50 thoughts on “Terror Attack In Netanya

  1. What does this have to do with disengagement? I’ll bet you a plate of hummous that this terrorist did not come from Gaza, but rather the west bank.

  2. there’s never been a sucidie bomber from gaza. that’s not the point. without a negotiating an end to attacks, withdrawing from gaza did little to bring israel greater security.

  3. WHAT?!?!? Never been a suicide bomber from Gaza? Do a google search son…you are sooooo wrong.
    And I think it’s way too early to tell if withdrawal from Gaza will bring security…the P’s need more time to reign in on the extremists.

  4. Mobius, are you tryingto imply that if we had reached a negotiated agreement with the “Palestinains”, ohh… say, like Oslo, then this Suicide Bombing wouldn’t have happened?

  5. All the peace activists ever want is unilateral withdrawal. So Israel withdraws. Now the peace activists say that’s the problem…Sure the Palestinians have nothing to do with this at all. Its all because Israel left Gaza without demanding anything in return. That makes a lot of sense. Thanks for clarifying the situation.

  6. Harry, exactly how much time do you think we should afford the Palestinians to reign in terrorism? Seems to me that 13 years is plently of time. The trouble is, once you unleash terrorism to reach your political ‘aims’ reigning it back in is nigh on impossible. Ask the IRA. And what does the British government do to help matters? Offers amnesty to anyone in the IRA involved in terrorism in an effort to forward the ‘peace’ process in Northern Ireland. Now we here that Hamas may be part of a future Palestinian govt. See any parallels here? Reagan and Maggie had it right…no negotiation with terrorists.

  7. also–i didn’t favor a unilateral disengagement at any point ever. in fact, on orthodox anarchist i was pretty consistent in being “pro and anti:” pro in principle, anti in practice.

  8. Baruch Goldstein commit his atrocity in 1994, and it was widely condemned by Jews as soon as it happened. To try and tie Goldstein’s murderous actions in 1994 to the intifada begun in 2000 is misguided and irresponsible at best. I bet next you’ll tell me that this was all because Sharon went to the Temple Mount?

  9. From the Jerusalem Post:
    Police Insp.-Gen. Moshe Karadi told reporters that the bomber was “identified 15 meters in front of the mall by policemen and a security guard. Police managed to keep him away from the gate, and he blew himself up when police approached him to conduct a search of his bags.”
    According to Karadi, “Members of the security services were hurt in the event,” but “the actions of the guards and the police prevented a much more deadly bombing.”

    Whatever. Fuck those pogrom perpetrating stormtroopers, eh?

  10. From Haaretz:
    “The group later identified the attacker as 21-year-old Lutfi Amin Abu Salem, from the village of Kafr Rai, located between the West Bank towns of Jenin and Tul Karm.”
    But I’m sure that the International Criminal Court had a good reason for condemning the security fence as ‘unlawful’.

  11. I don’t think the purpose of the Gaza withdrawal was to increase Israel’s security, except insofar as soldiers wouldn’t have to be deployed protecting the settlements there. The longer-term purpose of the disengagement was to protect Israel’s demographic integrity.

  12. EV has a good point there, Dan. I also must say that it’s ridiculous to blame the intifadah on Baruch Goldstein– lack of political progress, Sharon’s visit to har habayit, frustration/humiliation , maybe– I just don’t think the Goldstein attack was in the forefront of anyone’s mind when this intifadah started up. His attack was when Rabin was still PM, no? I think it’s fine to look at Israeli missteps, but as for the lack of a negotiated peace deal, the Palestinians are at least as accountable as the Israelis in that regard.
    The attack on the Ashdod port originated in Gaza, I believe, but the vast majority of terrorists have come from the West Bank.

  13. The myth is that there will ever be an end to this kind of violence.
    And I’m not saying that as a pessimist or ‘let’s just dissolve Israel, it’s the only way’ or anti-Zionist.
    Violence is an unfortunate reality that every society and nation-state has to wrestle with. In the Americas, we deal with ridiculous murder rates that make Victorian England look like a Ziggy comic strip.
    The myth is that if we are all just reasonable and rational, EVERYTHING WILL WORK OUT.
    The problem with that is, WE ARE NOT REASONABLE CREATURES. And no matter how nice, passive, smiling, kind, moderate and milquetoast we are, SOMEONE WILL ALWAYS WANT TO IMPOSE ON OUR CONDITIONS.
    No amount of negotation will change that. Israel could curl itself into a ball around 25 meters of Tel Aviv, give all of Jeruslam back, give every Muslim in the Arabic-speaking world fifty bucks and a hug – AND SOMEONE WOULD STILL BLOW SHIT UP.
    Ask Belfast, Sri Lanka, Algiers and the fucking South Bronx.

