the right idea" or something like that.

 

[Art Vandelay]

I wasn't talking about Palestinian terrorism in general, but the bus attack in particular. Anyone can see attacking a schoolbus is particularly vicious, so what sets the motivation for that tactic apart from the typical suicide bombings, etc? I think it is the difference in death tolls between the children of the two groups.

Or perhaps it's due to practical considerations, such as lack of people willing to blow themselves up, or greater security measures.
As for how this addresses my point, I'm not clear. Are you saying that the thinking is that as long as there are suicide bombings, Palestinian children will be killed, so they might as well launch rocket attacks as well?

I have no doubt that many Palestinians believe the IDF kills their children on purpose. Besides, even if they accepted that they were accidents, accidents, by their very nature, won't stop.

Huh? Are you saying that accidents are by definition unpreventable? Accidents happen because the conditions for the accident exist. Remove the conditions, and the accidents go away. If no one drove cars, we wouldn't have car accidents. If the IDF were not in Palestine, people in Palestine wouldn't be killed by the IDF.

No, the rock thrower may have instigated the response, but he didn't kill himself.

I didn't say that he killed himself, I said that he is responsible for his death. He didn't literally kill himself, but that's a bit like saying that someone who jumped off a building didn't kill himself; it was the ground that killed him. There's something called "suicide by cop" in which someone goes up to a cop and starts shooting at him, knowing that he'll be shot. This seems like a milder version to me.

Fallacy? The numbers aren't even.

The numbers aren't even, that doesn't mean the "score" isn't.

Depending on who showed up on the scene first, that will affect how the responsibility for any deaths is apportioned.

How is Palestinians showing up first compatible with the facts? You're still left the question of what causes the disparity: females must be somewhere, why is the IDF showing up where males showed up rather than where females showed up? And even if the IDF shows up last, doesn't that present the possibility that males are showing up where they know the IDF will be later?

 

[kimiko]

Or perhaps it's due to practical considerations, such as lack of people willing to blow themselves up, or greater security measures.
As for how this addresses my point, I'm not clear. Are you saying that the thinking is that as long as there are suicide bombings, Palestinian children will be killed, so they might as well launch rocket attacks as well?

I've been quite clear that I think the rocket attack on the bus was chosen because of disparities in children's deaths. Pure revenge targetting the same age they think are murdered with impunity by the IDF.

Huh? Are you saying that accidents are by definition unpreventable? Accidents happen because the conditions for the accident exist. Remove the conditions, and the accidents go away. If no one drove cars, we wouldn't have car accidents. If the IDF were not in Palestine, people in Palestine wouldn't be killed by the IDF.

The responsibility for the occupation rests with both parties.

I didn't say that he killed himself, I said that he is responsible for his death. He didn't literally kill himself, but that's a bit like saying that someone who jumped off a building didn't kill himself; it was the ground that killed him. There's something called "suicide by cop" in which someone goes up to a cop and starts shooting at him, knowing that he'll be shot. This seems like a milder version to me.

He is responsible for his death, and so is the shooter.

The numbers aren't even, that doesn't mean the "score" isn't.

What is a score then? I've already stated that I believe many Palestinians find the inequality in death rates unfair. To them, the score IS the numbers, among other things.

How is Palestinians showing up first compatible with the facts? You're still left the question of what causes the disparity: females must be somewhere, why is the IDF showing up where males showed up rather than where females showed up? And even if the IDF shows up last, doesn't that present the possibility that males are showing up where they know the IDF will be later?

It sounds like you think you have the answer for why males are killed more often, so why bother asking me? The last young females I heard of dying were a girl shot sitting in her desk, a girl shot while standing in her kitchen, and a girl shot while walking to school. If you're interested in the disparity, look up the circumstances of female vs. male deaths yourself for an answer. If you're trying to make a point that young male Palestinians go looking for death, you might be right, but you'd have to consider that Israel has a military, where young people interested in defending their people will be expected to go. Palestinians don't have that, so what ways can they defend their group? It seems throwing rocks and terror attacks are the ways they think they defend themselves. Therefore, they have no reason to wait to enter the military, but would take matters into their own hands at a younger age. If Israel didn't have a military, we'd probably see young Jewish boys out fighting too.

