They killed seven, including a three-year-old toddler. Israeli security said they would continue these targetted killings. They targetted a three-year-old. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&ncid=578&e=2&u=/nm/20030612/ts_nm/mideast_dc
I'm very much against the Israeli stance of stooping to the terrorists' level, but said terrorists probably wouldn't care if there was a three year-old on the bus they detonated yesterday. Someone has to be the first to stop.
Our dollars feed the IDF through the state department. Our dollars feed Hamas through Saudi Arabia. Maybe we need to be the first to stop.
You apparently did not read the article (or chose to omit the most important part for propaganda purposes). Israel did not target "a three year old", they targeted his father, Yasser Taha, a "senior" member of Hamas, who had the gall to be riding around in public with his family immediately following a terror attack carried out by his group. He had to know he'd be targeted after one of his men murdered 16 Israelis in the heart of Jerusalem - driving around with his family was nothing more than the use of his own children's impending death for propaganda purposes.
Couldn't agree more, but first let's invade another oil producing nation so we can forget Suad and keep our SUVs http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid=34&in=world&cat=myanmar
That's a good point, but your one earlier about targeting a three year old is a little off. They targetted a guy, and killed a 3 year old near by. I don't think the IDF thought the 3 year old was a terrorist. I'm about halfway through a Tom Friedman book about Palestine and Isreal, and the more you read it the less likely peace seems. When you have two sides saying that they are both deserving of land because God told them specifically that this land was theirs, you are in trouble. Neither God is going to stop by and concede territory. I hope they can work the road map to peace out fairly for both sides, but that road map is going to see a lot of blood on it before they reach the finish line. I think it's really a question of wills, who is willing to keep negotiating while people die? And then you have Hamas, which might never stop even if an agreement is struck. Not really helping, is it?
Too many children have been killed. It's just chilling that the Israeli security forces used the language of "targetted killings" in conjunction with this particular killing. The three-year-old was in the car with the Hamas leader. Since the IDF knew their adult target was in the car, they also knew the child was in the car. Their intelligence is actually that good. And no human being would have their child killed for propaganda purposes.
No the fucking didn't. They targetted a known terrorist, successfully removed his scum ass from the face of the planet, and accidentally kiled a 3-year-old in the process. If the Hamas cowards weren't hiding behind 3-year-olds, the 3-year-old would still be alive.
Mods: Perhaps we need to merge this and the "Whoopee: Son is a bomber" thread into one "Israel" thread lest we end up with 47 Israel threads again. Just an idea.
I was actually interested in the language of the IDF and how folks will interpret it. People rationalize so much, and it comes through in word choice. Look at the responses.
I am sick of hearing silly comments like "someone has to be the first to stop" as if all Israel needs to do is stop tracking down members of Hamas (or take some other political or military step) and everything will be OK. According to Rantisi: "I swear we will not leave one Jew in Palestine." This is not about occupation or even the idea of a Jewish state. This is about the right of Jews to live in the region Hamas calls Palestine (everything from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea). Israel agreed to the road map. Hamas said it would not. Abu Mazen said he would not use military means to confront Hamas. Israel had no choice - it could either agree to a deluding cease-fire, basically just giving Hamas to re-arm and become even more lethal once it found another pretense to continue its efforts to "not leave one Jew in Palestine," or continue fighting Hamas so that it would remain in a somewhat defensive posture. (It's no coincidence that one of Hamas' most deadly attacks came immediately after an apparent calm - the calm gave Hamas time to rearm and plan a particularly lethal attack. That is the cost of "peace" for Israel as long as Abu Mazen refuses to fight terrorism for fear of starting a civil war.) As for the person who said he's reading a Tom Friedman book about "Israel and Palestine", I believe you're talking about From Beurit to Jerusalem - the Israeli political scene has completely changed since then. Basically, what in that book was the Israeli left is now the center-right (i.e., Sharon), and everything to Sharon's left was completely unheard of at the time outside of the communist party.
From the article....."An Israeli security source said the missile strike followed a Defense Ministry order for the army "to use everything they have" against the Islamic militant group Hamas, which claimed responsibility for the bus bombing and vowed further attacks." Translation: Normally we wouldn't blow up a Hamas leaders' car if his family is with him. That didn't work. Now we have the authority to blow up the car even if his family is in it. I don't have a problem with this "change" in Israeli policy. At least the actual "target" is a Hamas leader. Unlike a bunch of civilians in a bus.
