Israeli Terrorism
The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines Terror (in the political context) as “violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands”. There is no doubt that Hamas and even the PA fall into this category. But what about the Israeli Defense Forces?
Reuven Pedatzur, a knowledgeable military expert and hardly a radical lefty, writes in today’s Haaretz about the escalation of the Intifada:
It turns out that during the first few days of the Al-Aqsa Intifada, soldiers in the territories fired 1,300,000 bullets. This astounding statistic embodies the entire story… Then-chief of staff Shaul Mofaz, with the support of his senior aides, did not plan to bring about the end of the conflict at its very onset. Having adopted Gilad’s approach, he had an opportunity to finally “beat” the Palestinians, to “vanquish” them and lead them to negotiations in a weakened and exhausted state. This is the origin of the “burned into their consciousness” thesis, which became a cornerstone of the Israel Defense Forces’ policy in the territories. We’ll hit the Palestinians until the recognition of their weakness vis-a-vis Israel’s might is burned into their consciousness. This is the only way they will understand that they are best off coming to terms with their inferiority and accepting Israel’s demands
This gave rise to the objective defined by Mofaz, his successor Moshe Ya’alon, and their colleagues in the general staff: achieving military victory in what was at first described as a war with the Palestinians. This explains why the IDF began to use such massive firepower when the uprising broke out in the territories. This also explains why over a million bullets were fired in the first few days, even though there was no operational or professional justification. The intent was to score a winning blow against the Palestinians, and especially against their consciousness. This was not a war on terror, but on the Palestinian people. IDF commanders projected their viewpoint regarding Arafat’s intentions onto the entire Palestinian society.
“Burned into their consciousness” thesis, is exactly what it sounds like – violence for the sake of political gains, a.k.a. terror. Sadly, the debate inside the military and political elite is probably not about the thesis itself but simply about the final political outcomes of the opression of the Palestinians.
“committed by groups ”
Israel is not a “group”
And using this analaysis, much of the u.s’s actions in ww2 can be viewed as terror. I viewpoint to which i do not proscribe.
um so you dont think state terrorism exists?
um, i never said such a thing.
your definition said “group”, and thus, is irrelevant to your post.
that was not the point. all i wanted to show the definition of use of violence for the sake of political gains. The definition of group can include anything as far as I am concerned.
Maybe try to deal with what i wrote instead of pedantics. This i what the same dictionary says about groups: “a number of individuals assembled together or having some unifying relationship”. For the sake of my argument, this still works. happy?
regarding world war ii – can u tell me what u mean?
You’re playing word games.
Look at the targets of “terror.”
Whom are the Israelis targeting and whom are the Judean Arabs targeting?
ummm dunno. 514 minors died since the beginning of the intifada, and i think 3 times palestinians that israels, mostly unarmed.
Does anyone actually read the articles I refer too???
Who are the targets?
There is a difference between collateral damage and targets.
Which side takes credit for killing babies, passes out candy and threatens more? Which side apologies for killing babies and launches military investigations with actual repercussions?
Which side hides their weapons-caches and factories in schools and hospitals?
which sides uses bombs with nails that explode with the bomb and are scattered all over? both sides.
which sides aim at civilian targets knowingly? both sides. (Israeli side admits to do so as well from time to time).
which sides use human shields? both sides.
Which sides apologizes? both sides. so what?
The Arab side never apologized for killing a Jew. Ever.
No Arab said that they killed the civillian Jews by accident because they were in the way of a military target.
In fact, Jewish babies living in the Judea, Sumaria and Gaza are considered legitimate military targets. Do you consider them legitimate military targets as well?
what do u think?!
You didnt refer to anything I wrote. I was making a point about this war being a war for political achievements in a future negotiation. but it seems you didnt even read the article.
How does this thesis explain the disengagement?
Also, he claims that 1,300,000 bullets were fired in the ‘territories’ (Judea, Samaria and Gaza). I doubt this is the case considering that a lot of the fighting took place inside Israel proper.
Also, he claims that 1,300,000 bullets were fired in the ‘territories’ (Judea, Samaria and Gaza). I doubt this is the case considering that a lot of the fighting took place inside Israel proper.
In the definition of terror, it says, “intimidate a population” into granting “demands.”
What is your impression of the demands of the Israeli Army versus the demands of Hamas/Al Aksa/Islamic Jihad/Hezbollah?
What is the point of suggesting moral equivalence here by bringing up a very loosely worded, irrelevant definition of terrorism? “violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands” is a definition that can be applied to every war that I can think of, at least since the advent of bombs. Israel’s admittedly heavy-handed defensive measures would cease no sooner than the last Arab putting down his AK. If they don’t bomb us, we won’t bomb them. They however insist on targeting our civilians with the eventual goal of destroying the state.
