Islam Can Be Constructive and Not Violent

[Black Dog]

So what would you suggest then? Should Israel only attack a known terrorist when it is completely 100% assured that no civilian could possibly be harmed in the attack? If they adapted such a policy, would it not simply enable terrorists to remain completely safe, by hiding among civilians, while continuing with their attacks?

I wasn't “suggesting” anything, merely correcting the facts.

See, the problem with your statements is, you seem to assert that on a level of general principles, Israel has a right to defend itself (which we all agree with of course). But when it comes to any specific means of defending itself, you seem to condemn just about any possible example. Since Israel's enemies hide among civilians, it is very difficult to strike them without some risk to those civilians. Israel tries to minimise those casualties as much as is feasible, but of course it is not always perfectly succesful.

What, specifically, do you propose should happen differently, in the context of Israel defending itself? What measures at harm reduction among Palestinian civilians should the Israeli army implement, that it has not yet implemented? What methods should it employ to effectively combat insurgents that are based in hospitals, schools, mosques, etc, in the Palestinians territories without endangering civilians that also use those buildings? How low of a civilian casualty rate as a side effect of strikes against militants would you deem acceptable?

My thinking on this is based on two things: first, that the threat posed by Hamas and its ilk (i.e. Islamic Jihad, Hizbullah) does not constitute an existential threat to Israel. IOW, even if Israel sat back and did not pursue an aggressive strategy against its enemies, the state itself would not be endangered. It’s simply too strong and its enemies too weak. Second: we’re talking about military tactics when the real solution is political. The difficulty arises in instances where the tactics (i.e. pursuing known “terrorists” into civilian areas) undermine the strategic/political framework. IOW, Israel’s long-term prospects for peace are harmed whenever a civilian gets caught in the crossfire.

With the above in mind, I can’t say that I have an answer. I don’t think the current strategy is working (both in terms of facilitating a political resolution and even in terms of stopping terrorism), but I’m not wholly certain I know what should be done. Which, it must be said, doesn’t mean there aren’t options other than the status quo and total passivity. I do know that the policy of collective punishment (whether employed against individuals such as the families of dead suicide bombers or entire populations, as in Lebanon) is unethical and counterproductive and should be halted. Ditto for any military activities that don’t have strategic value (for instance, revenge attacks)*

After some further thought on the matter, I want to clarify and correct an earlier statement I made:

“Revenge killings, reprisals, counterstrikes: different terms for the same phenomenon.”

This was imprecise, and I withdraw it. To clarify: I define “counterattack” or “counterstrike” as direct responses to an attack. That is: shooting back when you are shot at. “Reprisals” are a different thing altogether, entailing a delay between the provocation and response, and possibly involving parties other than the original provocateur(s). An example would be responding to a suicide bombing with a missile strike a few days later. I’m clearly in favour of shooting back when shot at, but am a lot more skeptical of the value of reprisals.

[Bonam]

My thinking on this is based on two things: first, that the threat posed by Hamas and its ilk (i.e. Islamic Jihad, Hizbullah) does not constitute an existential threat to Israel. IOW, even if Israel sat back and did not pursue an aggressive strategy against its enemies, the state itself would not be endangered.

That is true. Unfortunately, individual Israelis, especially those living in border areas, would indeed be endangered. Besides the fact that it is the obligation of a state to protect its citizens, it would also cause extreme unpopularity for any government that sat back and did nothing as its citizens were killed by rocket attacks from terrorists.

Second: we’re talking about military tactics when the real solution is political. The difficulty arises in instances where the tactics (i.e. pursuing known “terrorists” into civilian areas) undermine the strategic/political framework. IOW, Israel’s long-term prospects for peace are harmed whenever a civilian gets caught in the crossfire.

I presume you mean that the long term prospects for peace are harmed in that more Palestinians are persuaded to hate Israel and Jews more than they already do, each time civilians are killed. I would argue, however, that Palestinians hate Israel for killing their militants just as much as they do for hating their civilians. After all, those militants are also husbands, fathers, brothers, etc, just like civilians are. Furthermore, I would argue that the level of hatred for Israel in the Palestinian territories is so high that adding or subtracting a little from it is largely irrelevant.

With the above in mind, I can’t say that I have an answer. I don’t think the current strategy is working (both in terms of facilitating a political resolution and even in terms of stopping terrorism), but I’m not wholly certain I know what should be done.

I can't say that I have a better answer either. However, Israel has tons of people working on this problem specifically trying to find an answer. Do you think it's in Israel's interest to kill Palestinian civilians? I would say no. The international condemnation that Israel receives each time it kills civilians in one of its attacks has significant negative effects on Israel. If they could find a better solution or a better strategy, don't you think they would have tried it by now?

I would point out that they've tried many strategies already, including:

- full scale invasion and occupation (the original capture of the West Bank and Gaza, which then too were used as areas from which to attack Israel, also southern Lebanon, etc)

- complete passivity (for periods of up to several months at various times, during which terrorist attacks continued unabated)

- sweeping incursions with ground forces in short campaigns to find and eliminate terrorists (mainly in Gaza, as well as last year in Lebanon, didn't really help, and cost many lives)

- unilateral withdrawal from captured territory (Gaza, from which terrorism against Israel continues)

- multilateral withdrawal from captured territory (southern Lebanon, from which terrorism against Israel continues)

- wall building and containment (under construction now, seems to be effective against suicide bombers, but doesn't help against rocket attacks)

They've experimented with all of these, and from what I can tell, the current strategy of attacks against rocket launcher teams and other known terrorists seems to be at least no worse than any of the others. If there was a better way, I'm sure Israel would be using it. Unfortunately, I don't see one. And, as you say, neither do you, which isn't surprising, as it's a very difficult problem, that stumps not only us, but many of the best military commanders, strategists, and politicians, in Israel. And I would say that as long as you don't have a better solution to propose, you can't really condemn what it's doing.

Edited August 1, 2007 by Bonam

[ScottSA]

I doubt you can even conceive of living in a place where you never know when a rocket may may fired at your house, or a suicide bomber may kill you or your kids next time they go downtown. I sincerely doubt you can imagine living in a place surrounded by 100 times the number of enemies of your people, who cheer whenever one of them manages to kill some of your people and who, if they had their druthers, would kill you and your kids and everyone like you in an instant. Can you begin to imagine the intrusive everyday fear?

And I suppose you can? Of course not. This kind of thing is your porn.

Actually yes, I can, but I wasn't talking about me.

[Black Dog]

That is true. Unfortunately, individual Israelis, especially those living in border areas, would indeed be endangered. Besides the fact that it is the obligation of a state to protect its citizens, it would also cause extreme unpopularity for any government that sat back and did nothing as its citizens were killed by rocket attacks from terrorists.

The problem is that Israel has spen a great deal of time and money actually putting its citizens in harm's way. A state that was interested in the safety of its citizenry probably shouldn't be plunking its people down in the midst of those who, I'm told, hate them and want them dead.

And I would say that as long as you don't have a better solution to propose, you can't really condemn what it's doing.

I wasn't aware one had to have the answers before entering a discussion. So much for the Socratic method.

[Bonam]

You can certainly enter the discussion. Discussing, however, is not a synonym for condemning.

[jbg]

The problem is that Israel has spen a great deal of time and money actually putting its citizens in harm's way. A state that was interested in the safety of its citizenry probably shouldn't be plunking its people down in the midst of those who, I'm told, hate them and want them dead.

So where should the Jews "plunk down"? Remember, Europe turned out not to be too safe either.

[Black Dog]

So where should the Jews "plunk down"? Remember, Europe turned out not to be too safe either.

I was referring, of course, to Israel's post 1967 settlement building efforts.

[jbg]

So where should the Jews "plunk down"? Remember, Europe turned out not to be too safe either.

I was referring, of course, to Israel's post 1967 settlement building efforts.

That could be said with equal force for Israel's being there at all, since the Arabs were trying to wipe out Israel pre-1967.

[FascistLibertarian]

I love these bumper sticker metaphorical cliches you keep tossing out. How do you propose "alloying" Sharia to common law, or Jamaican druglords to law abiding society? You might as well try to mix oil and water. And of course you need to wave the happy happy "cultural diversity" flag in the form of "dragon boat races." How about we celebrate the cultural diversity of Asian street gangs, Vietnamese grow-ops, and Sikh terrorism instead? They are at least as prevalent as "colourful street festivals"...

I love how the problem is always other groups of non-white christians and you seem to focus on what people (their race and religion) are as opposed to their actions. I love how you would never just find everythign bad white people do in this country and use those examples.

But why would we expect anything else from a racist?

[ScottSA]

I love how the problem is always other groups of non-white christians and you seem to focus on what people (their race and religion) are as opposed to their actions. I love how you would never just find everythign bad white people do in this country and use those examples.

But why would we expect anything else from a racist?

Indeed. I should have explicitely included white members of the Cripps, and non-Muslim supporters of Sharia.

[jbg]

But why would we expect anything else from a racist?

The use of the term "racist" has the purpose and result of shutting off debate.

[ScottSA]

racist - A statement of surrender during an argument. When two people or disputants are engaged in an acrimonious debate, the side that first says “Racist!” has conceded defeat. Synonymous with saying “Resign” during a chess game, or “Uncle” during a schoolyard fight. Originally, the term was meant to indicate that one side was accusing the other of being racist, but once it was noticed that people only resorted to this tactic when all other arguments had been exhausted, it acquired its new meaning of “indicating one’s own concession of defeat.”

http://www.zombietime.com/lgf_dictionary/#racist

[Black Dog]

That could be said with equal force for Israel's being there at all, since the Arabs were trying to wipe out Israel pre-1967.

Sure it could, and I've said as much in the past. But I recognize that what's done is done the mistake sof the past cannot all be corrected. But there's an ongoing problem and that is, as I stated here, the continued enroachment on and settlement of Israelis in volatile border areas.

The use of the term "racist" has the purpose and result of shutting off debate.

Interestingly enough, the same could be said with equal force about the term "anti-semite". And yet...