So. We've established that neither side give a rat's ass about killing the other side's children. Isn't that lovely. Not exactly news, though. Oh well, now the Palestinians will do another suicide bombing "in response" to the Israeli airstrike. Then the Israelis will do another airstrike "in response" to the suicide bombing. Then the Palestinians will do another suicide bombing "in response" to the Israeli airstrike. Then the Israelis will do another airstrike "in response" to the suicide bombing. Then the Palestinians will do another suicide bombing "in response" to the Israeli airstrike. Then the Israelis will do another airstrike "in response" to the suicide bombing. Then the Palestinians will do another suicide bombing "in response" to the Israeli airstrike. Then the Israelis will do another airstrike "in response" to the suicide bombing. Then the Palestinians will do another suicide bombing "in response" to the Israeli airstrike. Then the Israelis will do another airstrike "in response" to the suicide bombing. Then the Palestinians will do another suicide bombing "in response" to the Israeli airstrike. Then the Israelis will do another airstrike "in response" to the suicide bombing. Then the Palestinians will do another suicide bombing "in response" to the Israeli airstrike. Then the Israelis will do another airstrike "in response" to the suicide bombing. Then the Palestinians will do another suicide bombing "in response" to the Israeli airstrike. Then the Israelis will do another airstrike "in response" to the suicide bombing. Then the... As long as the leadership on both sides is content with the status quo (and they are) then nothing will ever change. Neither side wants peace. We can't force them to want peace. It's a shame, but there ya go.
put NATO in, let NATO stop the terrorists. Abu Mazen can't do it, and Israel can't allow its people to be attacked. there are terrorists groups that oppose the peace agreement. they will strike because they know Israel will retaliate and the spiral will continue. an outside group needs to be responsible for security while the two sides work on an agreement.
Really? What about the suicide bombers whose parents knew what they were up to? Who are "proud" of their children?
No, the IDF doesn't have a policy of intentionally murdering civilians. Maybe you have them confused with the PLO (those acronyms can be tricky, I'll admit), what with their policy of sending out people with dynamite strapped to their chest to blow up school buses, pizzerias, and bar mitzvah parties.
I agree, but I wasn't talking about the politics in the book. I was talking about the feeling of the people involved that this issue is based heavily on religion, something that has not changed. You can't legislate a religious belief out of someone's head. I support the road map, the peace initiatives, all of it. I just see it as an extremely difficult issue to resolve in 3 months of negotiations by our CEO president, because religion is heavily involved. That's not to say they all shouldn't try.
In contrast to the alternative: Then the Palestinians will do another suicide bombing Then the Palestinians will do another suicide bombing Then the Palestinians will do another suicide bombing Then the Palestinians will do another suicide bombing Then the Palestinians will do another suicide bombing Then the Palestinians will do another suicide bombing Then the Palestinians will do another suicide bombing Then the Palestinians will do another suicide bombing You're right of course. When Israel unilaterally left Lebanon, it ushered in an era of peace between the two countries. Hezbollah stopped its war against Israel and both sides joined hands and sung "We Are the World." Someone should explain this to Ariel Sharon.
They weren't three-year-olds. The suicide bombers have been going after ordinary Israelis that doing the things they do during their ordinary lives. They've been targetting mostly middle-class folks, attempting to be as disruptive as possible. Hamas has the blood of many children on their hands. So now both sides have become radicalized, and an on-going war seems to be the policy of both Hamas and the Israeli government.
Israel has one of the world's largest arms indsutry (#3 in exports according to one measure by Jane's) desite getting vetoed left and right by USA, its main competitor. Those dollars have a lot of strings attached.
Are you frickin nuts? Send NATO/American troops into a ****hole like that - where they'll be shot and killed by extremists on both sides - and will only serve to p*ss people off more? I'd much rather be sending our troops into Iran, Syria, North Korea, Vietnam again, hell, even taking over France - before I see one american soldier in Israel/Palestine in between those bloodthirsty fundamentalists. Let's keep pushing for them to stop - suspend relations, lean on neighbors, whatever - but no way should we get involved on the ground.
in my mind, there is no more important long term interest for the United States in the Middle East than achieving peace for this conflict. for me, it's worth American lives because over the long run, i think it deflates Arab anger and removes the key excuse Arab leaders use for the strong handed control of their people. leaning on these guys won't work. achieving peace is basically going to require a civil war within the palestinian state and a near civil war within Israel. as long as they can focus on each other, they won't focus on themselves. if terrorists strike NATO forces, NATO will respond, not Israel. and if terrorists are focusing on attacking NATO, they're not focusing on destroying Israel. it will be bloody, but that region is already causing us a great deal of blood. US troops can't do it alone because the perceived Israeli bias. European troops can't do it alone because of the perceived pro-Pales (or anti-Israel) bias. so no, i'm not frickin nuts.
OK, I understand your arguements, but don't agree with the conclusions. You're scary, not nuts. (same goes for the neocons who have the same views) Many american/european lives would be saved if one group of powerful american politicians said "Israel, sorry guys, but you're on your own. Supporting you and getting the jewish vote here is not worth it anymore. How much oil do you give us? How much trouble do you give us? Guess what - I'm outta here". Yes, its kinda a betrayal, but what has Israel done for us lately? Things would either get solved semi-peacefully or with a lot of blood - but it wouldn't be ours. (Unless it creates an Israeli Al Quida-type group)