 

[kimiko]

What I see in all these replies

This garbage about automatons and germs and animals is all yours; there isn't a single post in this thread you could have taken those characterizations from. No one has argued Palestinian terrorists aren't responsible for their actions. Motivations don't excuse behavior, and all behavior must have motivation. But your imaginative descriptions would only apply if they didn't have motivations. The most important words in your post were "What I see". Claiming you saw it in other people's posts is just an excuse to say the nastiest things you want while blaming it on other people.

 

[Mycroft]

...I'm just saying people will see inequality in the death rates and think it unfair. That may be the motivation for their targeting of a schoolbus.

You do know that speculation is not evidence? Just because you can imagine yourself thinking this in their place does not mean this is what they are thinking.

 

[Mycroft]

sometimes I think that you are not a wierdo like skeptic...sometimes I realise I'm wrong. Pardon me if I don't just take a short break from your wierd little rants.

I'm honored to be compared to Skeptic. He's very intelligent and well reasoned. That he’s earned the disdain of the likes of you is, in my humble opinion, a plus. Further, I believe many of the things you say about him apply to you, only you can’t see it.

Feel free to take a break. I encourage you to make it a long one.

 

[kimiko]

You do know that speculation is not evidence? Just because you can imagine yourself thinking this in their place does not mean this is what they are thinking.

Of course I know speculation isn't evidence. I'm making a rational argument, not a proof. That is the only sensical reason I can think of for targetting schoolchildren. If someone else can think of a more plausible one, I'd revise my view.

 

[Art Vandelay]

I've been quite clear that I think the rocket attack on the bus was chosen because of disparities in children's deaths. Pure revenge targetting the same age they think are murdered with impunity by the IDF.

The issue wasn't why they were doing this, the issue was whether they recognize that it will lead to more Palestinian children being killed.

The responsibility for the occupation rests with both parties.

But it is equal? It seems to me that the Palestinians have it within their power to end the occupation, while Israel does not. You seem to be dodging the issue: were terrorist attacks to cease, would the IDF kill children anyway, on a level comparable to the current one?

He is responsible for his death, and so is the shooter.

Even if the shooter believed the thrower to constitute a clear and present danger? If the shooter mistook the rock for a grenade, is he still responsible?

What is a score then? I've already stated that I believe many Palestinians find the inequality in death rates unfair. To them, the score IS the numbers, among other things.

I can't think of any simple way of explaining what I consider "score" to mean. The closest I can think of is "moral high ground". Does the moral high ground automatically go to whatever side has the highest body count? The score isn't just the raw numbers; it's also about how justified the killings were. And of course, Palestinians are going to think of the score differently from Israelis.

It sounds like you think you have the answer for why males are killed more often, so why bother asking me?

I admit I am biased, but I am open to other explanations. For instance, perhaps women in that culture are less likely to be in public, and most of the shootings happen in public, so men are disproportionately killed. If you can find evidence for that, that would be an argument to advance.

Therefore, they have no reason to wait to enter the military, but would take matters into their own hands at a younger age. If Israel didn't have a military, we'd probably see young Jewish boys out fighting too.

I don't understand what you're saying here. Doesn't this support the idea that Palestinians are responsible for their own deaths, and aren't really "noncombatants".

This garbage about automatons and germs and animals is all yours; there isn't a single post in this thread you could have taken those characterizations from.

Why should he be restricted to this thread? Isn't it valid to say that a post in this thread can be interpreted in a certain way, and to make use of one's general life experiences to evaluate how accurate that interpretation is? Someone in another thread kept going on about how terrorism was "inevitable" and it is the existence of Israel rather than terrorists that are to blame for it. Isn't that rather similar to what Skeptic is saying?