Oh and by the way, Mofaz was neither the first or last to conclude that crushing a nation’s will to fight is a better way to defeat it than by surgically striking at its most immediately dangerous elements or resources. There is nothing wrong with saving Israeli lives by beating the people of Palestine into submission. We are at war with them.
Furthermore, the “appalling” amount of ammo fired by Israel is a fishy use of statistics. It is the doctrine of the Army to use a preponderance of force. Read up the US FM 7-8 and the USMC’s “Warfighting.” The goal of any operation aimed to destroy the enemy is not do so with the least ammunition spent, but to accomplish your mission with minimal casualties, which in turn can often mean spending an assload of ammunition.
The more extremists such as eitam hope that this war will bring an end to palstinian aspirations. the more moderate generals,hope to achieve superiority when coming to negotiations.s
makes a lot of sense of disengagement, which only has to do with gaza.
What are the demands of each side, Asaf?
um so you dont think state terrorism exists? Correct. That’s the point of the Merriam-Webster excerpt you quoted.
There is no doubt that Hamas and even the PA fall into this category. Incorrect. There is much doubt that the PA falls into this category, because the PA is the Palestinian government.
When Hamas acts as an organised, non-state group engaging in violence aimed at bringing down a political regime, it is acting as a terrorist group. Its existence is illegal. Governments which knowingly harbour it, like the PA, are acting in violation of international law.
When the PA sends suicide bombers aimed at bringing down a political regime, it is acting as the Palestinian government. Its existence is legal, but its actions are not. It is acting in violation of international law.
Noone refers to the governments of Libya, Iran, or WW2-era Germany, for that matter, as terrorist groups. That’s because they are recognised governments. Their actions are evil. But not all evil actions are “terrorist” actions.
Contrary to popular belief, in other words, “terrorist” isn’t a synonym for “really, really bad”. It describes a particular kind of organised violence that acts against states, but is not engaged in by states. Terrorism is deemed important because it interrupts the whole Westphalian nation-states scheme: unlike rogue governments, you can’t tut-tut rogue terrorist groups at the United Nations. Unlike rogue governments, terrorist groups threaten the hegemony of the U.N. and of the world’s organisation into states who hold the monopoly of violence on the territories they govern.
Hence the Merriam-Webster entry, which is not wrong — even if Asaf does not understand it.
Velvel wrote: Whom are the Israelis targeting and whom are the Judean Arabs targeting? Asaf wrote: ummm dunno. 514 minors died since the beginning of the intifada, and i think 3 times palestinians that israels, mostly unarmed..
All the veiled language is confusing — it would be better if folks came out and stated things honestly rather than implying them, darkly, yes?
Asaf, it sounds like you’re saying that the Israelis are targetting unarmed Palestinian children, yes?
Assaf said “I was making a point about this war being a war for political achievements in a future negotiation…” In a democracy, the military is an instrument of government policy– so the fact that Israel has integrated political objectives with their military objectives is really not particularly interesting.
Considering that Israel was the last party to actually make an offer during negotiations, it is safe to assume that its political goals are secondary in this case– Israel did not initiate the violence and is acting with the primary objective of securing its citizens.
Those who did start the violence were most definitely trying to gain a political edge- either by trying to take advantage of Israel’s low tolerance for casualties and forcing it to withdraw to the green line or by trying to bypass negotiation altogether and “liberate” the entire country. It’s really ridiculous to think that Israel is the only political actor in this situation.
thats a good call…
Hmmm… If they stop attacking us, I have no doubt we’ll stop attacking them. If we stop attacking them, I similarly have no doubt that they will NOT stop attacking us. So there’s a bit of a difference for you ….
Wait, Dave, are you suggesting that if Israel stops it’s incursions and hits on terrorist leaders, terrorism will stop? Or do you consider Israel’s presence in the territories “attacking”. In which case, are Arab boycotts of Israeli products attacks? I’m just trying to establish a standard here.
There seems a more subtle distinction that involves an element not yet brought in to the discussion, psychology. What is terrorism? Well, since 9/11, it has been a word to label any group that any government anywhere uses to repress its opposition. But the Intifada predates 9/11 by a year, and the word terrorism has been used long before that.
The element that makes what governments do often not terrorism, is that implicit in the use of the word is a statistical disadvantage. If Hamas, Jihad, etc. all got together, trained all of there recruits into an army, got an air force and a navy, and went into a conventional war with Israel, they would lose. They could never occupy Israel. Osama could never have taken DC and burned down the White House. Terrorism instills fear of a random attack, and leads people to make concessions. Look how far America has gone after just one (well, two if you count the anthrax) attacks. Realistically, heart diseases, car crashes, and the sun are all bigger threats to life and limb than terrorists. But we’ve fought two wars in three years, one of which didn’t really have anything to do with terrorism.
