Sami Antar Attacks the Settlement of Tel Aviv

[webfusion]

Fortunately, the only person killed in the Bus Station of Tel Aviv was Sami Antar, the suicide bomber himself.

So what happens should Israel actually withdraw from the West Bank and yet these bombings continue? What then? Suppose a future Sami Antar carries a suitcase nuclear bomb?
We should know, there is no difference between Tel Aviv and Ofra in the eyes of these fanatics. It is all one huge Jewish abomination as far as they are concerned. Listen to what is coming out of the mouths of the leaders in Iran, for instance. It is no surprise that the IDF Chief of Staff immediately brought forward his accusation that the responsibility for the attack today in Tel Aviv lies with the mullahs. (An accusation that he backed up with some good proof apparently, according to the news reports I have seen).
At some point in the near future Israel must reach far beyond the local Palestinian cells of terrorists, and strike directly at the sources of these operations -- Tehran (and Damascus).

No more talk. Talk is cheap.
Time to act.

[The Fool]

Originally Posted by webfusion

Fortunately, the only person killed in the Bus Station of Tel Aviv was Sami Antar, the suicide bomber himself.

So what happens should Israel actually withdraw from the West Bank and yet these bombings continue? What then? Suppose a future Sami Antar carries a suitcase nuclear bomb?
We should know, there is no difference between Tel Aviv and Ofra in the eyes of these fanatics. It is all one huge Jewish abomination as far as they are concerned. Listen to what is coming out of the mouths of the leaders in Iran, for instance. It is no surprise that the IDF Chief of Staff immediately brought forward his accusation that the responsibility for the attack today in Tel Aviv lies with the mullahs. (An accusation that he backed up with some good proof apparently, according to the news reports I have seen).
At some point in the near future Israel must reach far beyond the local Palestinian cells of terrorists, and strike directly at the sources of these operations -- Tehran (and Damascus).

No more talk. Talk is cheap.
Time to act.

Go have a cold shower Web....you don't get to bomb anyone yet.

[webfusion]

Quote:

...you don't get to bomb anyone yet.

key word -- "Yet"

Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz accused Iran of funding Thursday's suicide bombing attack near the old central bus station in Tel Aviv.

The Fool somehow (wrongly) equates my posting here of evidence from the highest ranks of the Israeli military and government, as an indication that I am personally involved with any such direct-strike actions that are being planned and authorized by Israeli Defense Forces against the perpetrators of international terror.

Hey, I'm just a lowly sergeant.
But I would certainly be glad to see such action take place.

[The Fool]

Originally Posted by webfusion

key word -- "Yet"

Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz accused Iran of funding Thursday's suicide bombing attack near the old central bus station in Tel Aviv.

The Fool somehow (wrongly) equates my posting here of evidence from the highest ranks of the Israeli military and government, as an indication that I am personally involved with any such direct-strike actions that are being planned and authorized by Israeli Defense Forces against the perpetrators of international terror.

Hey, I'm just a lowly sergeant.
But I would certainly be glad to see such action take place.

web, you are not personally responsible...no more than the palestinian in the street chanting slogans is responsible. You are just another person chest thumping for war....you may get your wish or you may not, I hope you don't.

[Art Vandelay]

That's why I don't see how a Palestinian state would solve anything. Separate state declared, repeated attacks prompt Israeli ultimatums, attacks continue, Israeli declares them act of war, invades, occupies West Bank, and we're right back where we're started.

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay

That's why I don't see how a Palestinian state would solve anything. Separate state declared, repeated attacks prompt Israeli ultimatums, attacks continue, Israeli declares them act of war, invades, occupies West Bank, and we're right back where we're started.

You're right.

So long as nobody holds the Palestinians accountable for their part in creating peace, there will never be peace.

[The Fool]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

You're right.

So long as nobody holds the Palestinians accountable for their part in creating peace, there will never be peace.

What should "holding the Palestinians accountable" Involve?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by The Fool

What should "holding the Palestinians accountable" Involve?

