New form of West Bank terror: Stone barriers

[azurnoir]

A new form of terrorist activity has recently begun to plague the Jewish communities of the West Bank. These attacks take the form of piles of several stones placed on the road during the night, with the objective of causing car accidents.
............................................................................

Last week, the latest barrier was discovered on the way to Harasha, in Benyamin, very close to the residents' homes. Four cars were damaged. Security forces searched for possible suspects. The barrier itself was removed by the residents.

This attack was the last in a series which have occurred over the past months. Security officials told Tazpit News Agency that it is believed to be the work of youngsters from nearby village. No assailants have been arrested so far.

There has been a general rise in the terrorist activity against Israeli residents in the West Bank in the past months. An Arab terrorist was caught Tuesday night attempting to infiltrate the town of Ginot Shomron in central Samaria.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4284125,00.html

..........................................................................................

check out the photo of the 'terror' weapons confiscated from Palestinians in the West Bank too, but never fear the Israeli settlers carry military issue M-16's to protect themselves from these weapons

[msongs]

1. occupying other peoples' land has consequences. gee, who could have guessed that? nt

[Peregrine]

2. What other people's land

If I remember that land was annexed as a result of an invasion of isreal by its arab neighbors that included Palestinians.

[Ken Burch]

3. That land wasn't annexed by Israel...it has simply been under their military occupation for decades.

If it were annexed...the residents of the area would all be Israeli citizens, and the land would be referred to as "eastern Israel" rather than "the Occupied Territories".

It is fairly clear, though, that the West Bank settlements, all of which are illegal, are part of a long-term annexation strategy on the part of the Israeli government. The creation of these settlements is called "creating facts on the ground".

[oberliner]

5. Do you support integrating the West Bank into Israel?

Are you in favor of the region being part of a single state?

What about Gaza?

[azurnoir]

7. "How many would have to die" for that to occur?

or another question would anyone have to die at all?

[Ken Burch]

12. You're challenging the "one nation can be trusted but the other can't" meme.

I'm sure you know what kind of response to expect to that.

[azurnoir]

14. well in a way you surprised me

but really why would anyone have to die as not all that much changes

[Ken Burch]

10. I support a two-state solution as first preference, as second a Belgian-style federation

(which would not be a unitary state, but contain both national entities and protect the character of each, while taking into account the infrastructure merger that has occurred in many areas).

It's also my feeling that a two-state solution needs to be structured in such a way that neither side has political, resource, or military dominance over the other. It's not a real two-state solution if it's based on the assumption that only one of the states can be trusted, and that the other must be placed in an effective position of inferiority and submission to the other. Neither state should be powerless against the other, and neither should be dependent on the other for anything. To choose any other power relationship is to doom the two-state idea entirely by politically destroying the leadership of the state that ends up in the weaker position.

I don't see a single unitary state as workable, but feel that there needs to be dialogue with single-state advocates of good will to address their concerns about a two-state result. There needs to be an admission that many of those who are supposedly backing a two-state solution aren't really doing so, because their insistence on settlement expansion is clearly intended to make such a solution impossible by shrinking the area available for a Palestinian state as much as possible and by placing the settlements in such a way as to prevent Palestinian territory from being contiguous.

As to Gaza, it appears that the people of Gaza wish to be part of a Palestinian state, so I'd support them on that.

Not sure why my previous post inspires these questions.

[shira]

15. Oh? Neither Israel or Palestine should have military dominance...

...over the other?

IOW, Hamas and the PLO should have a full army, tanks, jets, bombers, nukes, and all the technological advances Israel has militarily in order to even things out?

[Ken Burch]

16. There should be a Palestinian self-defense force that would NOT include the militants

from Hamas or Fatah. If you insist that Palestine should have no right to self-defense at all, you're asking that country to be on a lower level of prestige and than any other country in the world. You're asking them to accept the meme that Israel can be trusted but THEY can't.

