June 5, 2002

11:47 PM

So what's the difference between the latest suicide bombing and the incursion in Jenin? Both targeted off-duty combatants (13 of the 17 killed on the bus were armed soldiers, the majority killed in Jenin were armed combatants) and both had "collateral damage" of civilians. If one argues that Jenin was a military operation that pursued combatants and unfortunately civilians were caught in between, couldn't one argue the same about this bus bombing? Disclaimer: I oppose both as immoral.
posted by laz-e-boy (19 comments total)

As distasteful as the whole thing is, I think if the Palestinians stuck to targeting the military there would be less international outrage at their tactics, since then it truly would be a case of tit for tat ... at least on the face of it.
posted by donkeyschlong at 12:11 AM on June 6, 2002

I really don't see what we can gain by going over this again. It's ended up being a boring game of ping pong time and time again, except with sharp, hurtful ping pong balls. But if it must be, so be it. *Sigh*
posted by evanizer at 12:17 AM on June 6, 2002

This is not news: this exact argument has been used by the Palestinians since the resumption of suicide bombing. Al-aksa has said they will halt suicide bombing when Israel stops military actions which harm Palestinian civilians. And on the other hand, Israel has said that military actions which cause civilian deaths are necessary and justified in order to stop Palestinian suicide bombers.

So, like many ethnic conflicts around the world, it comes down to a question of who started it. Both sides can feel justified because they feel that their own atrocities are a necessary response to the atrocities of the other side. In this way the fundamentalists on both sides manage to pull the moderates to the extremes.
posted by riddley at 12:58 AM on June 6, 2002

Without getting into any sort of debate or commentary I would like to point out that such suicidez bombings seem to happen on schedule as soon as the U.S. sends an envoy to try to bring about peace talks.
posted by Postroad at 5:18 AM on June 6, 2002

Israel: please reoccupy the territories. Completely. After an initial period of mayhem, every sane person will realize it was a good idea. Including sane Palestinian Arabs.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:23 AM on June 6, 2002

It's interesting to observe that post-Jenin, etc., Arafat has not become the hero the media suggested he had become. He is LESS popular. It's obvious he days are numbered. Also, nice move: offering Hamas a position in the government.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:38 AM on June 6, 2002

Here is an inescapable conclusion: wars of this type exist because both sides *want* it. They *crave* it, they *lust* for it; their hate has become reason in itself. Each side somehow feels its pain will be mitigated only if it can be transmitted to "them", the hated enemy.

And just like the endless religious riots in India, or North Ireland, the stimulus is every human vice, especially boredom and envy. A spiral of meanness, where pleasure means nothing--when unaccompanied by pain in someone else.

1) The most resented character in their performance art is the individual who tries to prevent it, the peacemaker. He is hated by both antagonists.

2) Technology is lost on such people: they cannot distinguish between a rock and a nuclear bomb.
posted by kablam at 7:19 AM on June 6, 2002

Disclaimer: I oppose both as immoral

Very easy to do from San Fransisco.

I agree with kablam. At some point both sides just seem to become dependant on the conflict, almost requiring it in their daily lives.

I don't think they are even capable of resolving this themselves at this point, at least not the current leadership. In time, maybe a few sane people will rise to the surface and steer both sides away from the current tactics in use right now.

Either way, it is a damn shame that we are in the 21st Century and still behaving like this.
posted by a3matrix at 7:49 AM on June 6, 2002

If one argues that Jenin was a military operation that pursued combatants and unfortunately civilians were caught in between, couldn't one argue the same about this bus bombing?

And conversely, *stroking beard* as the terrorist blend with the population, why not employ the tactic of targeting all Palestinian civilians in the service of Israeli self-defense? Why not use superior force to kill as many Palestinians as possible before some of those people kill Israelis? It would indeed be self-defense. The tactic of terror depends for its success only on the moral superiority of the adversary--on the willingness of the Israelis to refrain from the abhorrent behavior the Palestinians broadly support. By relying on the superior morality of their enemies, the advocates of terrorism concede their own immorality and forfeit their own legitimacy. And it's hard to think of a consideration that this particular form of evil "transcends."
posted by semmi at 8:54 AM on June 6, 2002

Either way, it is a damn shame that we are in the 21st Century and still behaving like this.

As opposed to say, Afghanistan?

Modernity is humming right along in the US of A, and it was easy to think that as the Americans go, so goes the world.

History says that genocide is not rare and will re occur periodically.
posted by BentPenguin at 12:06 PM on June 6, 2002

From the posted article:The terror group said the bomber, Hamza Samudi, was from the West Bank town of Jenin, and Israel responded by sending tanks there on Wednesday. Oh...

From the comments:as the terrorist blend with the population, why not employ the tactic of targeting all Palestinian civilians in the service of Israeli self-defense? Actually, since Israel has military conscription, wouldnt the argument be more valid in reverse - since every Israeli is a member of the armed forces (and those backpacks are holding pistols), aren't they 'legitimate targets'? As for "the willingness of the Israelis to refrain from the abhorrent behavior the Palestinians broadly support," I dont think that anyone could argue that is true, from the Sabra Shatila massacres of 1982 through to Jenin. (states opinion for the record) Israel is a terrorist, racist state.
posted by fellorwaspushed at 1:27 PM on June 6, 2002

there would be less international outrage at their tactics

Donkey, you need to step outside the United States. There is far more outrage toward Israel worldwide than against Palestine.
posted by fleener at 2:31 PM on June 6, 2002

Well, one big difference is that, for this little battle anyway, the suicide bombers struck first. Do you think the Israelis would have still gone into Jenin without being provoked?
posted by ArkIlloid at 9:10 PM on June 6, 2002

No, the big difference is that the Palestinians seem to be blowing up as many people as they can. If Israel did that, there would be no more Palestinians.

Which is not to claim Israel is showing restraint out of the goodness of their hearts. But they are showing restraint.
posted by straight at 8:22 AM on June 7, 2002

Israelis ARE showing restraint out of the goodness of their hearts, at least in part. If they showed less, I suspect there would actually be less deaths (because the Arab world would get scared and reign-in its most extreme players). The Arab world is run by weak, paper (or cardboard) tigers who need to be tought a lesson about their corruption, lack of democracy, and what it has bred.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:01 AM on June 7, 2002

The Arab world is run by weak, paper (or cardboard) tigers who need to be tought a lesson about their corruption, lack of democracy, and what it has bred.

Cool, something Paris and I can agree on.
posted by laz-e-boy at 9:14 AM on June 7, 2002

Anyone see the box of baby wipes on the night table of the bed in the room where YA was supposedly almost killed (NY Times today)? What's that about? And the bed without sheets?
posted by ParisParamus at 10:06 AM on June 7, 2002

Anyone see the box of baby wipes on the night table of the bed in the room where YA was supposedly almost killed (NY Times today)?

What a prickish thing to say. "Baby wipes?" Even if you're right, and the picture doesn't look clear to me, what's your point? That Arafat is old and infirm? Uh, thanks for the update. You think Sharon doesn't leak in his pants, too? Yeah, there's a man who looks real healthy.

What's that about? And the bed without sheets?

It's about you, ParisParamus. It's all about you.
posted by mediareport at 12:27 PM on June 7, 2002

I was simply pointing out a bit of banality in a bizarre situation. Chill out.
posted by ParisParamus at 12:42 PM on June 7, 2002