Hmmmm, lets see... it's a pleasant little place run by various groups of armed loons whose stated desire is to wipe Israel off the face of the earth and kill every Jew that lives there, and who will kill anyone who tries to stop them and raise money through extortion and smuggling.

I can't think of a thing wrong w/ that picture, they're a fine upstanding bunch there...

[zenith-nadir]

Originally Posted by The Fool

What should "holding the Palestinians accountable" Involve?

Shutting down the Palestinian terror organizations is one. Arresting the leaders of the Palestinian terror organizations is two. Preventing the Palestinian terror organizations from operating from Palestinian soil is three. Stopping the money flow to Palestinian terror organizations is four. Holding the Palestinian Authority accountable with sanctions for not stopping Palestinian terrorism is five.

The problem the fool is the entire world - except Israel - turns a blind eye and never holds the Palestinian Authority accountable for terrorism originating from areas under it's full control. This long-time public support for Palestinian statehood without ever holding anyone accountable for Palestinian terrorism has actually prolonged the conflict. Without holding anyone accountable for terrorist attacks originating in Palestinian Authority areas gives the Palestinians little incentive to moderate their home-grown militants or meet formal commitments under several internationally-brokered peace agreements.

If the world does not wish to prolong Palestinian statelessness and is serious about making a positive contribution to Israeli-Palestinian peace and the establishment of a Palestinian state it needs to adopt an approach which holds the Palestinian leadership accountable for terrorism originating from it's areas of control.

Islamic Jihad took responsibility for the suicide bombing yesterday. Is the Palestinian Authority arresting the known Islamic Jihad leaders today. Nope. And that is exactly what I mean.

Quote:

Palestinian militants from the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades hold up their weapons during a rally in support of the Fatah movement's parliamentary candidates in the West Bank city of Jenin January 19, 2006. REUTERS/Mustafa Abu Dayeh

Theres some terrorists, why are they not arrrested by the PA? Because these al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terrorists belong to Fatah - the ruling party of the Palestinian Authority.

Quote:

A boy looks at masked Palestinian militants from the Al-Awda brigades, linked to the Fatah movement, during a protest against the upcoming Palestinian parliamentary elections, in the Askar refugee camp near the West Bank city of Nablus Thursday Jan. 19, 2006. (AP Photo/Emilio Morenatti)

There's some different terrorists, why are they not arrrested by the PA? Do not armed groups of terrorists roaming the streets threaten the very authority of the Palestinian Authority?

And that is what I am on about....without ever holding the Palestinians accountable for Palestinian terrorism has actually prolonged the conflict.

[Ed]

Originally Posted by The Fool

Go have a cold shower Web....you don't get to bomb anyone yet.

How did you get that cool "warmed post" avatar to the right? I want one. What is a "warmed post" anyway?

[Ed]

Originally Posted by The Fool

What should "holding the Palestinians accountable" Involve?

I can't believe I am saying this:

Gun Control Laws

Call me wackey but there is something a bit off the mark when hundreds of people go running around with automatic weapons.

[Manny]

Originally Posted by zenith-nadir

...one. ...two. ...three. ...four. ...five.

Heh. As a start I'd just be happy to see the UN add Israel to its maps.

[LW]

Originally Posted by manny

Heh. As a start I'd just be happy to see the UN add Israel to its maps.

UN?

[Manny]

UN.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by manny

Heh. As a start I'd just be happy to see the UN add Israel to its maps.

It already does.

(ETA) Oh I see your link but as LW showed the UN does show Israel on maps - marks its borders as "international borders" and so on. The article you link to is something that apparently goes back to 1981 used for one reason and which the UN's spokesman has this to say ""Clearly, as you rightly point out, the display of the 1948 map has acquired a new and very troubling connotation in the light of the remarks made recently by the president of the Islamic Republic of Iran," Gambari said. "The secretary-general has made clear his strong disapproval of such remarks - and he hopes that the Member States' Committee on the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People will consider deciding not to display the 1948 map in future."

[Ed]

Nothing like an unequivical refutation. That Koffe, he's da man.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally Posted by Ed

Nothing like an unequivical refutation. That Koffe, he's da man.