  14. Ongoing negotiations have led to interim settlements such as the UN Quartet Road Map, in which the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority have committed to things like settlement freezes and disarming militias, respectively. The problem is not with implementation, per se. The problem lies more within the political gamesmanship of the interested third parties entrusted to monitor and enforce implementation.

  15. Zionista
    The problem is that someone is always going to be disssatisfied with the negotiations and violence is always an easier response.
    Governments can commit to whatever they want.
    PEOPLE will commit to whatever grants them satisfaction – and sometimes the only viable satisfaction comes from a final terrible solution.

  16. Monk:
    That’s a somewhat pessimistic and defeatist point of view, but I can certainly understand how you got there. However, it seems to me that you’re missing the point of terrorism as practiced by both the PLO/PA and the IRA; they use terrorism as acts of war, not ‘freedom fighters’ or anything of the sort. If I can’t put together the flat pack furniture that I bought at IKEA, the easiest response isn’t for me to blow myself up at the Swedish embassy and kill as many Swedes as I can. The use of terrorism for political initimidation must be rejected by the world community in order for it to stop. Sadly this hasn’t happened because, in my opinion, people wish to confuse homicidal jihadists with expressions of freedom as an extension of their own biased views (I won’t play the anti-Semitism card here, although I’m tempted).

  17. Matityahu:
    ‘PEOPLE will commit to whatever grants them satisfaction – and sometimes the only viable satisfaction comes from a final terrible solution.’
    That doesn’t mean people will necessarily hurt each other over petty bullshit (although… they might).
    Violence as a political tool is common, easy, acceptable, and most importantly WORKS.
    It is expedient.
    When faced with someone’s boot on my neck, do I a) appeal to a higher legal authority or b) tear and claw at that boot?
    I don’t like it, but it’s a proven aspect of human behavior: being reasonable only work if every single party involved – NOT JUST THE NEGOTIATORS (ie governments) – ARE reasonable.

  18. Monk,
    i agree with your necessity of violence and have in thought developed a one-on-one type of analogy where a death match with swords can be refined into a wrestling match with rules and traditions. So, in a world where tensions must be played out, are there healthier ways of doing it? We use footbal here. And the violence this contains is evident by the riots that ensue big victories. Still, the refinement does just that; it contains violence in packages. Of course my thinking is very removed and stuffy.
    I did meet a guy in Israel and though he believes himself to be the moshiach, he is doing some good work in the community in Yaffo. Check out his website: http://www.peaceinjaffa282.com
    Despite wall this and disengagement that, violence or no violence, solution or not, we should mourn the death here, the real weight in Mobius’ posting

  19. I concede the point to the right honourable gentleman, Blockhead. We should absolutely recognise and mourn the death here. Commentary is superfluous.
    (I agree with the threading point…seems like we could carry on some meaningful conversation here!)
    I accept the expedient side of your argument regarding the use of violence. However, you don’t really seem to have taken on board my point about the world community needing to make clear that the use of terrorism for political gain is unacceptable and won’t be tolerated. I also take some issue with the ‘someone’s boot on my neck’ point. When used singularly, I would agree that an individual has the absolute right to defend him or herself. But we’re not talking about that. We’re talking about sending terrorists on missions to blow up and kill/maim as many innocent civilians as is possible. Your argument doesn’t hold up in that light, and I’m afraid that you’re only proving my point as regards our duty as individuals and as citizens of the world to refute terrorism.

