quote:But we must not embrace the murder of little children, the killing of those who have done no wrong to us.
I do not want to embrace murder of anybody.
But the Jewish dictum: "he who comes to kill you, kill him first" does apply. It may be more relevant in this case than the Sixth commandment "Thou shall not MURDER" which says nothing about killing.
As for little children, I wish we could keep them out of this. But when parents and teachers train and encourage them to be suicide bombers, when it is hard to tell if the suicide belt worn by a five-year-old is a toy or the real thing. We may still have to kill children who have done us no wrong! It is the parents and teacher that are wrong in this case. The children are also victims.
[This message has been edited by seagull (edited May 24, 2002).]
I'm sorry, that was not strongly connected to the previous posts (partly for reasons beyond my control, partly because I chose to be so terse as to perhaps become obscure).
In your post on the last page:
quote:seagull Member posted May 23, 2002 04:55 AM
quote:If these settlers harbor terrorists among them_
I used to know some of these settlers. I find it hard to believe that the people I knew would consciously support Baruch Goldstein any more than the teachers at Columbine supported the murderers in their school by teaching them. But then, it has been a long time, and living so close to the Arabs, they have been exposed to Arab civilization for a long time. It is hard for me to imagine what else they may have learned from that culture.
Let me repeat that statement.
In some ways Arabs are much more civilized than we are and therefore have a "superior" culture to ours. This is how they see themselves and they are not completely wrong about it! Until we understand that, they will be varelse leaving us with the horrifying choice between suicide and genocide.
quote: That's a horrific usage of the term "civilized."
Wake up and smell the 9/11 ashes!
Their thinking and values may always be completely alien to us. But we must strive to understand them, to think from their point of view, to try and predict their attacks. Without that understanding, we will not even have a horrifying choice to make. We will simply lose the war and the choice will be theirs.
In this battle of getting to understand them better, I find that the settlers who live close to them know them the best. My best insights into Arab culture come from talking to my Arab friends. My best insights into the cultural gap between us comes from talking to Israeli friends who spend their lives studying the Arab culture in order to find ways to co-exist with it (in either peace or war). But my best insights on how to win a war with the Arabs come from my settler friends who actually do manage to co-exist with Arab on a daily basis (without killing them all). And some of the things that the settlers and the Arabs seem to agree on are rather surprising. For example, some of the settlers seem to have accepted the Arab’s definition of Peace as given in Lisa Liel’s essay.
I may not like what the settlers are doing. But if we want our culture to survive this war, they may be our best hope.
I know that you do not mean embracing the ethos of slaughtering innocents, of accepting terrorism as an acceptable form of "conflict resolution", of ourselves imitating such behavior...and yet that is what your words can be taken to say. Worse, that is what some will take them to mean.
I reject 'engagement' with the culture of radical Islam. I believe that we must look upon the murder of innocents with undiminished horror, and respond appropriately. I believe that we should accept killing every person that acts in these ways, even if that means exterminating an entire people, because I do not believe in sparing the lives of murderers and worse, those that love and rejoice in terroizing and slaughtering the innocent.
If leaving the Palestinian culture intact means leaving it in the hands of such bestial and merciless individuals, and letting them teach children to be likewise full of hatred and spite for all that is virtuous or good, then I say destroy that culture utterly for the sake of those children, even if they too should die.
There are things that I will not countenance, and learning to "understand" and tolerate such vicious attacks on the innocent, and the perversion of teaching children to believe that such things are holy and just, which is even worse, is beyond me.
You mean that we must accept the casual acceptance of violence as a means of resolving conflict if we are ever to have peace with the Islamic world, and I must agree that violence is necessary. But if tolerating the murder of the innocent is required for peace, then I will have everlasting warfare, till all nations are consumed with fire and sword, and every drop of human blood shed, rather than peace at that price.
This is not a small distinction. We must accept, embrace violence. But we must never accept murder.