Israel, on the other hand, is capable of killing anyone they wanted in the territories. If they decided to, they could load up the bombs, and (pardon the horrible expression) go Dresden on every city in the West Bank and Gaza, killing 95% of the Palestinian population. Similarly, Israel doesn’t take out Palestinian leaders at random to strike fear into the rest of them. It kills every leader of a terrorist group, one by one, in order of importance. When the IDF kills, it is so that individual will be dead (with the exception of the innocent victims, which is not acceptable). Conversely, in every terrorist attack, you could swap out any victim for any other Israeli, and it wouldn’t matter to them.
What the IDF does is often problematic, but it isn’t terrorism.
The element that makes what governments do often not terrorism, is that implicit in the use of the word is a statistical disadvantage. No, I don’t think so. What makes what governments do not terrorism, is that they’re recognised governments.
There seems a more subtle distinction that involves an element not yet brought in to the discussion, psychology. No, I don’t think so. Sure, psychology plays a bigger part in terrorist attacks, because terrorists — the organised use of violence to bring down governments — tend not to have less of two things, guns and scruples. They don’t abide by the rules of war. They’re not subjects of international law.
But psychology is necessarily a part of all warfare. Of the thousands and thousands of bullets that so impress Asaf, I’d wager that a very impressive proportion were purposely shot into the air. Why? As psychological tactic.
By a state’s army, that is, like Tsahal or those the PA deploys. As opposed to a terrorist group, like Hamas, the Stern Gang, or many who’re thought of as “freedom fighters” or whatever.
(er, terrorists do tend to have less of two things, guns and scruples. me not good double negative good not.)
Gosh. I wonder how all those Judean Arabs ended up in Judea. Didn’t they *KNOW* it was Judea? Why would they ever have settled there? Someone should tell their colonial masters to make them leave Judea. Judea Judea Judea.
Sam, I’m not sure what side of the argument you’re on.
But the name “Palestine” and “Palestinian” is very problematic. There was never a self-ruled country called “Palestine.” There was never a self-ruled country in that area with a “Palestinian Arab” government.
Their colonial masters (Egypt, Jordan) don’t want them.
ck_dave wrote:
“Hmmm… If they stop attacking us, I have no doubt we’ll stop attacking them. If we stop attacking them, I similarly have no doubt that they will NOT stop attacking us. So there’s a bit of a difference for you ….”
That’s nothing more than your opinion – not based in fact
Actually, his opinion as it may be, it is very much rooted in fact. In ’48 Ben Gurion offered peace to his arab neighbors- we all know what happenned next. In fact, these are some of his words,
“We appeal in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months to the Arab inhabitants of the state of Israel, to preserve peace and participate in the up-building of the state on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.”
You must be familiar with the the expression “land for peace.” Israel has throughout its existence accepted numerous arab proposals that involved giving up a piece of land to attain peace. Giving up the Sinai peninsula, which at the time comprised 80% of Israel’s land and was home to its largest Air Force base is demonstrative of the level of commitment that Israel has. It shows us is that for Israel, peace is the goal, whereas for the arabs, peace is a concession, a means to a different end- more land.
Most recently, you might want to look at Camp David II and at Taba, where barak offered Arafat 97% (!!!!!) of the territories, as well as authority over the Temple Mount and a part of the Negev Desert. Arafat, as you no doubt are well aware, rejected the offer.
To conclude, Babylonian, if you possess an inclination to vilify Israel by discrediting someone else’s argument, I highly recommend that you first learn to recognize your dick from your face when it comes to history and more to the point, current events.
Babylonian wrote
That’s nothing more than your opinion – not based in fact
It is my opinion. But it is also based on fact. Please read up on the matter as I am not here to teach Arab Israeli Conflict 101.
EMTZAlex wrote
Osama could never have taken DC and burned down the White House.
Why not? The Canadians did it in the war of 1812 (Happy Canada Day y’all!). Heh.
But seriously, great post. I totally agree with you. WRT your first paragraph though, you misunderstood me. Please re-read what I wrote
But the name “Palestine” and “Palestinian” is very problematic. There was never a self-ruled country called “Palestine.”
Well, there’s going to be. West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, western Transjordan — whatever you choose to call these areas, they are full of people who identify as Palestinians, believe they form a people, qualify according to all the appropriate political criteria, and have the right to self-determination.
If Jews can’t recognise this on the part of Palestinians, it is very hard to believe that they — or the rest of the Arab world — will come to recognise it for us.
I agree with 8opus. That’s why I will continue to refer to the West Bank and Gaza as “Palestine,” since I hope that in the near future there will be state there called Palestine. I have no problem with referring to those areas as Judea and Samaria, as long as it is understood that one means “in Biblical times, Jews living in these areas called them Judea and Samaria.”
The point is this: The West Bank is beyond Zionism’s power. Unless you are willing to countenance either expulsion/ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians there (which would be consistent with the Revisionism I see expressed in a lot of the posts here), or apartheid (the present system, which runs the risk of turning into a Palestinian-controlled one-state system the longer it is maintained), it must become a Palestinian state. Those are the options.