Our exclusive right to self-defense

[Donald Ian Rankin]

Virtually all of Israel is now speaking in one voice against the Goldstone report, against any attempt to blame us over the war in Gaza. We've honed our message to a sharp point and, inspired by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's performance at the UN, we're delivering it with just the right tone of outrage:

How dare anyone deny us the right to self-defense! How dare anyone deny us the right to fight back against terrorism!

Very nice. Puts everyone else on the defensive. The right to self-defense is up there with motherhood and apple pie - who's going to come out against it, especially for us, for Israel, for the Jews, for the people of the Holocaust?

The right to self-defense - perfect.

But I'd like to ask: Do the Palestinians also have the right to self-defense?

We probably wouldn't admit it out loud, but in our heads we would say - again, in one voice - "No!"

This is the Israeli notion of a fair deal: We're entitled to do whatever the hell we want to the Palestinians because, by definition, whatever we do to them is self-defense. They, however, are not entitled to lift a finger against us because, by definition, whatever they do to us is terrorism.

That's the way it's always been, that's the way it was in Operation Cast Lead.

AND THERE are no limits on our right to self-defense. There is no such thing as "disproportionate." We can blockade Gaza, we can answer Kassams with F-16s and Apaches, we can take 100 eyes for an eye.

We can deliberately destroy thousands of Gazan homes, the Gazan parliament, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Interior, courthouses, the only Gazan flour plant, the main poultry farm, a sewage treatment plant, water wells and God knows what else.

Deliberately.

After all, we're acting in self-defense. By definition.

And what right do the Palestinians have to defend themselves against this?

None.

Why? Because we're better than them. Because we're a democracy and they're a bunch of Islamo-fascists. Because ours is a culture of life and theirs is a culture of death. Because they're out to destroy us and all we are saying is give peace a chance.

One look at the ruins of Gaza ought to make that plain enough.

Here is our idea of the "laws of war": When Israeli bulldozers rolled across the border into Gazan villages and flattened house after house so Hamas wouldn't have them for cover after the IDF pulled out, that was self-defense. But if a Palestinian boy who'd lived in one of those houses threw a stone at one of the bulldozers, that was terrorism.

The Goldstones of the world call this hypocrisy, a double standard. How dare they! Around here, we call it moral clarity.

[shaayecanaan]

1. Link

for those who are interested:-

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1254861893834

[Kurska]

2. Good thought provoking article.

Raises alot of questions, I may believe that the difference he was talking about in regard to democracy or Israel being the defending state isn't just window dressing and what really makes up the core of why I support Israel and what Israel did, but I can still respect a well constructed self evaluation.

[Braulio]

8. I used to support Israel

But not anymore. And I don't give you guys another 100 years, what you have is very unsustainable.

[LeftishBrit]

3. Great article; thanks for posting.

[azurnoir]

4. well said Mr Derfner

and yes that is the mind set in Israel and the mind set of it's American "supporters"

[stranger81]

5. + 1,000,000

Perfectly stated.

Now where's Shira to set us all straight?

[shira]

7. - 1 zillion

over 8,000 rockets from Gaza over the past 6 years is not self-defense.

[stranger81]

30. By that standard -- the amount of artillery fired in a particular amount of time -- nothing Israel

has done in the last 60 years has been self-defense. 8,000 rockets over six years works out to less than 2500/year, or about 6.3/day. And most of those rockets, keep in mind, have hit nothing at all, inflicting no human casualties whatsoever.

Israel, on the other hand, has undoubtedly unleashed exponentially greater amounts of munitions against the Palestinians every day of every year since the occupation began. And that's the critical fact you refuse to admit -- that any rockets fired from Gaza over the last six years were fired by an occupied power against its occupier. I know you'd rather have them all lay down and die, but it should be obvious to even you by now that isn't going to happen.

[shira]

35. 2 things - Hamas rockets from Gaza are not defensive no matter what Hamas says

there's a reason Hamas is recognized as a terror entity and that's one reason.

Also, Gaza hasn't been occupied in 4 years. The only soldier there is Gilad Shalit. If Gaza were occupied, Israel would be responsible under international law to keep law and order there, eliminate the weapon smuggling, reign in Hamas, etc. So it's not a matter of the "occupied" defending against the "occupier".

But these are facts and not fiction...

:eyes:

[aranthus]

6. Ignores the elephant in the room

So the only reason (or at least the main reason) that Israelis think they are acting in self defense and the Palestinians not is that they think that they are a superior society? Really? The fact that the Israelis believe (correctly in my opinion) that the Palestinians started the war, and have been the aggressors since day one has nothing to do with it? Gimme a break. Even if the Israelis believe themselves to be superior, you'd think that the author would recognize that they also believe the Palestinians to be the aggressors. Of course, that would spoil a good rant, wouldn't it?

[shaayecanaan]

9. That is simply a restatement of the position...

"The Palestinians are always the aggressors" = "Israel always acts in self defence".

[aranthus]

11. No it's not.

It's suggesting that the reason for that belief is other than the, "we're a superior society," trope that the author was offering. Are you suggesting that the fact that the Palestinians started the war in 1947, instigated the 1967 war, launched terror attacks on Israel, and launched rockets at Israeli cities has nothing to do with how the Israelis see the conflict? Are you asserting that all those Palestinian acts were just self-defense? Do you really think that the Palestinians have nothing to do with creating the mentality the author is complaining of?

[shaayecanaan]

12. Yes it is...

The phrase becomes a shibboleth around which one can twist increasingly tenuous historical claims, such as "the Palestinians instigated the 1967 war", which was actually started by Israel in response to Egyptian actions - how you manage to sheet the blame for that to the Palestinians is beyond me.

You are precisely the kind of person that the author had in mind when he wrote the piece. According to you, any action by a Palestinian, whether shooting a soldier at a checkpoint or firing a rocket from Gaza, is aggressive and not defensive. Never mind the fact that Israel's air and naval blockade constitutes an act of war, as well as its occupation of the West Bank.

Israel started the 1967 war in response to Egypt's blockade of the Straits of Tiran, which constituted a partial blockade as Israel still had access to the Mediterranean. Israel's blockade of Gaza is total. Why was Israel entitled to defend itself against a blockade, yet Palestinians are forbidden to do so?

[aranthus]

13. To understand how the Palestinian terrorists and Syria instigated the 1967 war

I suggest that you read "Six Days of War" by Michael Oren, and "Elusive Victory" by Trevor DuPuy. The cause of the war is not as simple as you suggest. In short, the Palestinians launched a series of terror attacks on the Israelis hoping to goad the Israelis into a response that would spiral out of control into a general war. But leave 1967 out of it and answer the question. Do you really think that Palestinian attacks on Israel have nothing to do with the Israeli belief that the Palestinians are aggressors?

And no, I'm not saying that every action by a Palestinian is aggression. But the Palestinians initiated the conflict and have made no secret of their intent to destroy Israel. Have you ever read the PLO Charter or the Hamas Charter? Even if you think the PLO amended its position, you can't really dispute the Charter at one time called for Israel's destruction, and violently so. Are you seriously suggesting, as the author does, that the only main reason that Israelis think that they are acting in self defense is because of some belief in their cultural superior ty?

[shaayecanaan]

19. You're going to have to do better than simply throwing a random book title in there...

to substantiate your point.

In short, the Palestinians launched a series of terror attacks on the Israelis hoping to goad the Israelis into a response that would spiral out of control into a general war.

Specifically, what terrorist acts are you referring to? Also, please indicate the passage from either of those books that you think supports your contention.

Are you seriously suggesting, as the author does, that the only main reason that Israelis think that they are acting in self defense is because of some belief in their cultural superiority?

Yes, for the most part. The same is true of the Palestinians, as well as the Serbs, Croats, Northern Irish, etc. Always, the other side started it, they always initiate and we only respond, they are brutes and we are better than them, but we must speak to them through the gun because it is the only language they understand.

Of course, generally, any mass migration of one population to another place against the wishes of the established population will always engender conflict (think Native Americans, South Africa, Northern Ireland). FWIW, to the extent that the Palestinians did not move en masse to Poland, I do not think they can be considered the instigators of the conflict.

Back to my question, which you have thus far refused to answer: is a Palestinian entitled to kill an Israeli soldier on his territory, a member of an occupying force? Is a Palestinian entitled to self-defence?

[pelsar]

16. another correction?...so many so often....

Israel's blockade of Gaza is total

geography lesson no 1:...

egypt is south of gaza
egypt is a nation
egypt and gaza share a border
israel is not there......

conclusion:
israel does not have a total blockade on gaza (for those who are weak on geography)
______

67 war:
Israel started the 1967 war in response to Egypt's blockade of the Straits of Tiran, which constituted a partial blockade
blocking a countries port is an act of war (can be partial):...you might want to learn the expression: Casus belli
_______________

its a shame that you have to be corrected all of the time....I"m just guessing here but i guess your one of those that believe "the ends justifies the means"..meaning that making up stuff is acceptable as long as it serves the long term goal....your own personal view of "justice".....

until the next correction

[shaayecanaan]

18. No shit?

I really had no idea that Egypt was south of Gaza, I must have missed that all the time that I've been here.

Notice how I very carefully say "air and naval blockade" at the outset. To the extent that the Gaza Strip is blockaded from the air and sea, the blockade is exclusively Israeli.

blocking a countries port is an act of war (can be partial):...you might want to learn the expression: Casus belli

I couldnt agree more. So you agree that the blockade (partial or total) of Gaza by Israel is an act of war?

[pelsar]

20. shall i expect a correction from you concerning the 67 war?

blocking a countries port is an act of war (can be partial):...you might want to learn the expression: Casus belli

I couldnt agree more

your claim was that israel started the 67 war...now it appears you are contradicting yourself....which is it? egypt started it or israel....which had the blockade?......
_________

and yes israel is at war with gaza...that was clarified before the invasion....shooting rockets and mortars (over 6000) at a neighboring country is considered an act of war........it started on the very night israel left gaza:....hamas/fatah and their friends might have a case against the blockade, if they didnt try killing israelis (dumb decision)

back to the blockade: you wrote: the air/navel blockade and added later in the paragraph:


Israel's blockade of Gaza is total

I understand your intentions, your trying to blame israel for the blockade and yet keep to the facts...sadly your intention is clear to hide between words what you prefer others not know.....and you slipped up here.


it would have been more honest to claim that israel has 3/4 blockade, with limited supplies going through israel and that egypt has closed off its own border for its own reasons (and active tunnels) Thats the bare truth...

try again (i always find it rather amusing the way some try to play word games so that they can blame israel for yet another evil deed.....-but keep trying)

[shaayecanaan]

22. Im quite happy to concede...

that Egypt participates in the blockade. As you acknowledged, the blockade is about 75% Israeli and 25% Egyptian. Egypt closes its border to Gaza whereas Israel actively maintains a naval and air blockade. You might compare it to the American invasion of Iraq, which was actually a coalition of various nations but in which America obviously took the leading role.

your claim was that israel started the 67 war...now it appears you are contradicting yourself

I thought I was being as clear as possible. Israel initiated the actual shooting war in response to the blockade of the Straits of Tiran. Casus belli means "cause for war". The blockade of the Straits of Tiran was cause for war, and Israel did in fact commence a war.

the air/navel blockade and added later in the paragraph - Israel's blockade of Gaza is total

Yes. It was a total air and naval blockade - as opposed to a partial naval blockade.

and yes israel is at war with gaza...that was clarified before the invasion....shooting rockets and mortars (over 6000) at a neighboring country is considered an act of war........it started on the very night israel left gaza:....hamas/fatah and their friends might have a case against the blockade, if they didnt try killing israelis (dumb decision)

So are you claiming that there was no blockade prior to 1 September 2005?

[bemildred]

23. There were plenty of rockets before the Gaza retreat too, but I'm sure you know that.

I've been telling Pelsar for years that the rockets will not stop until there is a political settlement.

[pelsar]

25. the rockets fell in gaza....

those kassams where limited to gaza....and were part of the reason for the pullout.....like intifada I, where the violence was limited to the westbank and gaza, the Palestinians had results...attacking over the green line always gives them the opposite

history.....its good to learn from it.

_________

I've been telling Pelsar for years that the rockets will not stop until there is a political settlement.

guess the Palestinians have a problem then......egypt stopped shooting and got back the sinai...jordan stopped and got rid of the westbank......as long as the Palestinians insist on trying to kill israelis over the green line they'll be at the losing end of the stick.....their choice (though in the westbank this last year this concept may be sinking in)

[bemildred]

26. It is not just the Palestinians that have a problem.

Sderot was being hit before the Gaza retreat. It is true that the Palestinian's range improved after the retreat, but that was predictable and predicted at the time by opponents of the retreat. The Israeli government made a big deal of the idea that the retreat was unilateral, so I don't really see that the fact that they got nothing for it amounts to much. It does seem that the rocket attacks are resuming:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3784765,00.html

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1254861904566&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[pelsar]

28. yes there were a few on sederot....

but the vast majority was against the settlers.....and there are a few rockets these days......far less than the daily doses of before. But as in anything in this conflict, the law of unintended consequences is the actual rule....so we shall see what comes next....

[sabbat hunter]

70. and it can be said conversely

there won't be a political settlement until the rockets stop.

[pelsar]

24. gaza was occupied before sept 12....

after sept 12, the situation changed...israel left and gaza immediately declared war by shooting missiles almost daily trying to kill israelis....the blockade on the 3/4 is a direct response to the gaza initiation of war. Why egypt insists on blockading the gazan is something else...gazans after all are not trying to kill egyptians.....

though i don't know why your even asking the question...unless its a rather pathetic attempt to show that israel just likes blockading the gazans for no real reason.

the answer above is for those who have less knowledge and are infact interested in the sequence of events the led up to the gaza invasion. (and don't appreciate attempts at confusing them)

[shaayecanaan]

42. It was also blockaded prior to September 12...

Gazan fishermen, for example, were unable to fish outside a 3 nautical mile limit. This was the case during the occupation and remains the case today.

I realise that it is very hard for you to give a straightforward and honest answer, so I will provide you with another opportunity: Is the blockade of the Gaza Strip a valid cause for war or not?

[shira]

43. you're asking whether Israel's response to Hamas' call to war and jihad is itself a call to war

trying to have your cake and eat it too...

In 1956 and 1967, you argue Egypt's unprovoked blockades were not so much causes for war but that Israel's blockade in reaction to Hamas' open declaration of war is. Hamas is therefore justified in reacting to this blockade with their kassams, even though their kassams and mortars caused the blockade (you're trying to reverse cause and effect) while in 1956 and 1967 Israel really had no good excuse for responding to Egypt's blockades. In fact, I'm betting if Iran were blockaded, you believe they'd have every right to attack and you wouldn't question it - just like Hamas - you only question and blame Israel.

This is your position and you're sticking to it, right?

:eyes:

[shaayecanaan]

48. Actually, you're right...

Egypt did in fact blockade the Straits of Tiran in May, 1956. This was indeed a provocation by the Egyptians and they should have expected an Israeli response. I therefore retract my contention that the Suez war was unprovoked. To be honest, I was not aware of that blockade until you brought it to my attention.

Hamas is therefore justified in reacting to this blockade with their kassams, even though their kassams and mortars caused the blockade

No, you are trying to reverse cause and effect. As I have just established with Pelsar, there was a blockade on Gaza both prior to the withdrawal and to the first appearance of the Qassam rocket.

The last legitimate trade vessel to have reached Gaza was in 2001, as was the last airplane to have landed at Gaza International Airport. Israel has maintained a complete air and naval blockade on Gaza since that time. As I have just indicated to Pelsar, there was not the slightest indication following the withdrawal that the blockade would be alleviated (if you contend that there was, please refer to it specifically).

It is a very simple question, and I put it to you again in search of a simple answer:-

Is a blockade cause for war?

[shira]

50. the blockade started due to Intifada part II...also, remember Karine-A?

can you really blame Israel for blockading Gaza during all the suicide attacks in 2001? By the time the Intifada was dying out, the rockets, kassams, and grads were flying from Gaza.

[azurnoir]

51. This Karine-A?

The role of the Palestinian Authority
Apart from claiming that the ship belongs to the Palestinian Authority, Israel says that "senior figures" in the PA were involved in the smuggling, and that the weapons were intended for use by the authority.

Given the stringency of Israeli security measures, this is the part that many people find most unconvincing. Would the Palestinian Authority really be so stupid as to imagine that it could successfully import the weapons in this way?

Assuming the ship had not been stopped in the Red sea and had passed through the Suez canal without being caught by the Egyptians, the problem would be how to sneak its weapons into Gaza without the Israelis noticing. At current levels of surveillance, the chances of that happening are almost nil.

Moving the 62 large rockets within Gaza would also be extremely difficult because of Israeli checkpoints. The rockets' range is only 12 miles, so in order to attack Tel Aviv and most major Israeli cities, they would have to be moved out of Gaza and into the West Bank - which is well nigh impossible.

The four "senior" Palestinians who have been identified so far are not exactly household names, and the extent of corruption in the Palestinian Authority will make it difficult to establish whether they were acting in an official capacity or as part of a private racket.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/jan/21/israel1

Arafat may have been many things but stupid was not one of them and as delicious as the idea is for you it is just not very convincing at all

[shira]

52. another time for Karine-A, okay? And while Arafat wasn't stupid, he was a nutter terrorist

[shaayecanaan]

54. the Intifada started due to an occupation...

which is equally a valid cause for war. And why should the Palestinians be condemned for importing a single, pathetic cache of arms when Israel imports 3 billion dollars of American military kit every year?

Oh yeah, I forgot, the Palestinians don't have the right to self defence...

[shira]

56. you'd have a point if the peace process wasn't getting anywhere 9 years ago and Israel refused..

...to trade land for peace and end the occupation.

Compare the situation now in the W.Bank with Gaza and the cooperation now b/w Israel and the PA, the economy improving in the W.Bank, etc. You think if the PA just decided to wage war now, it would be justified? How about if Abbas decided to wage war right after rejecting Olmert's offer last year? Justifiable?

[shaayecanaan]

58. Certainly justifiable...

but probably not winnable. At the present time, Abbas is doing his level best to co-operate with the Israelis. However, if you talk to most Israelis (Pelsar for example) they seem to take this as evidence that the occupation is successful and should continue (in the meantime, for the moment being, until the appropriate juncture etc).

I imagine the current public mood will last for a few years more until the next intifada (which seems to run on a fairly regular cycle). Of course, when Intifada III breaks out, Israel will say that the Arabs cannot keep a peace and that therefore the occupation should continue. You would think that those two beliefs contradict each other, but somehow Israelis have become adept at glossing over such inconsistencies.

[shira]

71. attacking IDF may be justifiable, but certainly not the terror they unleash on citizens - right?

so the 'resistance' of Hamas and Fatah hasn't really been justifiable, has it?

[pelsar]

45. whats confusing?.....simple answer

before sept 12 gaza was occupied and israel controlled the sea:

israel evacuated gaza and in case you missed it, there were plans on building a port in gaza....before israel had a chance to remove the blockade, which was part of the occupation, Gaza declared defacto war by shooting missiles....the very night after israel left.

i'll repeat: gaza attacked israel, the very night israel removed the occupation....the blockade is a direct result of those attacks.

its called cause and effect: one society attacks with kassams the other the responds, in this case part of the response is the partial blockade.
_________

dates and the events that happen on those dates are relevant to the sequence of events and their meaning....your pretending that pre withdrawl and post withdrawl there is no difference, mainly because the Palestinians instead of taking advantage of it to improve their society chose to use it as a "better way to terrorize israelis." Some of us know better.

[shaayecanaan]

47. Bullshit....

Gaza declared defacto war by shooting missiles

Are you saying that there wasn't a war already?

before israel had a chance to remove the blockade, which was part of the occupation, Gaza declared defacto war by shooting missiles

Complete and utter bullshit.

The text of the disengagement plan states:-

Israel will hold sole control of Gaza airspace and will continue to carry out military activity in the waters of the Gaza Strip.

Not so much as a hint of wanting to stop a blockade in there anywhere. Was there anything else you wanted to add?

[pelsar]

49. the occupation was not a war....

whereas israeli occupied gaza...it was not considered a war....once israel left and the gazans were responsible for their own society, they had choices. They could have spent their limited resources on building their society or attacking the neighboring country....they chose the later

i realize you like the idea that israel being responsible for the air and sea spaces around gaza as being a blockade, but its not the same thing. The responsibility has the potential of being a blockade but doesn't have to be. The euros who were responsible for the gaza/egyptian border were not "blockading" gaza (or perhaps in your view they were......yes/no?)

(did you miss the discussions of the gaza sea port, its potential etc?)

and since the gazans preferred to attack israel the very night they left, they never gave the concept a chance......

us in israel have deemed that when a neighboring society trys to kill israelis as policy then its a defacto declaration of war....true some may believe that shooting israelis doesnt really mean anything, but we tend to disagree.

[shaayecanaan]

53. Perhaps the occupation was not a war from the Israeli's point of view...

but it was certainly so from the point of view of the Palestinians - the land seizures, the killings here and there, the land expropriations, the knocks on the door in the middle of the night and the men with guns.

I suppose you would concede that the occupation of southern Lebanon was a war, probably because the Lebanese killed Israelis frequently enough to remind them of that fact.

You seem to object to the fact that, after 30 or so years of occupation, the Palestinians finally resorted to suicide bombings and homemade artillery fire to try and be rid of it. It was not an unreasonable supposition, given that the Lebanese had rid themselves of the Israeli occupation by that very means, while those who favoured detente with the Israeli state (the Syrians for example) seemed perpetually mired in negotiations that seemed merely to give the illusion of a peace process.

I dare say if any other nation the world over found themselves in the position of the Palestinians they would fight until the end of time, and no one would begrudge them for it.

Certainly no one really begrudged the fact that the Lebanese killed Israeli soldiers during the occupation. Even the Americans conceded that as long as IDF troops were on Lebanese soil the Lebanese were entitled to kill them. The only exception to this seems to be the Palestinians. It is a very strange situation.

[pelsar]

55. no your wrong....i dont object to Palestinians resistance....

You seem to object to the fact that, after 30 or so years of occupation, the Palestinians finally resorted to suicide bombings and homemade artillery fire to try and be rid of it.

i object to incredible stupidity....and irresponsibility. Who ever has been attacking the jews (pre 48) and israelis inorder to get rid of them has failed miserable using the same strategy...and each time as israel adjusts to eliminate the threat, the attacker ends up losing more: (lebanon I with hizballa/iran/syrian owning s.lebanon, w. lebanon and parts of beruit was/is not good for lebanon)

sucide bombers?...walls and roadblocks..homemade artillery? invasion.....cross borders attacks (lebanon)...invasion.

god, you would think that the attackers and their friends might look around and figure out that its not working out to well....and what does work (if you don't know then you understand little of the conflict....)
____________

the reason why no other nation has found itself in a position of the Palestinians is due to a interesting mix of Palestinian "friends" that have agendas that are not always in the real interest of the Palestinians..this includes the UN, the arab states, many on the left and their own leadership

The Palestinians should resist the occupation......but if they want independence they're going to have to figure out a way that works, the present/past strategy isn't working so well is it?

[shaayecanaan]

57. As a Lebanese Christian

I am very glad that Hezbollah kicked Israel out of Lebanon, thank you very much. Hezbollah have their own problems, but if I had to choose between Hezbollah and living the life of a Palestinian under Israeli occupation I would not hesitate to choose the former.

A number of rabbis actually advocated building settlements in southern Lebanon during the War. They wrote a book called "Lebanon and the good mountain" where they advocated ethnically cleansing Beirut and settling it with Jews. HA even had sections translated and used it as propaganda, particularly in the Christian areas.

I suppose the question is, if settlers moved into Syria, Egypt, and Palestine, what stopped zealots from building outposts in Lebanon? I suspect the answer has something to do with what a Katyusha rocket can do to shacks made out of wood and roofing iron.

The IDF moved out of Gaza after the development of artillery (even pathetic home made artillery), since even these made it impossible to defend the settlements. The settlers never bothered with Lebanon in the first place for the same reason. If the West Bankers develop artillery (remember that the Gazans did so under the noses of the IDF) I imagine the West Bank settlements will go the same way.

FWIW, I agree with you that the biggest mistake the Palestinians made during Intifada II was hitting targets within Israel proper, which simply galvanised the Israeli public and lost them sympathy and credibility on the world stage. Had they concentrated on hitting the settlements and the military occupation, they probably would have fared better.

[pelsar]

59. you get the prize....

FWIW, I agree with you that the biggest mistake the Palestinians made during Intifada II was hitting targets within Israel proper, which simply galvanised the Israeli public

You have acknowledged one of the most difficult things for the "pro Palestinians crowd"....the fact that not just do the Palestinians have the power to change events, they are infact responsible for their actions..and those actions will result in consequences that change their lives for better or worse, distance their goal or get them closer.

Its rare admittance in the DU..........



actually they didn't even need a violent intifada II (intifada II was bullet oriented vs intifada I-rock/protest version). But then again, afafat was in charge of Intifada II and not the locals...and that goes back to their failed leadership.

rabbis advocating settlements in lebanon?...why am I not surprised...religious "leaders" can always be counted on to cause trouble, it goes with having god at your back.. And of course there were in fact settlers in Egypt (yamit), that was dismantled when egypt not just promised a peaceful border but gave israel confidence that it will carry it out. ANOTHER nail in the concept that israel wont give up land for peace.

but this where you are wrong (they have tried)
If the West Bankers develop artillery (remember that the Gazans did so under the noses of the IDF) I imagine the West Bank settlements will go the same way.
those same missiles would be used to hit major israeli cities..just as the gazans have tried, hence if they do succeed, like in the past so many times, it will only backfire and their lives will be that much more miserable....more raids, curfews, etc etc etc. Anybody who is "pro Palestinian should be "praying to their god" that they don't do it.

a few notes:
sharon leaving gaza, was nothing but brilliant in terms of strategy. He basically sacrificed the settlers in gaza, for the country...the lefts belief of "land for peace" with the Palestinians was put to the test.....the gazans, simply failed the test, and that put an end to the political split in the country. The israeli left would not stand for kassams on the airport, jerusalem, Netanya etc....coming from the westbank (the addition of hamas taking over, was the "cherry" as it scared the shit out of the westbankers, and their political elite forcing them to make a choice: IDF or hamas as their allies)

_____
personally, though Lebanon is very pretty, i never did like the idea of us being there...hopefully, the Lebanese govt, friends allies and militias wont attack israel again from Lebanese soil.....Lebanon III will look more like the gaza invasion than Lebanon II

[sabbat hunter]

69. The very act of blocking

the straits of Tiran is an act of war, as per the Geneva conventions.

Israel had every right to defend itself. As do the Palestinians. Problem is that the terror groups in Gaza deliberately target civilian areas, with an effort to try to maximize civilian casualties/fears.

Israel in 1967 struck at military targets. If Hamas/IJ/etc targeted strictly military targets they would get far more sympathy from me.

[stranger81]

32. Setting aside the false premises you rely on --

that "Palestinians started the war in 1947" and "instigated the 1967 war" -- many reasonable people do assert that "all those Palestinian acts were just self-defense." Until Israel divests itself of its status as an occupying power, it's simply complaining that the people whose destiny it insists on controlling continue to resist that occupation. And I, for one, have little sympathy for that complaint.

[azurnoir]

10. Thanks for confirming Mr Derfners premise n/t

[aranthus]

14. Right. The Palestinians have never attacked Israel.

The PLO never had a Charter that called for Israel's destruction. It's all some Israeli psychosis brought about by their racism and cultural egotism. Give me a break.

[azurnoir]

15. I do not think anyone has said that the Palestinians

have never attacked Israel, the psychosis is that Israel is mired in its own self righteousness.

[pelsar]

17. maybe they should just stop trying to kill israelis?

and then perhaps we wont be so "righteousness"....

kind of like whats happening in the westbank these days......pretty peaceful these days.....care to guess why?

[Ken Burch]

29. There's no difference between Palestinians killing Israelis

and Israelis killing Palestinians. Neither side has moral superiority.

[LeftishBrit]

21. That was part of the implication of the article...

'Because they're out to destroy us and all we are saying is give peace a chance.'

I am sure that both sides of the conflict believe that:

(a) their society is more moral;

(b) the others are the aggressors, and they are only defending themselves.

As indeed is the case for most conflicts.

[aranthus]

27. No. That wasn't the author's intent.

He reversed cause and effect, and ignored historical context.

His thesis is that the Israelis think they are a better society and therefore conclude that they are engaging in self defense. The reality is that they have been fighting a war, and conflict causes people to dehumanize the other side. He ignores the possibility that the Israelis may actually be engaged in self defense (at least on a strategic level). After June, 1942 the US engaged in an almost continuous offensive against Japan with the intent of forcing unconditional surrender. Were the Japanese engaging in self defense at that point? Yes they were. But weren't they also the aggressors? Did the Americans think that they were a better society? Yes they did. They were right. That belief also was not the reason that they thought that the Japanese were the aggressors. Pearl Harbor had something to do with it.

You're correct that in most conflicts each side believes itself to be moral, and doing the right thing, and this war is no different. Each side believes that their war is necessary and the other side is the brutal aggressor. What the author ignores is whether there is any objective basis for Israel's belief. Most wars don't just start. One side or the other starts fighting. In this case that side is the Palestinians.

[stranger81]

31. One is part and parcel of the other.

Israelis have convinced themselves that the Palestinians -- the occupied people the Israelis dispossessed of their land and rights, not vice versa -- are the aggressors because they believe the Palestinians to be inferior, not possessed of the right to self-defense. Hence, every defensive action taken by the Palestinians to resist occupation is viewed as an aggressive and unwarranted offensive attack.

I also seem to remember something about the "chosen people" in the Israeli national religion. I don't think it's farfetched to suggest that plays a role in permitting the Israeli state to feel free to routinely take actions against the Palestinians that would never be tolerated for a second within its own (legitimate) borders.

[pelsar]

33. so wrong..so full of illusions.....

a short history lesson for the less informed-

after intifda i, israel was woken up to the fact that the Palestinians really do want their own country and infact deserve it....and then came the acceptance of the concept.....From that point on, the Palestinians were regarded as a people that would one day have their own country, somewhere within the westbank and gaza.....with the provision that it not be used to attack israel. That in fact is the major sticking point.

the war has nothing to do with inferiority or superiority. It is true that most of israelis, be they arab, muslim, jew or christian tend to believe that Israelis western liberal democracy is a superior governing system that hamas in gaza or abbas tribal oriented society in the westbank, but thats hardly related to the gaza invasion or the nightly raids of the IDF and PA into hamas strongholds and safe houses in the westbank.

attacking israel here, i.e. demonizing israel for believing its *morally superior* is nothing more than another attempt to demonize israeli society........this time one makes up a story about israelis, pretend its true, than show how morally depraved israelis are.....

[LeftishBrit]

34. You are wrong about the 'chosen people'

That does NOT mean that they are 'chosen as superior'; it means that they are 'chosen to fulfil a task'. As someone once put it, it means 'chosen' as in 'it's your turn to wash the dishes'. This is something that is continually misunderstood, and it becomes quite exasperating.


'permitting the Israeli state to feel free to routinely take actions against the Palestinians that would never be tolerated for a second within its own (legitimate) borders.'

Unfortunately, it is generally the case that countries will often feel free to do to the 'other', especially an 'enemy', what they would never do in their own borders. E.g. our own countries in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This doesn't excuse Israel (I fully agree with Derfner's article); but it does not have some uniquely objectionable culture.

[shira]

36. this article is a riot so here's a challenge, name one time Israel attacked without provocation

[shaayecanaan]

37. 1956 (nt)

[shira]

38. wow - you had to go back over 50 years for that reach

And there was provocation for that one...
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Suez_War.html

Less than two weeks later, on October 25, Egypt signed a tripartite agreement with Syria and Jordan placing Nasser in command of all three armies.

The continued blockade of the Suez Canal and Gulf of Aqaba to Israeli shipping, combined with the increased fedayeen attacks and the bellicosity of recent Arab statements, prompted Israel, with the backing of Britain and France, to attack Egypt on October 29, 1956.

Israeli Ambassador to the UN Abba Eban explained the provocations to the Security Council on October 30:

During the six years during which this belligerency has operated in violation of the Armistice Agreement there have occurred 1,843 cases of armed robbery and theft, 1,339 cases of armed clashes with Egyptian armed forces, 435 cases of incursion from Egyptian controlled territory, 172 cases of sabotage perpetrated by Egyptian military units and fedayeen in Israel. As a result of these actions of Egyptian hostility within Israel, 364 Israelis were wounded and 101 killed. In 1956 alone, as a result of this aspect of Egyptian aggression, 28 Israelis were killed and 127 wounded.

One reason these raids were so intolerable for Israel was that the country had chosen to create a relatively small standing army and to rely primarily on reserves in the event of war. This meant that Israel had a small force to fight in an emergency, that threats provoking the mobilization of reserves could virtually paralyze the country, and that an enemy's initial thrust would have to be withstood long enough to complete the mobilization.

========

ETA:

In this article, you'll read that Eisenhower regretted his decision to force Israel out of the Sinai in 1956...
http://ivarfjeld.wordpress.com/2009/08/18/us-president-eisenhower-regretted-forcing-israel-to-pull-back/

[shaayecanaan]

39. The fedayeen operated mainly from Jordan

and obviously, the objective of the 1956 war (to seize control of the Suez canal) had nothing to do with fedayeen, nor is there the slightest suggestion that that was the motivation for the Suez war.

The quote from Eisenhower is slightly dubious. The attribution appears to come from a biography of Max Fischer, from 1992. It is surprising that such a significant quote was not recorded more contemporaneously.

[oberliner]

40. Your information is not correct

While Britain and France were most concerned with the Suez Canal, the 1956 conflict for Israel had everything to do with the fedayeen.

Not only was there "the slightest suggestion" that this was what motivated Israel's involvement in this conflict, but numerous speeches and statements given at the time make it clear that the fedayeen attacks were indeed paramount.

On the very day that Israeli forces crossed into Egypt, this statement was issued by the Israeli Foreign Ministry:

"Israel has taken the necessary measures to destroy Egyptian fidayun bases in the Sinai Peninsula.

These units, organized some two years ago by the Egyptian Government and forming part of the Egyptian regular army, were intended to spread terror in Israel by acts of indiscriminate murder, mining, and sabotage.

These units were quiet for a few weeks on the Egyptian border during the period of Egypt's deep involvement with the maritime nations of the world on the Suez Canal issue.

With the conclusion of the Security Council's deliberations, Colonel Nasser felt himself immediately free to authorize the fidayun units to renew their incursions into Israel territory.

Within the last week 24 Israeli casualties in dead and wounded were caused by mines planted by the fidayun in the Negev territory."

<end of citation>

Speaking to the UN, Israel's ambassador said the following on November 1, 1956:

"On Monday, 29 October, the Israel Defense Forces took security measures in the Sinai Peninsula in the exercise of our country's inherent right of self-defense. The object of these operations is to eliminate the bases from which armed Egyptian units, under the special care and authority of Colonel Nasser, invade Israel's territory for murder, sabotage and the creation of permanent insecurities to peaceful life. These are the only military activities for which the Government of Israel is responsible."

<end of citation>

He went on to cite the activities of the fedayeen (originating from Egypt) as violations of the UN Charter.

Note: All documents can be found on at http://www.mfa.gov.il.

[shaayecanaan]

41. I don't think you quite understand...

the fedayeen operated mainly from Jordan, it being easier to get in and out through the mainly Arab-populated West Bank.

Seizing control of the Suez to stop the fedayeen makes about as much sense as the US seizing the Panama Canal to stop al-Qaeda. Indeed, when Israel actually seized the Sinai in 1967, attacks by fedayeen continued.

Of course, Israel used the fedayeen attacks as a pretext for the 1956 war, as it does for almost all its wars. Israel used the attempted assassination of its London ambassador as pretext for the 1982 Lebanon war, notwithstanding that that attack had nothing to do with the PLO and even less to do with Lebanon. These pretexts are generally intended for the gullible and suggestible, of which there are many on this board.

Of course, the fedayeen themselves claimed they were merely retaliating for the killings of returning refugees by Israeli troops, which routinely amounted to 500 dead Arabs a year at the hands of the IDF.

[oberliner]

44. I think you are missing the full picture

The attacks were not limited to the Suez Canal region. You will note that Israeli forces were fighting fedayeens in Gaza, which is not near the Suez Canal.

There were various players with differing objectives in this conflict. The objectives of the UK and Israel were not entirely the same (although there was some overlap).

That there were fedayeens operating in Gaza, for instance, which was part of Egypt and directly bordred Israel is a documented fact.

Whether you think the fedayeen were justified in their attacks against Israelis is another question altogether.

[Taitertots]

46. What are the stated goals of Hamas?

If Hamas stopped firing rockets and accepted peace with Israel everything would be over. If Israel stopped attacking Hamas, Hamas would continue attacking Israel because that is it's stated goals. You can't instigate a fight with rockets and claim self defense when people come to stop them.

That is why Israel is acting in self defense.

[Violet_Crumble]

60. But killing innocent Palestinians isn't 'self-defense'...

Hamas can't be blamed for everything, as this whole attitude that anything Israel does is self-defense and the Palestinians have no right to self-defence has been around for many years longer than Hamas has controlled Gaza. Bombing civilian areas isn't self-defense at all, blockading Gaza and punishing the entire population isn't self-defense either. Reality is that Palestinians have just as much right to self-defense as Israelis do, and that in both cases there's lines that self-defense shouldn't cross and international humanitarian law shouldn't be violated in doing so...

[shira]

61. then provide us with effective ways in which Israel can and should defend its citizens

folks like yourself believe almost anything Israel does in response to suicide bombers and rockets is wrong. So what should Israel do that would be effective, legal and moral?

if, as I believe, you have no answer - it can only be assumed that you think Israeli citizens should just accept the intolerable situation that existed prior to OCL or prior to 2002's 'Defensive Shield'.

------

if you reply that Israel should negotiate better, hand over the W.Bank, etc... assume that the situation doesn't approve, then what?

[Violet_Crumble]

62. Why don't you do what you always do and tell me what I think?

Sure, it cuts out the pretense that yr actually interested in what I say in reply, but it does appear to be the much speedier way of you coming to a conclusion that's satisfactory to you, plus it saves me wasting time saying what I think when I know it's going to be ignored in favour of what someone else wants to believe I think...

Anyway, on the assuming, go for yr life. I'm always fascinated to find out what some people insist I must think :)

[shira]

63. just asking - otherwise it looks like all you're capable of is criticizing Israel for anything...

...it does without offering better solutions.

And that makes you no better than anyone else with an opinion.

[Violet_Crumble]

64. I'll refer you back to the post you totally ignored when you hit reply...

I'm not sure why yr pretending there's any other reason than what I've just said for why I'm not interested in wasting time where I tell you what I think and you tell me that I think something the complete opposite...

[shira]

65. i'm not telling you what you think - i'm asking

[Violet_Crumble]

66. You've done it before, and you've been doing it again here...

So why not cut all the pretense of being interested in what I think about anything and just continue to trot out what you want to believe I think? I can't stop you doing that, and I suspect it's much more gratifying for you and I don't have to waste my time at all...

[shira]

67. i'm not doing it - just asking - so what's your answer? please, do tell!

[Violet_Crumble]

68. Was there something unclear about what I said in post 62?

I wish you'd stop ignoring what I said to you in that post. Seriously, I've never met anyone who's so intent on not taking the hint as you are.

[shira]

73. too difficult a question, isn't it?

[Violet_Crumble]

74. No. Now what is it about post 62 that's causing you to ignore everything I said?

I seem to remember asking you to stop hounding me before, as apart from being pretty creepy and obsessive, so I'm not sure what's given you the idea that you should start up again...

[shira]

75. i ignore your lame attempts to duck, dodge, and evade

and the only thing here that's creepy and obsessive is your unhealthy fixation on all that's wrong - whether real or imagined - mostly imagined - with Israel and its people.

[Violet_Crumble]

76. No, yr ignoring what I said in post 62....

And it's rather unbecoming to invent supposed fixations I don't have. It's behaviour like that and yr abusiveness that's led to me not giving you any more chances, Shira. And haranguing another poster like you have done to me is something that's covered in the rules, so you might like to have a rethink of whatever it is yr strategy is here before you go any further...

[UndertheOcean]

72. K&R ... Amazing articel