  20. Why is everyone talking about this attack as some kind of abstract manifestation of “terrorism” or “violence”? This is a very specific phenomenon. Try to put it in Palestinian context: every one of the four bombings that have happened since February of this year have been committed by the Islamic Jihad. The IJ was included originally in the cease-fire discussions, but backed out claiming they “reserved the right to retaliate for Israeli aggressions.” This particular attack comes not in response to any particular aggression (or at least, they didn’t claim it did). But it does come in advance of the Palestinian elections, in which Hamas is expected to participate and win a fair number of seats. Hence, Hamas has stuck to the cease-fire and IJ has gone out on a limb to try to position itself as the true radical alternative which will maintain resistance. This seems to me to be a manifestation of an internal Palestinian power struggle, and to ignore that seriously distorts any attempt to gauge the effectiveness or lack thereof of disengagement. Frankly, it doesn’t seem to me to have much to do with disengagement at all. Though I would continue to support and prefer a negotiated settlement at any time.

  21. Mat –
    I typed this great pithy reply… but then my boss came by and I lost it.
    I gotta go short and sweet on this one:
    ‘We’re talking about sending terrorists on missions to blow up and kill/maim as many innocent civilians as is possible. Your argument doesn’t hold up in that light, and I’m afraid that you’re only proving my point as regards our duty as individuals and as citizens of the world to refute terrorism.’
    Where do you draw the line for ‘terrorism’ exactly.
    I am not speaking from a moral perspective: violence is violence. What comes AFTER is justification.
    You can’t come to the table and say some violence is good, because the ends effect me positively or don’t effect me at all; and some violence is bad because the personal effects are terrible.
    Even in self-defense, because let’s face it – someone’s not going home afterwards.
    But it is an essential part of the personal, spiritual and political human process.
    i’m sorry you don’t accept that.
    I was addressing the broader concept of political violence.
    I think your assessment of the present situation is pretty on point.

  22. “Why is everyone talking about this attack as some kind of abstract manifestation of “terrorism” or “violence”?”
    I know, how silly of all these indignant oafs. This event should merely be understood as a piece of political maneuvering, like a fillibuster.
    p.s. Sam, I find your post completely odius.

  23. Sam:
    Great analysis, I’m going to go and sit down now.
    Sorry, mate, but I think you can define terrorism without having to draw some complex moral equation about where you ‘draw the line’. I’m assuming that you are looking to draw moral equivalence between terrorist suicide bombers and what the Left commonly calls ‘state sponsored’ terrorism. I also think the argument ‘from a moral viewpoint, all violence is bad’ is weak and just far too easy. I wasn’t talking about whether violence was morally good or bad as a concept, I was stating that murder for political aim should be deplored. I’m sorry that you can’t get there, but I suppose using deconstructionism as an argument to support terrorism makes for interesting coffee house banter.
    p.s. It’s not an ‘essential’ part of the political human process. Gandhi achieved independence for India from GB through the use of non-violence, as I recall.

  24. Sam, where is John Brown’s sarcasm when it’s needed?
    yes you simply need to understand the “context” like with the Rodney King beating video
    John Brown • 12/04/05 01:33pm

  25. Monk:
    Sorry, not to belabour the point but I wished to clarify:
    I am saying that one can reject the use of terrorism as a political expression without having to bring any other argument into it.

  26. Matityahu wrote: “Reagan and Maggie had it right…no negotiation with terrorists.” I remember Reagan. He’s the guy who gave up 250 US Marines for nothing in Lebanon and left with his tail between his legs. That taught the terrorists in the early 80s that the tactic works. We can thank him, in part, for the popularity of suicide bombing.

  27. I take your point, byrdx, but you may wish to add Carter, Clinton, and Blair to that list as well if we wish to be honest. But let’s be clear about this; following the devastation of the attack in 1981, which you quite rightly point out, the Reagan doctrine became one of no negotiation. If you remember, Bush was avowedly isolationist before 9/11 as well. American presidents tend not to get involved until after a catastrophic event.

  28. ‘p.s. It’s not an ‘essential’ part of the political human process. Gandhi achieved independence for India from GB through the use of non-violence, as I recall.’
    He didn’t.
    I don’t have the books in front of me (at work), but there were numerous independance movements, many of them violent, during the Raj.
    In the same way Martin Luther King was only the least odious – and by default, most telegenic – to American Whites, Gandhi was the public face of Indian independance.
    What makes them stand out is that they contrast against their more violent and threatening counterparts…
    Don’t understimate the value of violence.
    It was a contributing factor to Israel, as much as any other nation.