And you're asking them to put their sovereignty at the mercy of Israeli politics, to expect them to just hope that no future Israeli election will ever produce a situation in which, say, a party of West Bank revanchists wins enough seats to force any potential governing party to include it. Given how fractious those coalitions are, that's a more than realistic possibility, and, with no right to self-defense at all, a future Palestinian state would be helpless to prevent the reestablishment of the occupation and the rebuilding of the settlements.
(btw. if that happened, could I assume you'd denounce it, or would you find some pretext to defend such an eventuality?)

Accepting that would automatically discredit any Palestinian leadership that ever did so, and then automatically cause that leadership to be overthrown and replaced by extremists. This, in turn, would make whatever peace arrangement that had been made utterly worthless. The way to avoid that is to avoid asking anything of the Palestinian side that can be painted as an act of surrender. The conflict has to end with nobody winning and nobody losing, and particularly with no side being insulted.

You can have peace, but it's not going to happen if you insist on an assumption of asymmetrical. trustworthiness. If it's wrong for Israel to live at the mercy of Palestinians, it's equally wrong for a Palestinian state to have to live at the mercy of Israel. And Israel doesn't HAVE to have a future Palestinian state totally at its mercy to be secure or at peace. It just needs to have, at some point, a working diplomatic relationship...the kind of relationship that can only be worked out between countries of equal stature.

[shira]

17. How will there be a Palestinian self-defense force that would NOT....

..include the militants of Fatah and Hamas? Will some other peaceful entity OTHER than Hamas or Fatah run Palestine, because if so, who?

Since we all know either Fatah or Hamas will run the show, WHO will tell Hamas or Fatah they cannot have their militants pretending to be a self-defense force?

If Fatah or Hamas submits to NOT having its militants pretending to play defense, won't that discredit them?

It doesn't appear you've thought this one through...

[Ken Burch]

18. The vast majority of people of military age in Palestine AREN'T militants

The cadres of Hamas and the worst of Fatah are only a small group.

But then, you appear to assume that all Palestinians are terrorists, so I'm not surprised you'd make the assumption you make.

And there is a long-standing tradition in countries that gained independence through some form of armed struggle that post-independence military forces do not include militants of the struggle, or in any case don't include many.

You simply can't have a situation in which Israel has the right to self-defense and Palestine doesn't. It's not reasonable to expect Palestinians to just take the Israeli side's word for it that no future Israeli government would ever have designs on the West Bank. To expect that is to hold onto the totally unacceptable "one side can be trusted, but the other can't" meme, a meme that can't end any wars.

[shira]

21. Ok, fine. But that doesn't answer how Hamas will get non-militants....

...to act as a defense force. Same WRT Fatah.

In your scenario, you trust an extreme, rightwing, theocratic, sharia-style, Jew hating, terrorist leadership that would control a non-terrorist military expected to play by the rules. And of course, you'd trust that such a military would have no terrorist ties, would just defend (just trust us, okay) and would never be a threat.

Just give Hamas tanks, jets, bombers, drones, nukes.....and trust them to do the right thing. Hamas will then put good guys in control of the military - who will not follow Hamas terrorist directives - and they'll be good boys.

And you expect reasonable people to take this proposition seriously?

I'll have to bookmark this one.

[pelsar]

22. tried and failed...you've failed history again

The PA was supposed to be the independent "non terrorist force"..only the niave leftist (as in those how wanted elections in gaza) were/are actually surprised to learn that in fact the PA is run by fatah (PLO), including the security services.

so the eternal question is: how many times must a plan fail before some people actually wonder if the plan is flawed?

(and without putting in the "but but but" conditions have now changed theory (because they haven't....people do not give up power easily, especially when they are corrupt).
____

and just for fun, where is the PA going to put all of those tanks and F-16's they are going to need to be on par with israel?

[Ken Burch]

23. I'm not rigidly tied to any "plan"

What I don't get is why you are so confident that preserving the status quo can produce anything better. You seem incredibly smug about that.

What possible chance is there that perpetuation the Occupation can produce anything any better on the Palestinian side?
You talked about the folks who emerged in the Eighties, but all you proved there was correlation(those people emerged while Arafat was in exile), not causation(you offered no proof that Hanan Ashrawi, a person I admire btw, and others like her could ONLY have emerged as a result of Arafat being sidelined). You also offered no evidence that it was ever going to be possible without, at some point, engaging the PLO in the negotiations at some level. They weren't going to just go away, and it wasn't possible to mliitarily crush them(as it isn't possible now to mlitarily crush either Fatah OR Hamas-militarily it's all stuck at permanent stalemate). So, at some point, those groups were going to have to be brought in and involved.

What would you, personally, have done differently, then? And how could delay possibly produce a better outcome now? The pitfalls to the "keep the PLO out of it" strategy then still exist as regards any attempts to keep Fatah and Hamas out of it now.

You are the person on the ground...you are helping create the "facts on the ground". What facts do you thnk you CAN create by staying the course?

[pelsar]

24. i dont believe in fantasy...or in options that dont exist...

your plan is having the pa/fatah/hamas militarliy on par with israel.

so i asked and you didnt answer: where are they going to store their 200+ F-16s, hundreds of modern tanks?
how will this military not include fatah/hamas element?

how can you possibly suggest a concept (equal military parity) while avoiding such a very basic infrastructure question?

if you insist on staying in fantasy land, there is not much i can do about it, but it means you wont be able to understand answers that are grounded first and formost in harsh reality.....
___

so again i ask, where will the PA's military airports be, and where will they store all of these fighter jets, anti aircraft missiles (please please please answer...) will they warehouse them in the cities, given the limited space they have?

[Ken Burch]

25. You don't believe in options that don't exist? Well then

the option of getting anybody on the Palestinian side to accept a deal that says that Israel has the right to self-defense but Palestine doesn't doesn't exist, either.

And I didn't say that the Palestinian side had to have full military parity with Israel...just that it not be expected to be totally disarmed.

[pelsar]

26. explain this....your words:

It's not a real two-state solution if it's based on the assumption that only one of the states can be trusted, and that the other must be placed in an effective position of inferiority

if the PA/fatah/hamas do not have 200 F-16, hundreds of tanks, etc they will be placed in an effective position of military inferiority.

or now that you've been pushed in the nasty world of reality do you accept that fact that the PA state to be will infact be in an inferior military position and israel will be able to invade at will and will be able to overrun them probably in a day or two if need be.....

[Ken Burch]

28. Before you endlessly belabor one word once again

I'll amend "inferiority" to "utter helplessness". OK? If no other nation on the planet is expected to be officially helpless in military terms, Palestine shouldn't have to be either. TO insist that they be is to insist that their state be born in something like a status of official humiliation.

And I was never saying that Palestine had to have a military the size of Israel's

Palestine doesn't have to have a military the size of the IDF simply to protect itself from an Israeli military incursion(an incursion which would almost certainly be unjustified in any case, because tensions between Palestine and Israel would be radically reduced if Palestinian sovereignty were assured and because rank-and-file Palestinians would then be likely to be demanding that an independent Palestinian state focus on actually building a nation rather than on attacking Israel Proper(the lands on the Israeli side of the Green Line). It's not as though you can assume an independent Palestine would just keep shelling Sderot as if nothing had changed. They might, they might not. You're the one claiming to be psychic if you act as if nothing would really be different on the military front.

Palestine wouldn't need to match Israel tank-for-tank and F-16 for F-16. It would simply need to be able to defend its borders.

I'm fine with Palestine having a smaller military than Israel(and also, I'd like to think that once a two-state solution had been reached, the Israeli military itself could shrink somewhat). What needs to be avoided is a situation in which the Palestinian side is totally at Israel's mercy, because no Palestinian leader could ever be expected to accept such a deal-and because any who did would immediately be overthrown and replaced with somebody worse.

Why insist on conditions in a peace deal that would almost certainly sabotage the deal at the outset? Does that serve any purpose at all? It's not as if Israel HAS to have Palestine totally at its mercy to be safe. And it's not as if being able to say you've got Palestine at your mercy is more important than actually ending the war.

[pelsar]

29. your doing it again......contradict yourself several times

i am suggesting you and its only a suggestion that you decide one way, either they are at the mercy of the IDF or they are on par with the IDF since you have no knowledge of the military i will help you:

these statements are contradictory..this will be tough for you

1) TO insist that they be is to insist that their state be born in something like a status of official humiliation.
Irrelevant since its not an israeli decision to insist, its a reality of economics, physical attributes of lots and lots of tanks and airplanes


2) I'm fine with Palestine having a smaller military than Israel
given the two different sizes of the countries, this is natural

3) Palestine wouldn't need to match Israel tank-for-tank and F-16 for F-16. It would simply need to be able to defend its borders.

if they cant match the IDF 'tank for tank" the wont really be able to defend their borders from an israeli invasion.....


And I was never saying that Palestine had to have a military the size of Israel's
see number 3, without a matching military they wont have that 'defense" and they will infact be at israels mercy if israel decides to invade, much like lebanon or gaza is.

capich?
if their military can't match the IDF, then in fact they will be at the mercy of the IDF, 10 russian tanks, a few helicopters, will be of no match to israels and in fact just cause more destruction if it came down to it, to the PA.
_____

why is this important for you to grasp? because your whole theory of what has to be done is based on a continous flow of 'pie in the sky ideas" that are not part of reality. And people who live in fantasies when in power are dangerous, see gaza and now Lybia (the ambassador) for examples

As you propose them, i will take a single aspect and examine it for reality. This one is the easy of course since it involves large and very expensive physical objects......

how will this "PA" defend its borders from israel with a far less number of tanks, helicopters and jets? Seems to me given the very long border of the westbank, they will be spread very thin, which will give them no real defense or if they want to have a real defense line they will need to have a very large army...

and militaries follow a "overwhelming force" doctrine, which means if the PA puts up defense with 10 tanks, they will be facing off with 5 tank killing helicopters. If they have anti aircraft weapons, they would be wiped out my surface to surface missles in the opening minutes with lots of destruction.

they're only 'defense" would be what hizballa has tried which is threaten the israeli population with missile attacks should israel attack. Unfortunatly for him, its not much of a defense, but that is the best they can do, so is that what your proposing? the PA try to put the israeli population as hostages? and "hide' their missiles in homes?

[sabbat hunter]

8. Didn't Jordan annex it

after the war of independence?

[Ken Burch]

11. I thought they just kept it under occupation.

Last edited Mon Sep 24, 2012, 12:40 AM - Edit history (1)

But the poster I was responding to wasn't discussing Jordan, and neither was I(or at least I wasn't intending to).

[eyl]

19. No, they did annex it n/t

[Ken Burch]

20. I stand corrected.

What I was trying to say, and should have been much clearer about, was that Israel has not, as yet, annexed the West Bank. My phrasing was murky, and for that I apologize.

[bemildred]

4. Vandalism maybe, not terror.

People who want to annoy you are going to find ways.

[azurnoir]

6. well I guess it's a crossover of sorts

at least in terms

[bemildred]

9. I'm just indulging in hopeless pedantry.

The distinction is lost, it's just another bad word now, like all the ones before it.

Soon another extra specially bad word will have to be invented to replace it.

[azurnoir]

13. you're allowed although I disagree about the pedantry part

however I've been thinking a new word ....... hmmmm

[DollarBillHines]

27. What next? "Terror Eggs"?

You know, those things could splat on a windshield and cause real problems.

If those "terrorists" were worth their salt, they would paint those rocks gray and stack them.

[bemildred]

30. "Terror tomatoes".