Israel's show of force will backfire

[Violet_Crumble]

By Amin Saikal
July 14, 2006

The late Palestinian scholar Edward Said described the Palestinians as "the victim of the victim". The Jewish people suffered hugely at the hands of Europeans in history, but since the foundation of the state of Israel in 1948, the Israelis have subjected the Palestinian people to actions that have in some ways been reminiscent of their own suffering.

In the current crisis, Israel has re-invaded the Gaza Strip and turned it into an encampment, collectively punishing 1.3 million Palestinians.

This has generated an environment in which the Syrian and Iranian-backed Lebanese Islamic Hezbollah attacked an Israeli military post on the border with Lebanon, with Israel retaliating in yet another disproportionate manner. Israel has not only gone after Hezbollah targets, but as usual has sought to punish the state of Lebanon as a whole.

<snip>

Neither Israel nor the US can any longer afford to bury their heads in the sand and pretend that the political challenges facing them do not exist. Their actions have increasingly played into the hands of radicals - whether of Islamist or secularist nature - in the Arab-Muslim domain, and, for that matter, in the wider world.

Both Israel and the US need to realise that the application of brute force cannot resolve the deep-seated problems in the region. What is required is a sound political strategy to address the plight of the Palestinians, defuse tension between Israel and its neighbours, and improve America's image among the Arabs and Muslims. Otherwise the long-term damage to both Israel and the US, as well as the region, may become beyond repair, seriously undermining the efforts to contain international terrorism.

Amin Saikal is professor of political science and director of the Centre for Arab and Islamic Studies at the Australian National University.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/israels-show-of-force-will-backfire/2006/07/13/1152637804626.html?page=fullpage

[Terran1212]

1. I'm sure the Israelis know this operation will make them more unsafe

But the crazies in power wish to exert control over Gaza and Lebanon; it's too much of a prize for them.

[Violet_Crumble]

9. I think Olmert's lost the plot...

Either that or he's not as in control of things as people would think. In the past the military has gone round the PM if they think they're going to be a blocker (a good example of that is Moshe Sharrett), though in this case I kind of suspect that Olmert's being swept along and quite amenable....

[papau]

2. Hezbollah has 16 MP's in Parliament and runs half the country - so how

does "Israel has not only gone after Hezbollah targets, but as usual has sought to punish the state of Lebanon as a whole." make sense - esp when the government of Lebanon supports the terror to the point there is no government effort to find the people who kidnapped the kids.

Likewise the PA voted for Hamas to lead them in this direction - knowing what the result would be.

Actions have consequences - and in this case the consequences were anticipated by those voting the terrorists into power (actually Hamas as led by the PA folks - and not the Hamas in Syria - is much more a clean government party than a terrorist party. But the Syrian leadership now has control - and the PA voter knew this would happen. Granted the election choice between a corrupt Fatah and clean, effective, but easily led into terror Hamas was a lousy choice to be given).

As to "Israel retaliating in yet another disproportionate manner" I tend to agree -

but I wonder what the US would do if the Mayor of Mexico City led a raid into those cabins in Oklahoma holding the US military that Bush ordered to the Texas border, killing a few and kidnapping a few, followed by the government of Mexico saying they had no intention of arresting the Mayor of Mexico City, followed by TV of the celebration the citizens of Mexico over the the accomplishment of the raid , killing, and kidnapping - with Mexico then demanding all Mexicans in US prisons be freed and returned to Mexico?

[jaysunb]

3. There were kids kidnaped ??

Wow ! I didn't know THAT !

[Violet_Crumble]

8. Get with the program!

If they're Israeli or US they're kids even if they're in their very late teens or twenties...

If they're 12-14yr old Iraqi girls who have been raped and murdered along with their family, they're not kids, but 'women'...

If they're Palestinians ranging in age from 12-18 throwing stones, they're not kids, they're terrorists! ;)

[Englander]

10. Aye, 31 & 26 yr-old 'kids'.

'>snip

The IDF released the names of the two soldiers on Thursday. According to the IDF Spokesperson, the two reserve are Ehud Goldwasser, 31, from Nahariya, and Eldad Regev, 26, from Kiryat Motzkin.