  29. Monk: “Don’t understimate the value of violence.”
    Indeed. And that’s why it is important that functionally establishend and emergent states be held to a requirement of maintaining their monopoly on violence. And, again, that is the crux of the problem with a peace process in which the principal parties to negotiated agreements are taken off the hook by the interested third parties that engineer them.

  30. josh: “Stop believing the flesh and blood people can save you”
    OK, then why did God even bother writing a Torah for us in the first place?

  31. Monk:
    Okay, let’s get right to it then, shall we? A very simple query for you…do you or do you not support the use of terrorism as a legitimate political expression? And I’m not looking for any more discourse on the validity of deconstruction and the role it has played in human history, just a simple yes or no will suffice.

  32. Matityahu:
    Applying a moral pejorative to violence and fear is a joke.
    Despite our davening and kvelling of G_d’s love, let’s face it: Hashem used violence and fear to enforce divine will on us frequently, and that spirit is in us.
    So yes, I believe in terror and violence where it requires application.
    Do I advocate psychotic killing sprees in the streets?
    Only my psyhciatrist knows.
    And to think, I just joined a minyan…

  33. The International Court of Justice did not suggest that Israel should not have a security barrier; it suggested that this barrier be geographically reasonable, as in along the 67 borders.

  34. Joey: I don’t think I should have to begin any post on a suicide bombing by writing that the bombing is bad and I condemn it. I assume that everyone on the board thinks the bombing is bad and condemns it. I would be extremely suprised if anyone actually came forward on a board like this to defend a suicide bombing. But I do think it’s more helpful to offer an analysis of the possible causes of something than to lament the horror. Maybe it’s a sad thing. In fact, it probably is. But if I started to lament the horror every time I read about new horror, I would never get past that stage.

  35. clarification: the “it” I refer to in “Maybe it’s a sad thing” is not the bombing but the state of affairs in which I do not have the psychic energy and resources to feel the full impact of new tragedy.

  36. Miriam, your comment is a figment of your imagination. The ICJ said nothing about what would make the fence acceptable. It merely ruled against the one that is being built. It also relied on outdated material. The route that the court ruled against had been already been changed before virdict was delivered.

  37. OK, then why did God even bother writing a Torah for us in the first place?
    Apples and oranges. But you sort of already understand what I was getting at.
    Don’t believe that politicians can solve problems like this.

  38. Monk:
    ‘Applying a moral pejorative to violence and fear is a joke.’
    And you just joined a minyan? Look, I’m happy to have a more in-depth discussion in another forum regarding Judaism and your statements regarding Hashem’s use of violence to somehow ‘coerce’ us into belief (something that I flatly reject, by the way…I don’t seem to have the burning bush exploding in my copy of the Tanakh) but the statement about applying a moral perjorative is just laughable. You seem to want to dwell on the ‘laws of the jungle’ or some such and end up with humans not being accountable for their actions because you believe that it’s ‘in us’ to behave that way. Put simply, I do believe in the yetzer hara and the yetzer hatov and the Torah is here to guide us toward tipping the balance in favour of the yetzer hatov in my humble opinion (amongst other reasons, but this will do for the moment). I think that they are the ten commandments and not the ten suggestions.
    However, you still evade my query. Do you or do you not support the use of terrorism as a legitimate political expression?

  39. miriam, the 67 borders are no longer geographically reasonable. that’d mean running the wall through the shopping mall on pierre koenig and cutting off half of talpiyot and gilo. it’s not just unfeasible, it’s irrespective of present realities.

  40. Not to mention that part of the reasoning behind the ICJ’s opinion – in particular, its finding that Israel cannot invoke the right of self-defense against Palestinian terrorism – are irrespective of the location of the barrier.

  41. Baruch Goldstein saved Jews from being murdered that day. there was supposed to be a pogrom and he sacrificed his life and waylaid it. He was a doctor and the army came to him and said, prepare for a huge attack , we can’t stop it – and he did.
    can you be so intellectually dishonest as to think one Jew created thousands of Arab murderers who had been murdering Jews for decades way before he did a thing?

  42. “Baruch Goldstein saved Jews from being murdered that day. there was supposed to be a pogrom and he sacrificed his life and waylaid it. He was a doctor and the army came to him and said, prepare for a huge attack , we can’t stop it – and he did. ”
    Provide me with some links/facts to this story. I’ve heard this uttered from a few “Greater Israel” types but have never seen any info to back it up. And even if there was info…is murdering a bunhc of people in a mosque the way to go about it. If nothing else, Jewschool attracts kooks from all sides.