Ya...just imagine if the UN held a conference "International Day of Solidarity with the Mexicans" and the map they presented at the conference was a Mexican independence map from the 19th century showing California and Texas as parts of mexican territory.

And people wonder why Israelis have an axe to grind.

[Manny]

Originally Posted by zenith-nadir

Ya...just imagine if the UN held a conference "International Day of Solidarity with the Mexicans" and the map they presented at the conference was a Mexican independence map from the 19th century showing California and Texas as parts of mexican territory.

Imagine further that the Secretary General's reaction is to make clear his strong disapproval of it and hope that someone else will consider taking corrective action.


Bless John Bolton.

[Ed]

Originally Posted by zenith-nadir

Ya...just imagine if the UN held a conference "International Day of Solidarity with the Mexicans" and the map they presented at the conference was a Mexican independence map from the 19th century showing California and Texas as parts of mexican territory.

And people wonder why Israelis have an axe to grind.

I wonder if the UN will be represented at the Holocust Conference in Iran?

This may sound wrong (and you know that I can recognize wrongness) but I am sorta looking forward to that. It is like munching popcorn and waiting for a train wreck.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally Posted by Ed

I wonder if the UN will be represented at the Holocust Conference in Iran?

This may sound wrong (and you know that I can recognize wrongness) but I am sorta looking forward to that. It is like munching popcorn and waiting for a train wreck.

The Germans have a word for that...schadenfreude.

[zenith-nadir]

For true skeptics:

Quote:

Friday January 20, 10:39 PM - (AP)

Israel's defense minister accused Iran and Syria of masterminding a suicide bombing in Tel Aviv the day before that wounded 20 people and said the militant group believed responsible would be targeted in raids. A Syrian official denied involvement.

Islamic Jihad, which is backed by Syria and Iran, claimed responsibility for bombing a fast-food restaurant Thursday.

No fewer than five organizations—Hamas, PIJ, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine and Hezbollah have their main offices in Damascus.

Quote:

Tuesday, 19 November, 2002, 17:19 GMT - (BBC)

Syria has rejected a United States demand to close down an office of the militant Palestinian group Islamic Jihad.

The request came after the group said it had carried out last Friday's ambush in the West Bank city of Hebron, which killed 12 Israelis.

But a Syrian foreign ministry statement said the Damascus office had nothing to do with the attack.

Sound familiar?

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by The Fool

What should "holding the Palestinians accountable" Involve?

Wow, as you can see there are so many different ways to answer that question, I could spend all day at it.

For starters, we just recognize they have an equal roll to play with equal responsibilities in creating peace.

We stop making excuses for why they can’t be expected to do things such as arresting terror suspects, ending hate speech from their government run Mosques, changing the curriculum in their UNRWA run schools, etc. and start looking for solutions, finding ways they can do these things.

We need to hold them responsible when they do things that encourage terror. When they give pensions to the families of suicide bombers, we pull their funding. When they’re caught smuggling ship loads of weapons, they get economic sanctions.

[davefoc]

What do the various posters propose that Israel do about this situation. Should it hold on to its settlements to force the Palestinian terrorists to disarm. So far that hasn't looked like the winning strategy. Perhaps it should expand the settlements to force the Palestinian terrorists to disarm? Perhaps it should make life so miserable for the Palestinians that they are forced to move into other Arab countries?

Perhaps Israel should just annex the entire West Bank and Gaza Strip and make everybody that lives on this territory Israeli citizens?

OK, maybe none of those ideas is what this thread is about. I guess this thread is about getting fired up to go bomb the Iranians. And Israel is going to be a safer place after that?

Just so we're clear here, nobody that has criticized Israel for its expansion beyond the 1967 borders thinks that when Israel stops expanding or when Israel gives back territories total, euphoric peace is going to break out all over. We just think that path is the one most likely to succeed in bringing peace and justice to the area over the long term.

The decision to transport people to live on land that was previoiusly seen as somebody elses was guaranteed to create widespread violence for a very long time. Using that violence as an excuse to continue to expand is a method guaranteed to sustain violence indefinitely. That is the issue that must be dealt with by the sabre rattlers in this thread. And as near as I can see no one wants to address that.