Hizbullah guerrillas, who are backed by Iran, seized the soldiers Wednesday in a cross-border raid.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1150885988710&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[papau]

14. "cross border raid" - well at least we agree there is a border -when Scots

did this to folks in England in the past, was there ever a "disproportionate" response by the English?

I wonder why.

And I should have known that to be taken somewhere by force against ones will is OK as long as you are over a given age - indeed it is not kidnapping because we all know US law is screwed up when it calls it kidnapping - heck they were not even kids - right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping

Kidnapping
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It has come to mean any illegal capture or detention of persons against their will, regardless of age, as for ransom; since 1768 the term abduction was also used in this sense.

...In criminal law, kidnapping is the taking away or asportation of a person against the person's will, usually to hold the person in false imprisonment, a confinement without legal authority.

...Note that under early English common law, the asportation element required that the victim be moved outside the realm of England or overseas in order for an abduction to be considered "kidnapping."

....harsh punishment. Convicted kidnappers can expect to face life imprisonment or death penalty if convicted. In many states kidnapping is the only capital crime other than murder.

[Englander]

15. Well, that was one of the most bizarre replies I'd received.

But I think nothing will beat the time that the complete history of 1938, I think was the year, was
posted by an ex-poster in response to an innocuous question, nothing can top that one.

You've completely missed the point here, no surprises there, really. It must go with the territory
of defending the indefensible, of justifiying the ongoing Israeli war crimes.

[papau]

18. The point being missed was what? If age of those kidnapped was not

the point of your post, I indeed did miss it.

"The IDF released the names of the two soldiers on Thursday. According to the IDF Spokesperson, the two reserve are Ehud Goldwasser, 31, from Nahariya, and Eldad Regev, 26, from Kiryat Motzkin.

Hizbullah guerrillas, who are backed by Iran, seized the soldiers Wednesday in a cross-border raid."

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wagthedogwar]

4. ...if you can't beat e'm...get naked

Perhaps Palestinians need to learn the lessons of Gandhi--non-violent non-cooperation with an occupier. How long can an occupier stay if no one cooperates with them?

or learn from the Dukabors, get naked and burn down your house--shame is a powerful tool.

[pelsar]

6. theres a cultural problem with that...

as well as lack of int l support for such an idea. (just read the DU, only the occasional "oddball" here advocates real non violence as a method)

a bit history: years ago when the suicide bombers made the palestenians lives even more miserable, several known palestenians put an ad in one of the palestenian papers recommneding a real non violent philosophy to be carried out by all palestenains....a week later they apologised for insulting those who had died.

so much of the "non violent approach"

[DELUSIONAL]

5. Actions and reactions of earlier actions and reactions --

WE need to look at the history of the region -- and ask the question is it in the best interest of the US -- of America to unquestionably support Israel?

Many of us have been siblings -- mom sees big sister hit little brother and big sister is in trouble -- but what mom didn't see was that little brother just hit big sister with a baseball bat -- or perhaps a sharp dart. Mom thinks that big sister is always wrong because she was the little sister and her big sister was always bad. Perhaps this mom forgets that she needs to stand back -- and consider that the kids need to work out things on their own . . . whatever . . .

What I want to know is why did Israel over react -- explode over the kidnapping of ONE Israeli private -- Israel has over 3,000 Palestinian prisoners in their jails? Before the kidnapping of the private -- a family on a beach were killed by Israeli rockets -- and all the while the Israeli army lied about their involvement. As mentioned in this article the targeted assassinations are nearly constant -- the Palestinian lives are worthless to the Israel leadership.

If we go further back in history -- many of the Israeli leaders were terrorists by their own current definition. Israel is founded on terrorism -- their history is rather shocking in their bloody mindedness of routing out the Palestinians from the "Jewish homeland".

Israel has eliminated, through targeted assassination, hundreds of Palestinians and jailed thousands more, including women and children, and hit and jailed many Hezbollah activists. In the process, it has killed hundreds of innocent Palestinians and many Lebanese.

Israel has justified all this in terms of self-defence, and collateral damage in what it has called a fight against terrorism, as defined by itself.

It has never paid the least attention to the fact that Palestinian violent actions against Israel have had their roots in Israel's colonial occupation of the Palestinian land and brutal suppression of the Palestinians as a people, who, like Israelis, have the right to live in independence, peace and security.

Similarly, Israel has ignored the reality that its occupation of southern Lebanon for 20 years - until withdrawing unilaterally in 2000 because it could no longer sustain the cost of this operation - contributed substantially to making Hezbollah the fighting force that it is today.

While promoting itself as a bastion of democracy, Israel has scorned all Palestinian efforts at democratisation when the outcome has not been according to Israeli preferences. It has denounced the Palestinians' democratically elected government as one led by a terrorist organisation, the radical Islamist Hamas, although this is very much reminiscent of its rejection of the PLO as a terrorist organisation in the 1970s and '80s.

[Matilda]

7. Why did Isarel over-react?

Because they've been looking for an excuse to move into Lebanon and hit Hezbollah, and it was
handed to them. If the occupation of their homeland is the first tragedy of the Palestinians,
their predictably emotional actions are the second. All they can see is an opportunity of hitting
at some Israeli soldiers, but they can't make the jump to thinking of the inevitable reprisals.
It just wasn't worth it.

If only they could come up with a strong, clear-headed leader capable of taking a message to the
world in a powerful and rational way, instead of always wrong-footing themselves with ill-
considered actions that can all too easily be labelled "terrorist actions", whether or not they
really are.

They have right on their side, but they don't have might, so they have to be clever. Unfortunately,
they never are.

[Violet_Crumble]

11. I don't think that's the major reason Isael over-reacted...

It probably did play a part though, but what I think played a bigger part is that from its inception Israel has a built-in tendency to over-react. Plus with all the 'no! we're not going to do a prisoner swap for the release of the Israeli troop captured earlier coz that'd just encourage more 'kidnappings'!' thing must have been like waving a red flag in front of a bull. So there's a nation that already has a habit of over-reacting faced with the humiliation (and it is a military humiliation) of having more troops caught. And like most people who feel humiliated, countries (and we've seen it with the Palestinians) react out of emotion without thinking too much about the rights or wrongs of their reaction...

When it comes to the Palestinians, I agree that they do have right on their side. But when it comes to what Hizbollah did, I think Israel has right on its side, but its over-reaction is wrong...

[Matilda]

12. If Israel has right on its side in this case,

what about the Palestinians, with half their cabinet held without just cause, not to mention the
couple of thousand people held in Israeli prisons for no reason other than that they are
Palestinians? Instead of pushing this issue, they go and do something really, really stupid.

They'd be better off buying the services of a good lobbyist.

[papau]

17. I basically agree - but I am hard pressed to see other options that have

even a tiny chance of success for Israel - and indeed the rest of the world seems to agree as seen by the UN, EU, etc basic response to what Hez and Hamas did to citizens of Israel inside the borders of Israel. Sadly, I also do not see this over-reaction as likely to have much success beyond making a point.

Indeed the UN resolution that was just vetoed by the US seems to agree as to over-reaction being wrong - but the resolution proposed had no solution to how do you deal with a Hamas led government - or an Iran-Hez controlled area of Leb - where basic law between states is not followed.

[Violet_Crumble]

19. I see other options...

When it comes to the Israeli troop captured by the Palestinian groups, the only other option was an exchange of prisoners. When it comes to the cross-border raid and capture of the troops by Hizbollah, the options to me at least are less clear. The last Israeli soldier held by Hezbollah was never returned or found (at least that's what I read somewhere), and over-reacting the way Israel has makes the likelihood that they'll ever be handed over not very promising. I'm kind of doubtful that any response from Israel would succeed in getting them back, though I might be wrong, so given a choice between the over-reaction we've seen and the other extreme of trying only diplomatic channels, I would go for the diplomatic channels. With the over-reaction the waters get muddied and Israel, which was the victim by having its border crossed and shelling carried out on northern areas of the country (I think I got the sequence of events right there and the shelling came not long after the attack on the troops), ends up being rightfully criticised along with Hezbollah by the international community for an over-reaction that causes deaths of Lebanese civilians. That's not to say that I don't personally find some military reaction in the middle acceptable (though I doubt it'll be successful). While I think bombing Beirut's airport was out of line, I think Israel has justification to bomb training camps in the Bekaa Valley...

When it comes to dealing with Hamas, I really think Israel has to start sucking on a lemon and try to negotiate. If the attempts fail, then there's no harm in trying and eventually Israel is going to have to negotiate a fair and peaceful settlement and it's not going to be with Palestinians they hand-pick for their acquiescence. As for Hezbollah, I really don't know....

[papau]

16. Perhaps every nation over reacts to kidnapping?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping

Kidnapping
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It has come to mean any illegal capture or detention of persons against their will, regardless of age, as for ransom; since 1768 the term abduction was also used in this sense.

...In criminal law, kidnapping is the taking away or asportation of a person against the person's will, usually to hold the person in false imprisonment, a confinement without legal authority.

...Note that under early English common law, the asportation element required that the victim be moved outside the realm of England or overseas in order for an abduction to be considered "kidnapping."

....harsh punishment. Convicted kidnappers can expect to face life imprisonment or death penalty if convicted. In many states kidnapping is the only capital crime other than murder.

Your history of the area is correct as to terrorist activity being common in every country around the Med - including Israel pre and post the formation of the State of Israel - terror by Jews. Of course there was also terror on the jews living in the area by the arab population of the area.

I wonder why "Israel has scorned all Palestinian efforts at democratisation when the outcome has not been according to Israeli preferences. It has denounced the Palestinians' democratically elected government as one led by a terrorist organisation, the radical Islamist Hamas, although this is very much reminiscent of its rejection of the PLO as a terrorist organisation in the 1970s and '80s." justifys kidnapping?

Indeed I wonder when - heck - if - Palestinian folks will ever have a real government that has real institutions like the rule of law putting individual rights first within the areas it controls. Arafat destroyed in the 70's the excellent start on building such institutions post 68 in PA politics, as he went back to the tribal form of government so as to protect the continued existence of his rule (granted that Islam believers started with tribal rule concepts in 700 AD so as to protect the power of leaders - and loyality to tribe is not always a bad thing as long as you like "justice" refering to justice to your tribe, and not to you, with such tribal based justice coming ahead of justice to the individual, in one's tribal based government)

[Violet_Crumble]

20. Capture of combatants vs. kidnapping. I have a question...

Not specifically for you, papau, though if you want to give it a whirl, I'm happy to listen. In the case of the Israeli corporal captured by the Palestinian militants, it seems clear-cut to me. He is a combatant, he was armed, and his capture was a legitimate act. The outpost he was stationed at had been used to launch missile attacks on targets in Gaza. In the case of the soldiers taken by Hezbollah, I'm not sure whether it's a legitimate action or whether it can be classified as a kidnapping. There just doesn't seem to be the same factors involved as there was with the first Israeli troop, so if anyone can help me out on that, I'd appreciate it...

[papau]

21. If Hamas attacked an outpost used to launch missiles into Gaza then I

agree - actions have consequences and aggression must be met by force, so it was not a kidnapping and was a legitimate act.

However, I do not believe that to be true, although "true" seems to depend on how you compare aimed at city rocket attacks to aimed at those firing those rockets missile attacks, and if the post Gaza pullout Israeli hands off Gaza policy means Gaza folks should also be hands off Israel, or does Gaza attack Israel because the West Bank is not yet in total PA control? Indeed if the latter, does Gaza attack Israel every time there is a dispute - or a current reality - that Hamas does not like?

The Gaza fields next to the border were used to fire rockets into Israel - and Israel responded with attacks on positions in those fields. When that failed to stop the attacks, Israel attacked from the air the locations of the leaders of the those firing the rockets into Israel (granted the attack on one fellow's house while he was with his kids was not one I would have OK'ed).

In any case "The outpost he was stationed at had been used to launch missile attacks on targets in Gaza" has a few words that seem suspect - namely -

Why is a military camp within Israeli borders an "outpost" - and what location within Israel could the Israeli Army have chosen to use to return fire at the locations being used to fire rockets into Israel, and not have someone say that the act of Israel returning fire from that location made kidnapping soldiers from that location a legitimate act?