  43. Nothing in the ICJ decision precluded the fence from being built on the Green Line. Because israel has built in a mall in occupied territory does not give it the right to build a wall around it. We’re not talking about a mall or two anyway. We’re talking about 80% of the fence not being built on the Green line. read this new B’tselem report that the wall’s location is more about land-grabbing than security http://www.bts elem.org/English/Public ations/Summaries/
    200509_Under_the_Guise_ of_Security.asp if it had been about security, it would be 3 times as short, which could have been built quicker thus possibly saving lives, and there was nothing wrong with the original route as laid out by Labor – GSS at the time said it would work. All your defending, Eyal, is Israel’s right to grab whatever land it pleases, including the best farmland and aquifers.
    From B’Tselem:
    The settlements that Israel established in the Occupied Territories are illegal and breach international humanitarian law. Therefore, an act intended to perpetuate the settlements is by definition, a breach of international law. Although protecting the settlers is a legitimate objective, achieving it by running the Barrier along a route that perpetuates the settlements or involves expressly forbidden acts, such as destruction of private property, is illegal. The severity of the action is aggravated insofar as the primary goal in setting the Barrier’s route – expanding settlements and protecting the economic interests of Israeli real-estate developers – is itself illegal.

  44. Mobius, not only was there the attack on the port of Ashdod, which killed ten, that was launched from Gaza, but the Mike’s place attack by the two british-Pakistanis who had just come from Gaza. But those are the only two I know of besides the Qassams. We know for sure from Zakaria Zubeidei, head of the Al-Aksa brigades in Jenin complaining that the wall has made it more difficult to send attackers across that it does something. We also should know it’s never going to be foolproof, as this last attack shows: http://www.ynetnews.com/articl… 4 former heads of the Shin Bet pointed this out a few years ago. I agree with Mobius is the problem lies in unilaterialism; pulling out of Gaza without making an agreement with the PA shows the militants their tactics, not the politicians, is what works. The same will be true of the West Bank, and Jerusalem, with its nominally quiescent population, could become the next flash point as families are cut off from each other, homes, lands, lives, schools, services, jobs, by the wall. http://www.kibush.co.il/show_f… The problem lies in approaching the conflict like a zero-sum game; if one side ends up too unhappy, the other side’s gonna end up losing too.

  45. I wonder, xisnotx, were Gaza and the West Bank referred to as ‘Occupied Territories’ between 1948-1967 when Egypt and Jordan occupied them respectively? My history may be a bit rusty on this, but how many terror attacks were propogated against Egypt and Jordan by the Palestinians in an effort to create their state of ‘Palestine’?
    Even the Jordanian government website admits that the PLO wasn’t recognised as the ‘sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people’ until 1974. If there was an expression of ‘Palestinian’ nationalism prior to the ‘occupation’ of Gaza and the West Bank, I’m willing to learn. But I’m a bit more cynic about the whole thing; I think that the PA has just changed its story to suit the same goal it has always had. The destruction of Israel.

  46. I once met a farmer in the West Bank, very old guy, who remembers when the Ottomen came to chop down some of his families’ trees for fuel for their railroad. They feel they’ve always been occupied, but never on the scale of what they experience under the Israelis. As for resistance to Jordan, you have to look at the events of Black September of 1970.

  47. xisnotx: “As for resistance to Jordan, you have to look at the events of Black September of 1970.”
    Matityahu asked about 1948-1967. And the ugly truth is no, the territories were not considered “occupied” in those 19 years. And there was no Arab state that recognized Israel, or was not in a state of war with “the Zionist entity.” In light of this history, it always amazes me how so many people can see this as a simplistic two-party conflict between Israelis and Palestinians when it is increasingly obvious to me that there are many principal parties to the conflict who remain free from any responsibilty for its settlement. King Abdullah of Jordan is quite alone in his acceptance of such responsibility. But where are the oil-rich Arab establishments when it comes to nurturing support of a viable emergent Palestine beside (and not instead of) a secure Israel? Especially since the US openly praises these despotic kleptocracies as “valuable allies in the war on terror.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

The reCAPTCHA verification period has expired. Please reload the page.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.