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by davefoc

What do the various posters propose that Israel do about this situation. Should it hold on to its settlements to force the Palestinian terrorists to disarm.

Dave, the suicide-bombing that started this thread was in Tel Aviv, which is as far away from any settlement as you can get.

Originally Posted by davefoc

So far that hasn't looked like the winning strategy. Perhaps it should expand the settlements to force the Palestinian terrorists to disarm? Perhaps it should make life so miserable for the Palestinians that they are forced to move into other Arab countries?

I think you’re suffering from a peculiar kind of myopia. This myopia causes you to focus on only one thing as the “root cause” for the conflict while completely ignoring dozens of other factors. For example, you keep asking ”What should Israel do…?”

Is it at all possible for you to turn that question around and ask yourself what should the Palestinians do to work towards peace, and what they should stop doing that works against peace? Obviously you think the settlements are a strong contributing factor, and I respect that opinion, but does it really overshadow everything else?

Originally Posted by davefoc

Perhaps Israel should just annex the entire West Bank and Gaza Strip and make everybody that lives on this territory Israeli citizens?

Do you think that’s viable? Why?

Originally Posted by davefoc

OK, maybe none of those ideas is what this thread is about. I guess this thread is about getting fired up to go bomb the Iranians. And Israel is going to be a safer place after that?

If it removes Iran’s nuclear program, then yes, I think Israel would be safer after that.

Originally Posted by davefoc

Just so we're clear here, nobody that has criticized Israel for its expansion beyond the 1967 borders thinks that when Israel stops expanding or when Israel gives back territories total, euphoric peace is going to break out all over. We just think that path is the one most likely to succeed in bringing peace and justice to the area over the long term.

But again, it completely ignores anything the Palestinians might do to promote peace, and ignores the many things Palestinians do to sabotage peace. I don’t believe you can only look at one side of the equation.

Originally Posted by davefoc

The decision to transport people to live on land that was previoiusly seen as somebody elses was guaranteed to create widespread violence for a very long time.

I don’t believe seeing this land as “someone else’s” is universal, and I believe it requires an Arab-centric racist point of view to see it that way.

Originally Posted by davefoc

Using that violence as an excuse to continue to expand is a method guaranteed to sustain violence indefinitely. That is the issue that must be dealt with by the sabre rattlers in this thread. And as near as I can see no one wants to address that.

Except that any objective observer has to concede that Israel is not expanding, but is withdrawing.

[davefoc]

Mycroft wrote:

Quote:

I think you’re suffering from a peculiar kind of myopia. This myopia causes you to focus on only one thing as the “root cause” for the conflict while completely ignoring dozens of other factors. For example, you keep asking ”What should Israel do…?”

Is it at all possible for you to turn that question around and ask yourself what should the Palestinians do to work towards peace, and what they should stop doing that works against peace? Obviously you think the settlements are a strong contributing factor, and I respect that opinion, but does it really overshadow everything else?

It doesn't seem to me that you answered my question about what you think Israel should do. My impression is that your view is that what ever Israel does is the right thing and perhaps that is the answer you expected me to understand implicitly.

As for what I think Palestine should do:
I really only have a few recommendations for them that seems clear cut from my point of view.

1. Stop all terrorist activity initiated from the Gaza Strip, completely, categorically and absolutely. Treat terrorist activity initiated from the Gaza Strip as a crime against Palestine and Palestinians. Terrorist acitivity initiated from the Gaza Strip is without any moral or practical justification.

2. Accept the reality of Israel. Israel is not going away anymore than the British Colonialists are going to turn North America back to the native inhabitants and return to the UK.

3. Recognize that Israel is not a monolithic zionist steam roller. Israel is populated by a range of people, with a range of views. Many and probably most of them want to see a stable, successful Palestinian state established. Many and probably most want to see an end to expansion into land that will become the Palestinian state. Many and probably most are willing to see the government disband settlements in the West Bank as part of a peace plan.