On the original topic of these posts, one factor was overlooked. For the number of people in the Jenin camp, despite the extremely high initial estimates, very few people were crushed in bulldozed buildings. I never saw an official number, but it was something like 50-70 killed and most were killing in fire-fights and not bulldozed buiildings. The Israeli army did have a policy to prevent unnecessary death. They warned people what they were doing, they nudged buildings with a bulldozer, gave people a minute to two to exit and then they crushed it. The highly publicized deaths were of elderly people or those in wheelchairs who were unable to escape and wouldn't have escaped even if tear gas was used. Not to mention, the fighters who they would like to capture are most likely to have gas masks to protect them anyway.
In addition, as was implied in some other posts, tear gas works ok in open spaces. I believe it is heavier than air so if you are in a basement and tear gas is used, something that is normally unpleasant can become extremely dangerous or deadly.
quote:I reject 'engagement' with the culture of radical Islam.
The rest of your post seems to accept and encourage a violent engagement with them. Part of such an engagement includes collecting information and military intelligence. My premise is that, it is essential to understand your enemy if you want to survive. Do you disagree with that premise?
quote:I believe that we must look upon the murder of innocents with undiminished horror, and respond appropriately. I believe that we should accept killing every person that acts in these ways
I Agree. But it is also essential to understand what leads to these horrors. Please do not misunderstand me, I am not interested in PC excuses, murder is inexcusable! We must understand in order to prevent it from happening again.
quote:If leaving the Palestinian culture intact means leaving it in the hands of such bestial and merciless individuals, and letting them teach children to be likewise full of hatred and spite for all that is virtuous or good, then I say destroy that culture utterly for the sake of those children, even if they too should die.
If Palestinian culture is indeed varelse to you, you may be correct. As far as I can tell, American and Arab/Moslem values are so far apart that they may indeed be varelse to each other. The result means horrible deaths on both sides until one culture exterminates the other. And even if these deaths are excusable (self defense against an enemy that can not be stopped by negotiations) they would still be horrible.
quote:There are things that I will not countenance, and learning to "understand" and tolerate such vicious attacks on the innocent, and the perversion of teaching children to believe that such things are holy and just, which is even worse, is beyond me.
I want to understand. I will not tolerate! But sometimes there is a middle ground. If there is a way to destroy the murderous culture, without destroying every child in it, I would like to find that way. People like the Israeli settlers may help us find such a way. I think I’ll start another thread to discuss that issue.
quote: You mean that we must accept the casual acceptance of violence as a means of resolving conflict if we are ever to have peace with the Islamic world, and I must agree that violence is necessary.
There is a world of difference between “casual acceptance of violence” and “acceptance of casual violence”. Which one of those did you mean? Posts: 1910 | Registered: May 2002
I read a story in Time about the gas attack used. The claim was that the Russians had planned on having more medical care there with an antidote to the gas, but that something happened inside the theater that made the attack go early. Supposedly there was some type of confritation between the terrorist and the hostages, and the police were afraid the the terrorist were going to kill a large number of the hostages. Therefore they went in before the proper medical supplies and teams could be rounded up. I have no idea how true this is.
I think that the Russians did the right thing. 1 in 6 survival rate is a good Russian Roulette chance of survival, which is better odds than I'd have given the hostages had they been left to the tender mercies of the terrorists. I'll wager good money that the next major Islamist terrorist attacks will occur in continental Europe and in the South Pacific, rather than against the US, the UK, China, or Russia. Why? Because while the latter four countries have done more to provoke Islamic wrath, they have also shown themselves tough on terrorism. The French, Italians, Germans, and Spanish have shown the terrorists their soft underbelly. An open wound attracts flies.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:1 in 6 survival rate is a good Russian Roulette chance of survival
I think you meant 5 in 6 survival rate
Maybe it is good enough for the Russians. But it is not good enough for Israelis or Palestinians
On the other hand, I think that according to the UN even 1 in 6 survival rate for Jews is still too high (they'd rather see us all dead). Whereas 1 in 100 for Palestinians who refused to evacuate after being warned is still considered a "massacre".
Hmm. I do remember some Israeli types on an MSNBC board who wished that Barak had died at Entebbe, rather than Sharon's brother. But then Israelis do have the world record for this sort of thing ... 1 dead at Entebbe was rather miraculous odds. Compared to the Germans during the Olympic rescue attempt, the Russian survival rate of 5/6 is rather good.
As for the US friendship with Israel ... I am ashamed for having rubbed your face in it in past conversation. I am more than a little sick at the American apologists who decry Israeli strikes on terrorists while saying that our own strikes are something "different." I have come to expect this sort of mendacity from Democrats (who thought this sort of strike was OK *without* any sort of declaration of war when CLINTON did it, but condemn it when Bush does it when Bush *has* actually been authorized by congress to fight Al Qaeda), but now I'm even hearing this crap from Republicans, who I thought were at least friends to Israel. Well, Israelis have always known that they could not trust anyone in the end. Now I won't slap them for ingrattitude anymore when they say it. It's true: we can't be counted on.
The only possible moral difference that I could construe between what we just did in Yemen, and what Israel does with Palestinian terrorists, is that the Yemen strike did not appear to imperil innocent bystanders. But this seems to be more of a fortunate circumstance for the US than any sort of superiority of moral doctrine -- Clinton and Bush have both struck at Bin Ladin and hurt innocents who got in the way.
quote:wished that Barak had died at Entebbe, rather than Sharon's brother
Minor point of information It wasn’t Sharon’s Brother, It was Yoni Netanyahu Bibi’s brother and one of the people I mentioned as a hero in (http://www.ornery.org/forums/essays/forum/Forum6/HTML/001045-2.html). Personally I would exchange Bibi for Yoni any day if I could.
quote:1 dead at Entebbe was rather miraculous odds
quote:The soldiers freed the hostages in a lightning attack, killing all eight terrorists in the process. Tragically, force commander Yoni Netanyahu was killed as he led the hostages toward the safety of the aircraft; additionally, two hostages were killed in the crossfire inside the airport.
There were also many “innocent” airport guards killed after they fired on the Israel troops (Yoni was killed by the Ugandan guards, not by terrorists). In addition to that:
quote:One hostage, Mrs. Dora Bloch, was not rescued because she had been taken to a hospital in Kampala. She was subsequently murdered on Idi Amin’s orders.
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_entebbe.php But while Entebbe was one of the most famous and successful Israeli rescue missions, Israel has had its failures too. It has learned from these failures and I assume (no first hand knowledge although I personally know some of the guys who were in Entebbe and my brother work with one of the paratroopers whose unit lost 13 soldiers in Jenin) that they knew what they were doing when they chose not to use gas in Jenin. The reason I mentioned for not using gas long before the Russian incident happened was that it can not be targeted accurately and the quantity needed to knock out healthy enemy combatants is likely to kill the weaker hostages (or ones exposed to larger concentrations). The incident in Russia demonstrated my point. The Palestinian civilian survival ratio in Jenin was much larger than the Russian civilian survival ratio in that theater. And the Russian civilians were NOT on the enemy’s side. Israel does not consider a survival ratio of 1/6 to be acceptable even for enemy civilians! It aimed for and achieved much better survival rates. Pete my earlier comment about “they'd rather see us all dead” referred to the UN (not the US). But thanks for the support and the apology anyway. Posts: 1910 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
Yes; I meant Bibi -- thanks for the correction. But I thought that Barak had been the actual commander of the raid... that Yoni had actually died under Bibi's command. Oh -- I realized that you meant UN, not the US. I still maintain that we are friends, even good friends, just not as reliable as I would have hoped. I'd still like to think that we are the gentiles spoke of by Isaiah.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Palestinian civilian survival ratio in Jenin was much larger than the Russian civilian survival ratio in that theater. And the Russian civilians were NOT on the enemy’s side. Israel does not consider a survival ratio of 1/6 to be acceptable even for enemy civilians! It aimed for and achieved much better survival rates.
Of course. But we can't all be Israelis. The Russian rescue was good work by gentile standards