More terrorist attacks in Israel

09.09.03

Those Israelis who were tensely waiting for the next terrorist attack didn’t have to wait long:

At least six people were killed and several others were reported wounded Tuesday, 10 of them seriously, when a suicide bomber blew up just before 6 P.M. at a crowded bus stop adjacent to the Tzrifin military base near Rishon Letzion. Security officials said there were many soldiers at the bus stop.

We can count on the Palestinian Authority – with new puppet Abu Ala – to do what it always does: nothing.

Update: There’s been a second bombing, this one in a cafe in Jerusalem. So far, reports are of at least four killed and dozens more injured in this second blast.

Hamas has claimed “responsibility” for both attacks.

{ 19 comments… read them below or add one }

1 Jonny 09.09.03 at 7:58 PM

Israel needs a PM like George Bush.

Reply

2 Jonny 09.09.03 at 9:37 PM

UPDATE: MAGEN DAVID ADOM: DOZENS INJURED IN BLAST ON EMEK REFAIM STREET IN JERUSALEM.

This is right around the corner from where my cousins live.

Reply

3 Jonny 09.09.03 at 11:54 PM

UPDATE: “Palestinians in Gaza Strip hand out candies to celebrate suicide bombings in Jerusalem and Tzrifin” – Ha’aretz.

Reply

4 Me 09.10.03 at 1:29 PM

“In the news we get, only the Palestinians are described as terrorists, and yet the Israelis have a long history of terrorism – both before and since the founding of the Jewish state.

“At least three Israeli Prime Ministers have been involved in campaigns of terror.

“Menachem Begin was the commander of the terrorist group that blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in 1946, killing 96 people. He was Israeli Prime Minister in the ’70s and ’80s. He once described a massacre as “a splendid act of conquest”.

“Yitzak Shamir was Prime Minister until 1992. He had been a leader of a Jewish group called the Stern Gang which carried out a string of assassinations.

“The present Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, has long been involved in terror. In 1983, he was found indirectly, but personally, responsible for a civilian massacre by Lebanese militia in two Palestinian refugee camps. At least 800 innocent men, women and children were murdered in cold blood, most of them Palestinians, after Sharon ordered his men to allow the militiamen access to the camps.

“John Pilger interviewed Dori Gold, Senior Adviser to the Israeli Prime Minister, and asked why Israel fails to condemn its own leaders for their terrorist acts in the same way as they condemn anti-Israeli terrorist acts. Here is a transcript of this conversation:”

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1818.htm

Reply

5 Me 09.10.03 at 2:07 PM

“The King David Hotel explosion of July 22, 1946 (Palestine), which resulted in the deaths of 92 Britons, Arabs and Jews, and in the wounding of 58, was not just an act of “Jewish extremists,” but a premeditated massacre conducted by the Irgun in agreement with the highest Jewish political authorities in Palestine– the Jewish Agency and its head David-Ben-Gurion”

“The following is a statement made in the House of Commons by then British Prime Minister Clement Attlee: On July 22, 1946, one of the most dastardly and cowardly crimes in recorded history took place. We refer to the blowing up of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. Ninety-two persons lost their lives in that stealthy attack, 45 were injured, among whom there were many high officials, junior officers and office personnel, both men and women. The King David Hotel was used as an office housing the Secretariat of the Palestine Government and British Army Headquarters. The attack was made on 22 July at about 12 o’clock noon when offices are usually in full swing. The attackers, disguised as milkmen, carried the explosives in milk containers, placed them in the basement of the Hotel and ran away.”

[www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4667.htm]

Any criticism for this terrorist act?

Reply

6 Dave 09.10.03 at 8:00 PM

Hey Me,

Have a nice tall cup of shut up juice.

This is my impression of ‘me:’

Jews are being killed by terrorists, so what, Jews are the real terrorists. Palestinians are victims they aren’t terrorists, I’m against racism but blowing up Jews is anti-terrrorism. Death to all Jews and I’m anti-racist.

Reply

7 Eric 09.10.03 at 11:39 PM

“Jews are being killed by terrorists, so what, Jews are the real terrorists. Palestinians are victims they aren’t terrorists, I’m against racism but blowing up Jews is anti-terrrorism. Death to all Jews and I’m anti-racist.”

When exactly did Me say this?

The Straw Man Fallacy: The straw man fallacy is committed when a person misrepresents an argument, theory, or claim, and then, on the basis of that misrepresentation, claims to have refuted the position that he has misrepresented.

The Ad Hominem Fallacy: A premise about the background, personality, character, or circumstances of a person is irrelevant to the merits of his or her theories and arguments.
(Govier, 2001)

Why not actually deal with what Me says and the points he raises?

