The choice is yours alone.... "
Posted on 07/19/2002 7:54:33 AM PDT by Jersey Kid
You're right, I'm sorry. There have been other articles about Israel floating the idea of killing relatives of suicide bombers, but I shouldn't mix them up. My initial point remains, though, that going after non-combatants is a waste of action and political capital, at best.
And you can't seriously be suggesting that punishing civilians is going to punish Hamas and al-Qaeda. Do you really think they're going to care about what happens to these people?
And, the article did not mention announcing a policy of shooting non-combatants, you did, so that they won't be used as shields....a remarkable position for a self-described Christian.
Wouldn't it be more logical to send them to Jordan? Gaza is still in Israel proper, and is a staging ground for future attacks?
Maybe, maybe not. Maybe it will have a cumulative effect. The best effect being that it gets them out of the immediate neighborhood.
Oh goodness no, then we'd have more people complaining about Israel's cruelty.
Tell me, did we or any other allied country ever go after Hitler per se? No, we fought the people of Germany (and the people who sided with him). We made a concerted effort to end the *war.* When the *people* and the *military* had been stressed more than enough by the war, the military leadership eventually turned against Hitler.
The choice is yours alone.... "
What beats both is not going after civilians at all, but after the leadership, as I said. Israel has it exactly backwards right now.
Gee, that's a great idea, why didn't anyone think of it before? Obviously they've been doing that. What do you think of their targeted killings? It hasn't been enough. If this reduces the incentive for those idiots to blow themselves and others up, I think Israel should do it immediately.
Actually, there were attempts on his life by Allied covert ops, but that's beside the point. You're comparing apples and oranges - on the one hand, a formidable military force; on the other, a militarily ineffective band of irregulars, whose bark is much worse than its bite. Just take 'em out, that's all. It doesn't require much strategy.
No, we fought the people of Germany (and the people who sided with him).
I'd like to know of any speech by any American or British leader at the time claiming that we were at war with the German "people". One does not make war on peoples, one makes war on armies - or, in cases when there's no actual army, on armed thugs and their leaders. It's about time Israel recognized such an obvious fact.
You're right. It hasn't been enough. They need to go higher. Right now they've just been going after scattered mid-level operatives, with predictable (non-)results. Maybe they feel that it's better "strategy" to keep the big fish around as negotiating tools. Maybe they figure that the enemy they know is better than the enemy they don't know. Maybe they're afraid of what Washington might say. To make a long story short, they lack the political will to do what's necessary to protect their people, and like frustrated adolescents they're looking to turn around instead and start beating on those that they can get away with beating on, even if it does comparatively little to stop terrorism.
"One does not make war on peoples, one makes war on armies"
Correction noted. I guess I was thinking "Germany" itself. We went to war with "Germany" and those countries that supported him.
We also dumped on Japan for killing a lot less people at one time, and those people *were* military people, a legitimate target. They did not deliberately target civilians. How much worse is it that these barbarians targeted civilians in their attack, and continue to do so in smaller numbers everywhere?
In return, we seem to be saying that it is bad to deport or otherwise make uncomfortable families of those who are carrying out or supporting these kinds of actions. Something just isn't right there.
When I said "If we say we won't shoot X kind of people" I was speaking in a hypothetical, though according to traditional rules I should have said "If we were to say" (I think that's a nit that most people interested in actually arguing the point would have overlooked). I am also speaking of going on appearances. If children and teenagers are being used to deliver explosive payloads to other innocents, and will not be deterred, (children may be more easily threatened out of their mission because of their lack of comprehension of the consequences), they become targets, tragic and abhorrent as it is. I personally would shoot to disable, not to kill, in that case. That is extremely difficult on a moving target, and I don't know if I could even bring myself to try, which is why I value men's ability to compartmentalize enough to carry out the hard tasks of this world.
"take 'em out"? Isn't that what they have been trying to do? It's hard enough to take out a crafy wild animal, whose intelligence doesn't compare with a wild human! It would be kind of like trying to pick out a specific wildebeest in the middle of a giant herd, and making your way through the herd to that specific one. You can't just wait for any random one that presents a shot, obviously, you have to hit the right one. When you get close enough, the whole herd will take off. And the one you're after is too smart to come close to the edge or let itself be caught without its living shields that you don't want to harm.
In return, we seem to be saying that it is bad to deport or otherwise make uncomfortable families of those who are carrying out or supporting these kinds of actions. Something just isn't right there.
I would agree that these families don't seem to deserve much respect, as I indicated earlier, but it comes back to that "slippery slope" argument that I brought up earlier. Why is terrorism, as opposed to other forms of belligerency, particularly evil? It's because it targets people who are not involved in the fighting, specifically to avoid the consequences of targeting people who are involved in the fighting. Israel is starting down that path. Note that I'm not equating Israel's proposals with the actions of genuine terrorists, but it's clear they're looking down the wrong road, when there's another option available to them.
"take 'em out"? Isn't that what they have been trying to do?
If they wanted Arafat dead, he'd be dead. Ditto for any of the leaders of Hamas, IJLP, PFLP, and whoever would be foolish enough to succeed them. But Israel lacks the political commitment to go through with it.
It's hard enough to take out a crafy wild animal, whose intelligence doesn't compare with a wild human! It would be kind of like trying to pick out a specific wildebeest in the middle of a giant herd, and making your way through the herd to that specific one. You can't just wait for any random one that presents a shot, obviously, you have to hit the right one. When you get close enough, the whole herd will take off. And the one you're after is too smart to come close to the edge or let itself be caught without its living shields that you don't want to harm.
I fear you might be exaggerating just a little. But I'm sure it's true that in order to do its job completely and effectively, Israel would have to take actions that would probably result in civilian deaths and injuries. That's not the same thing, though, as deliberately going after civilians.
Only because of those who don't understand the constant attack they go through and seem to despise Israel in the first place. What do we do to "terrorists" (David Koresh, Randy Weaver) here? We are many times worse and get away with it. Why is everyone all over Israel for what they're doing?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.