A problem for the Palestinians, and I don't know what they can do about this is that the American subsidies of Israel tend to encourage the most militant aspects of Israel's population. They have enabled Israel to maintain and expand its settlement programs over the years. The forces behind the American subsidies, the arms manufacturers, the Crhistian zionists, the Jewish Zionists and some other groups have a symbiotic relationship with the Palestinian terrorists. More violence leads to more subsidies which leads to more colonial expansion ad infinitum.

The problem for the Palestinians is to know what Israel will do if the attacks are discontinued. Will the Zionists stop combing the world for non-Palestinians to populate the colonies? I don't know what the Palestinians can do about this exactly. If the Palestinian militants went away would Israel then abandon it expansion goals? I think it is possible that it already has. Sharon may in the end be seen as the man who led Israel through the period of Zionist expansionist zeal into the period when Israel recognizes fixed borders and guaranteed lands for Palestinians.

So a strategy for Palestinians and probably the one I would recommend based on what I understand is to make it clear to Israel and the world that Palestinians can create a stable peaceful government given the chance. And the best place to begin this process is in the Gaza Strip. A peaceful, successful Gaza Strip will serve to put pressure on the Israelis from the US, from the world and from its own citizens that yearn for a just peaceful resolution to implement the same kind of process in the West Bank. Continued chaos and violence in the Gaza Strip will be harmful to almost everybody.

[Art Vandelay]

Originally Posted by davefoc

We just think that path is the one most likely to succeed in bringing peace and justice to the area over the long term.

For a lot of people, "peace and justice" means "no more Israel".

Quote:

Using that violence as an excuse to continue to expand is a method guaranteed to sustain violence indefinitely.

Treating violence as "inevitable" is what helps keep it going. Palestinians have the power to stop the violence, and Israelis do not. So ultimately, it is the Palestinians who are responsible.

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by davefoc

It doesn't seem to me that you answered my question about what you think Israel should do.

One reason is your questions make assumptions I don't believe are self-evident and are highly questionable.

For example you ask, "Should it hold on to its settlements to force the Palestinian terrorists to disarm."

I think you're pretty much alone is believing that the purpose of the settlements is to force the Palestinian terrorists to disarm. I'm not aware of any evidence to support that, I'm not aware of anyone other than you who believes that, and I’m at a loss to understand how you believe it logically follows from anything we know about the conflict.

Another reason is your questions seem to promote this relentless mindset that the only things worth considering is what Israel should do about the conflict. While it’s nice to see you identify some areas where you think the Palestinians should change, you also seem to carry forth the assumption that while terrorism from the Gaza Strip should stop, that other terrorism is still justified.

Yet another reason is that you seem to want to only talk about the aspects of the conflict that you think are important, even if they don’t fit well within the topic. For example, this terrorist attack was in Tel Aviv, yet you still want to make it about settlements in the West Bank and US foreign aid to Israel.

[webfusion]

mycroft indicates: "For example, this terrorist attack was in Tel Aviv"

and it was motivated and authorized from the Tehran and Damascus-based islamic maniacs.

In answer to davefoc's question about whether Israel would be a safer place if it went ahead and undertook a mission to completely wipe out the nuclear capabilities of Iran (which is perfectly justifiable, under the circumstances), then I say -- yes, the whole world will be safer and owe a big 'thank you' to the IDF after such a strike.

BTW, a raid on Iran by the IAF would fall under the category of "pre-emptive" and is totally legal, in light of the direct war actions that Iran has already sponsored in the heart of Tel Aviv (the bombing at the Stage nightclub was a similar event, whose source can be traced to Tehran and Damascus).

The Fool tells me that I'm chest-thumping for war (which is untrue, since the war is already underway, and I am in support for Israel to make a direct, limited attack upon selected military-value targets, in Iran, to eliminate a threat of dire proportions from that quarter in this ongoing war). He also says:
"you may get your wish or you may not, I hope you don't."

I will get my wish (of the IDF taking out the Iranian nuclear refining capabilites), guaranteed. You can bet on it.

[The Fool]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

We need to hold them responsible when they do things that encourage terror. When they give pensions to the families of suicide bombers, we pull their funding. When they’re caught smuggling ship loads of weapons, they get economic sanctions.

you simply cannot move past collective punishment....convinced it will work one day??

[webfusion]

TF -- "collective punishment" is your inaccurate description of Israel going directly after the sources of terror.
If an imam broadcasts a hate-filled anti-Jew call-to-violence sermon over the loudspeaker mounted in the village mosque minaret, and the Israelis decide to disconnect this speaker (or even arrest the cleric), you would not call this deprivation in the village of their religious leader "collective punishment"? Or would you?

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by The Fool

you simply cannot move past collective punishment....convinced it will work one day??

That's not collective punishment any more than sanctions against any country is collective punishment.

When you think about it, withdrawal of funding doesn't even rise to the level of sanctions.

What other straw-men do you want to bring to this discussion?

[The Fool]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

That's not collective punishment any more than sanctions against any country is collective punishment.

When you think about it, withdrawal of funding doesn't even rise to the level of sanctions.

What other straw-men do you want to bring to this discussion?

fair enough, if you cannot think past collective punishment just redefine collective punishment and claim you are not advocating it.

[The Fool]

Originally Posted by webfusion

TF -- "collective punishment" is your inaccurate description of Israel going directly after the sources of terror.
If an imam broadcasts a hate-filled anti-Jew call-to-violence sermon over the loudspeaker mounted in the village mosque minaret, and the Israelis decide to disconnect this speaker (or even arrest the cleric), you would not call this deprivation in the village of their religious leader "collective punishment"? Or would you?

I don't see the arrest of someone inciting people to violence as anything remotely like the collective punishment that mycroft likes so much.

How about removing the funding for a medical clinic in the town where the imam preaches hate....good Idea?

also....I just got a warning email because I replied to your post where you advocate the bombing of Iran with this "Go have a cold shower Web....you don't get to bomb anyone yet" was it the reference to the shower or the reference to the bombing thats a problem?? seems a bit harsh on poor little me

[Freakshow]

Originally Posted by The Fool

fair enough, if you cannot think past collective punishment just redefine collective punishment and claim you are not advocating it.

So other than targeted assassination, what action against terrorism wouldn't be collective punishment?

[The Fool]

Originally Posted by Freakshow

So other than targeted assassination, what action against terrorism wouldn't be collective punishment?

just about any measures used by most police forces against crime....when was the last time you saw someone suggesting sanctions against high crime communities? stop the murders or we will withdraw your social security funding??

[Freakshow]

Originally Posted by The Fool

just about any measures used by most police forces against crime....when was the last time you saw someone suggesting sanctions against high crime communities? stop the murders or we will withdraw your social security funding??

And is that as practical when combating terrorism as it is when combating local crime? I don't think it is. I wish it was. But the terrorism problem is larger, more complex, and often has government backing, or at the very least, government complicity. Terrorism is not a criminal justice problem, and cannot be effectively handled as such.

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by The Fool

fair enough, if you cannot think past collective punishment just redefine collective punishment and claim you are not advocating it.

Shoo.

[The Fool]

Originally Posted by Freakshow

And is that as practical when combating terrorism as it is when combating local crime? I don't think it is. I wish it was. But the terrorism problem is larger, more complex, and often has government backing, or at the very least, government complicity. Terrorism is not a criminal justice problem, and cannot be effectively handled as such.

Are you suggesting that the US criminal justice system should cease its anti-terrorism work? You say its not a criminal justice problem....

Who caught Mcvey? the US army?

[Freakshow]

Originally Posted by The Fool

Are you suggesting that the US criminal justice system should cease its anti-terrorism work? You say its not a criminal justice problem....

Who caught Mcvey? the US army?

If Mcvey would have been just one of many agents of a government that was supporting terrorism, I would have advocated action against that nation.

ETA: And to answer your question: state-sponsored, or even state-allowed, terrorism outside of US borders is not a criminal justice problem.

[The Fool]

Originally Posted by Ed

How did you get that cool "warmed post" avatar to the right? I want one. What is a "warmed post" anyway?

don't know Ed...must be some vast right wing conspiracy I never knew suggesting a shower was so offensive.