Reply

8 Paul Jané 09.11.03 at 2:03 AM

Let’s just go with “that was 1946, and this is 2003; times change, and Israel matured quite nicely.”

If the best that one can do to establish some sort of moral equivalency between both sides is to compare the present to something that occurred fifty-seven years ago, one should be fully aware of the fact that he is clearly skating on thin ice.

Reply

9 Me 09.11.03 at 2:04 AM

You wanna shut me up Dave? Deal with the facts. Show me how the terrorism is all one-sided.

Explain the King David Hotel attack, which killed 92 people and wounded 45. Explain the Stern Gang assassinations. Explain the shrine built to honour Baruch Goldstein, the American-Israeli settler who slaughtered 29 Palestinians at prayer in Hebron in 1994 — an act which led to the first Palestinian suicide bombing inside Israel. Explain the fact that part of the current government coalition in power in Israel includes extreme right-wingers who ran on a ticket of ‘transfer,’ or ethnic cleansing.

If you can either admit that these are acts of Israeli terrorism, or explain to me how they are not, I’ll gladly shut up.

Reply

10 Me 09.11.03 at 2:12 AM

Paul,

How about the current policy of extra-judicial assassinations? How about the ongoing military occupation? How about the building of settlements on Palestinian land? How about collective punishment? Demolition of civilian infrastructure? Dropping bombs on densely populated cities from F-16s, or missiles fired from Apache helicopters?

All current, all ongoing, and all violations of international law.

Ice thick enough for you there?

Reply

11 Paul Jané 09.11.03 at 4:31 AM

How about the current policy of extra-judicial assassinations?

Have you found a way of bringing the terrorists to justice?

How about the ongoing military occupation?

If you don’t want to lose your territory, don’t start and lose wars with your neighbours.

How about the building of settlements on Palestinian land?

Well, I’m against that myself; however, that’s no justification for blowing up civilians.

How about collective punishment?

Israel is trying to fight a guerrilla war, not join a support group. It’s only fair for the supporters of terrorism to see that their support has consequences.

Dropping bombs on densely populated cities from F-16s, or missiles fired from Apache helicopters?

You fight a war with the tools that you have at hand; would you like the IDF to use slingshots instead?

They’re using precision-guided weapons to minimise collateral damage, and it’s the best possible solution in this sort of situation.

If Arafat wants some peace and quiet, he can disarm the multitude of terrorist groups in the area (Hell, he even controls some of them).

If he can’t bring himself to do that, he shouldn’t be surprised by the consequences.

All current, all ongoing, and all violations of international law.

Your point being? It’s a cause and effect thing, deal with it.

Ice thick enough for you there?

Sorry, but the answer remains no.

Reply

12 Me 09.11.03 at 12:31 PM

If you’re arguing that human rights and international law should take a back seat to illegal violence in this conflict (something I would strongly disagree with), why then complain about suicide bombings?

Or to put it in your terms:

Suicide bombing of Israeli civilians? ‘It’s a cause and effect thing, deal with it.’ After all, ‘you fight a war with the tools that you have at hand.’

Either hold both sides to standards of international law, or exempt them both. The double standard is hypocrisy.

Reply

13 Paul Jané 09.11.03 at 3:59 PM

The double standard is hypocrisy.

Alternately, it could just be realism.

I hold a vibrant participatory democracy and a gang of armed exploding thugs to different standards, and, guess what? I care so little, it tickles me.

Rest assured that I sleep very well at night.

Reply

14 sean 09.11.03 at 7:25 PM

well said paul

Reply

15 Me 09.11.03 at 9:12 PM

If you don’t care, don’t use morality as an argument.

If ‘realism’ means accepting the fact of illegal violence by a ‘vibrant democracy’, why then complain about
Palestinian illegal violence?

I’ve no doubts that you sleep well (despite the logical conundrum). Too bad many civilians in Israel can’t say the same.

Reply

16 Paul Jané 09.12.03 at 4:08 AM

If you don’t care, don’t use morality as an argument.

The only person here that is trying to establish some sort of moral equivalency between both sides is you, unfortunately.

Your point is moot.

If ‘realism’ means accepting the fact of illegal violence by a ‘vibrant democracy’, why then complain about
Palestinian illegal violence?

Israeli “illegal violence” is directed against terrorists and criminals, Palestinian “illegal violence” seems to be mainly directed towards civilians.

If you can’t see the difference between the two, you are choosing to remain blind, and I’m not about to speculate as to your motivation (yet I’m sure that it would make for some fascinating analysis, no doubt).

