Israeli security forces "frustrated" with lack of effective anti-terror options

Israel Insider ^ | 5/20/2003 | Israel Insider

[Israel Insider]

Security officials are "frustrated" due to their limited means of effectively fighting the latest wave of terror attacks, Israel Radio reported today. Police and security forces are on high alert throughout the country but do not have specific intelligence information on impending attacks. The army has employed most of its military options already, officials said. Government ministers renewed calls to expel Yasser Arafat.

In the coming days, the government will discuss a proposal to expel the Palestinian Authority chairman to Europe, Army Radio reported. The initiative is being presented by Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, the report noted.

"As long as Arafat is alive, Jews will be killed," said Minister of Industry and Trade Ehud Olmert. Olmert called on Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to "consider isolating Arafat in complete house lockup, so that he would be unable to talk to anyone," Maariv reported.

"Arafat was and continues to be the main obstacle to the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians," Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz said Monday night. Earlier on Monday, Mofaz said the government should consider expelling Arafat from the territories if he continued to serve as such an obstacle.

Following Monday evening's suicide bombing attack in Afula, in which three Israelis were killed and nearly 70 people were wounded, 13 of them seriously, police and security forces went on high alert throughout Israel. Roadblocks were set up outside city entrances and patrols were increased along the Green Line. On Sunday night a complete closure was imposed on the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

"The public should be told the truth," a senior security official told Maariv. "We don't have a magic formula [to combat terror]. We have to clench our teeth and move forwards."

After Saturday night's suicide bombing attack in Hebron, in which an Israeli couple was murdered, the suicide bombing on a Jerusalem bus Sunday morning, in which 7 Israelis were murdered, and two additional suicide bombings - one in northern Jerusalem and one alongside an IDF jeep near Kfar Darom - police believe that Israel is now in a "wave of terror" and that the peak of the wave is yet ahead. The five suicide bombing attacks within a spate of 48 hours resulted in 12 Israeli deaths.

An unnamed senior official told Israel Radio that "no limitations have been placed on security authorities in fighting terror," but described the task of attempting to foil all terror attacks as "Sisyphean," in reference to a legendary king of Corinth condemned eternally to repeat the cycle of rolling a heavy rock up a hill in Hades only to have it roll down again as it nears the top.

According to the official, some of the options available to the army, all of which would require government approval, include:

Assassinating Arafat or expelling him from the territories.

Causing "serious harm" to the Hamas movement in the Gaza Strip, targeting the political wing (Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, Abdul-Aziz Rantissi and others) with assassination or expulsion.

Launching a massive, prolonged IDF incursion into the Gaza Strip, on the model of the 2002 Operation Defensive Shield in the West Bank.

[robertpaulsen]

"due to their limited means of effectively fighting the latest wave of terror attacks"

Well, I suppose it is limited when "withdrawal from the occupied territories" is not even considered.

[drlevy88]

Kick em out, kick em out, kick em out out out

[goldstategop]

Wipe em out.

[ConservativeConvert]

Two words:

Regime Change

[ikka]

The Romans used decimation. Harsh but it worked.

[ladtx]

I like your quote from P.J. O'Rourke.

[Sloth]

More bulldozers!

[adam_az]

Can you please expound on the legal premise under which you conside them "Occupied" territories, as opposed to "Disputed" territories?

[robertpaulsen]

If you and your next door neighbor both claimed the same property, that property would be "disputed" or "in dispute", correct? Would you then build a house on that property?

That's why I call land taken in a war, garrisoned with troops, with residences being built, "occupied".

[adam_az]

If you and your next door neighbor both claimed the same property, that property would be "disputed" or "in dispute", correct? Would you then build a house on that property?

That's why I call land taken in a war, garrisoned with troops, with residences being built, "occupied".

In this case, the neighbors (Jordan and egypt) gave up their claim of ownership to the territory. There is no nation of Palestine (nor was there ever, BTW) to claim ownership of the territory.

You are using YOUR definition of Occupation NOT the legal defuinition.

Can you show any evidence that Arabs wanted a "Palestinain state" when Gaza, Judea, and Samaria were controlled by Egypt and Jordan? If not, why do you think they only made this demand once Jordan and Egypt lost a war that they initiated? (1967)

I can tell you why.

Before 1967, the cry was to destroy Israel, kill all Jews, and push them into the sea. The PLO was founded in 1964 - 3 years before the "occupation."

[Destro]

Israel is at "fault" for considering the territories occupied since she did not annex them outright after the war. Why? Israel was planning to trade land for peace.

[adam_az]

ping

We have a live one

I'll alert the Elder Zionists so they can send the 5th Matzoh Ball Brigade after him.

:)

[adam_az]

Yes damn those Israelis, wanting to get along with their neigbhbors. The unmitigated gall! :)

[adam_az]

Actually they annexed all of Jerusalem, and the Palinazis and Arabistas still contest it, so it's kind of a moot point to have/have not annexed it all.

Mostly they didn't want to annex it, because

1) they didn't want to control all those Arabs who can't even control themselves.

2) They didn't want the "Palestinian" Arabs to be citizens - but you can't blame them for that one. In Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Kuwait, Jordan, refugees can't become citizens, either - and this is their "Arab brothers!"

[robertpaulsen]

"In this case, the neighbors (Jordan and egypt) gave up their claim of ownership to the territory."

In that case, the territory is not even disputed. Why did you imply that it was?

[Destro]

So if you knew the answer, why ask the question? Israel would be better of with a whole Jerusalem and the West Bank and Gaza devoid of settlers and walled off from Israel proper. And if the Israelis want cheap day laborers - import them from the Phillipines.

[adam_az]

So if you knew the answer, why ask the question? Israel would be better of with a whole Jerusalem and the West Bank and Gaza devoid of settlers and walled off from Israel proper. And if the Israelis want cheap day laborers - import them from the Phillipines.

Do you honestly think that a Judenrein Judea and Samaria (and Jerusalem???) will placate Hamas?

Or will they move their demands to include "liberating" Tel Aviv and Netanya and Haifa, and use their new territory to launch attacks from?

How will the wall protect Israel from missile and mortar attacks, which it faces daily from Paleoterrorists?

[adam_az]

It's considered DISPUTED because Israel has not annexed it, and it's not technically a part of any recognized nation.

[Destro]

My suggestion was for Israel to keep all of Jerusalem and close itself off from the West Bank and Gaza. There has been no "missile" attacks launced at Israel from the occupied territories so I don't know where that came from.

Nothing placates Muslims. They must either be contained or liquidated. Since the Israelis are not in the people liquidating business, containment is the only option.