Please, don’t regurgitate that tiresome “years of Israeli occupation and Palestinian suffering” mantra, because, yet again, I don’t care.

You reap what you sow. If the Palestinians haven’t figured out by now that blowing up civilians (because nothing says “courage” like blowing a bus and its passengers to smithereens) will not help them achieve their goals, they need to grow up.

I’ve no doubts that you sleep well (despite the logical conundrum).

…which exists nowhere other than in your mind…

Too bad many civilians in Israel can’t say the same.

And they have people like you who derive some sort of smug, masturbatory glee out of trying to play Devil’s advocate to thank for that.

(By the way, thanks, Sean.)

Reply

17 Joe G. 09.12.03 at 4:14 AM

The problem, Me, is that you’re concerned not with morality, but legality. You’re letting legal definitions do your moral sorting for you; and even a good law can be over- and under-inclusive.

Instead, look at the facts outside of the international legal framework, and apply your own moral judgment.

The Palestinian bombers target civilians.

The Israelis target those who armed, trained and sent the bombers.

Both actions may violate international laws. Does that make them equal?

Reply

18 Me 09.12.03 at 5:17 PM

Paul,

-“Your point is moot”

How so? You’re condemning the immorality/illegality of the actions of Palestinian militants while turning a blind eye to the immorality/illegality of the actions of the Israeli military.

We can argue the issue on a moral or legal basis or both – take your pick. On neither basis have you made the case why citicism should be directed at one of the paties in the conflict but not at the other. So you can moot the point for yourself if you’d like, but you haven’t proven in your argumentation why anybody else should accept this.

-“Israeli ‘illegal violence’ is directed against terrorists and criminals”

Well, the military occupation is illegal, collective punishment is illegal, destruction of civilian infrastructure is illegal, land-grabs are illegal, settlement-building is illegal…and all of these target civilians directly. So your statement doesn’t hold.

-“I don’t care”

This is the usual endpoint of discussion with many a zionist apologist. Since your views can’t stand up under logical scrutiny, this is one of the easy ways out of the unresolved conundrum. Again, if that’s how you choose to conclude the discussion – by not dealing with the information put in front of you – it’s your choice. But this is not a valid argument to resolve any conflict.

In fact, such an isolationist stance, in which you refuse to deal with the arguments put forward by your interlocuters, stinks far more of a mastrubatory approach than anything I’ve written in an attempt to continue the debate.

-“Too bad many civilians in Israel can’t say the same.”

And they have the illegal, violent policies of the Israeli government and their predictable response in illegal, violent suicide-bombings to thank for that.

Reply

19 Me 09.12.03 at 5:21 PM

Joe,

-“Instead, look at the facts outside of the international legal framework, and apply your own moral judgment.”

Ok, let’s do that, for the purposes of discussion – with the caveat that jettisoning a legal framework opens the way for subjective interpretation of what is moral, which is a surefire way of losing any common ground in resolving a conflict. (For example, an anti-abortionist may believe that killing a doctor who provides abortions is a moral act, whereas others would consider this patently immoral — the legal framework which prohibits murder thus acts as a common ground on which discussion between the two sides can begin.)

In fact, I’d go so far as to argue that much of what appears as law has its roots in concepts of morality, and so the distinction which you make between the two isn’t as clear as it first seems.

But, for the purposes of discussion:

-“The Palestinian bombers target civilians.”

Clearly immoral, in my view. But let’s include the context that these militants are doing so in response to land theft and a military occupation (with all its associated atrocities), which are also immoral, in my view.

-“The Israelis target those who armed, trained and sent the bombers.”

This would be a moral act if the Israeli army (1) captured the criminals without killing/wounding/subjugating uninvolved civilians, and (2) proved that those captured were indeed ‘those who armed, trained and sent the bombers.’ Failing this, I can’t conclude that such an action is moral. Again, we have to factor in the context that Israel is responding to the suicide bombings, which are also immoral.

In terms of morality, what should also be taken into account is whether an action will de-escalate the conflict to the point of resolution or whether it will lead to an escalation of the conflict which will produce more violence and killing of civilians. If the result is the second, than this is not a moral act.

For me, a moral act by either of the parties would be one which takes a clear step towards a de-escalation and fair resolution of the ongoing conflict.

-“Both actions may violate international laws. Does that make them equal?”

The ‘equality’ I’m asking for here has to do with the simple admission that both sides have committed immoral (and illegal) actions which have resulted in the suffering of untold thousands of uninvolved civilians. I’m also asking for an inclusion of context in assessing blame and fault. I’ve found neither on this blog and in discussions with most zionist apologists. And this is the motivation for this discussion.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: