Israel has squandered its opportunity to crush the Intifada and defeat the terrorists in the Palestinian territories. Last summer, the Israeli military had its foot on the throat of the Intifada, but the government of Ariel Sharon gave up the advantage gained by years of sacrifice and the implementation of a wise political and military strategy to defeat the Intifada.
The Israelis effectively smothered the Palestinian terrorists by building the fence and denying access to suicide bombers to Israel proper; conducting targeted attacks on Hamas and other terrorist groups’ leadership; and isolating the Palestinian Authority and President Yasser Arafat in his Ramallah compound, rendering him an ineffective leader of a movement bound for defeat. This strategy was devastating to the terrorists and the Palestinian Authority alike. Terrorist attacks against Israelis dropped dramatically, terrorist leaders became rare animals and the Palestinian Authority was in disarray and pleading for international help to end the Israeli isolation.
The death of Yasser Arafat breathed new life into the Palestinian Authority and the terrorists, and gave them time to regroup militarily and politically. Israel began to operate under the false assumption that moderates can rise through the PA leadership and reform the corrupt system. Sharon’s Likud party co-opted the Labor Party and formed a unity government, which then accepted the appeasement mentality of Labor.
Mahmoud Abbas’ election victory is a mockery to the peace process, as he has no intention of reining in the terrorist infrastructure in the Palestinian territories, despite his tough rhetoric. Foreign Minister Nasser al-Kidwa has openly stated the PA will not disarm the ‘militants’ of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Fatah sponsored Yasser Arafat Martyrs Brigades (formerly Al Aqsa), etc; "Under international law, the Palestinian people have the right to resist this occupation and defend themselves."
And they continue to resist. Mortars are fired against Israel almost daily, despite the so-called cease fire that was implemented this winter. The Palestinian Authority is obligated under the terms of the ceasefire to prevent these mortar attacks, but in reality have done nothing to stop them. These mortar attacks are not the work of rogue ‘militants, but coordinated attacks by terrorist mortar teams.
The mortar attack which was conducted by Hamas on May 19th demonstrates this point (see the accompanying video embedded in the article). The video shows a synchronized, if somewhat clumsy attack by a Hamas mortar team. At one point in the video, at least 10 men are visible shuttling rounds back and forth between a wall or fence, and loading and firing the mortar tube. A unit this size cannot operate this long - almost a minute of video, no doubt much time passed prior to the video capture - without being noticed by the security forces. Three rounds are fired within 20 seconds until it appears the mortar jams, and then the Israeli drone/aircraft attacks the target. Incidentally, the Israelis targeted the mortar tube and not the mortar team, showing ‘restraint’.
The Palestinian Authority responds to such attacks by conducting the “catch and release” of captured terrorists planning to fire rockets from Gaza into Israel. In one particular case, Hamas ‘gunmen’ were freed even after having a gunfight with PA security forces. Israel has grown soft as well, and put off capturing a known Islamic Jihad terrorist behind deadly Tel Aviv suicide attacks. Palestinian police captured him, but he quickly ‘escaped’ from prison and was finally killed by Israeli commandos. Recently two Islamic Jihad terrorists that were involved in a Tel Aviv suicide attack were freed by the Palestinian Authority in an attempt to placate in implacable.
Israel is committed to turning over the Gaza Strip without negotiation or conditions. Despite this gesture of goodwill, the Israeli Defense Forces estimates 3 divisions will be needed to conduct Gaza withdrawal, as it will likely come under attack from terrorists trying to show the Israelis withdrew under fire. The Israeli Defense Forces believes the Intifada will resume after withdrawal from Gaza. As if it ever ended.
The Gaza Strip borders Egypt, and is a major point of weapons and ammunition smuggling. The Palestinian Authority and Egypt do nothing to prevent weapons smuggling into Gaza. Tunnels are discovered regularly, and the Philadelphi corridor is riddled with smugglers tunnels. Strella Surface to Air (SAM) missiles have been smuggled into Gaza, and the reaction of Israel Defense Minister Mofaz is to politely ask the Palestinian Authority to find them.
Abbas believes the ‘militants’ can be reigned in by negotiations and promises of jobs - at least he states so publicly. Based on the charter of the PLO (which Abbas presides over) this is unlikely. Abbas has repeatedly invited 'gunmen' to join the security forces, essentially asking the foxes to guard the henhouse. Despite these offers, the 'gunmen' continue to attack government forces. Even the Yasser Arafat Martyrs Brigade (formerly Al Aqsa) threatens the government with violence.
Abbas has even allowed Hamas to participate in elections. Hamas faired very well in local elections, and the results of some races were overturned by Palestinian courts. Hamas is angry over the decision, and is even angrier that Abbas has now delayed the Palestinian parliamentary election scheduled for this summer. Hamas was expected to do well. Israeli Defense Minister Mofaz stated that Israel would leave Gaza even if Hamas wins the parliamentary poll, essentially ceding Gaza to a declared terrorist entity without question.
The Israeli government quickly forgot a crucial lesson it learned during the Intifada - the terrorist mentality is embedded within the Palestinian Liberation Organization and Palestinian Authority. Nothing short of a full defeat and capitulation by the Palestinian Authority and a purge of the terrorist guard can ensure a peaceful Palestinian state can coexist with Israel. The Sharon government, flush with success, blinked under international pressure and can now be assured of years of fruitless negotiation, terrorist attacks and international condemnation for the ‘oppression of the Palestinian people’.
Perhaps the Palestinian people will one day elect a truly moderate government willing to negotiate with Israel, but the Israelis are banking on the good will of a population that has not shown a willingness to expel the terrorists from their midst.
1. Israel has no choice but to deal with the PA. the alternative is to reoccupy all the territories, including all the cities. This would be a disaster for the IDF, for Israels place in the world, etc. Israel pressured Arafat BECAUSE they wanted a different PA, NOT because they wanted to crush the PA. Its only the fantasies of anti-Israel leftwingers, and a few Israeli far right wingers, that it was ever thought otherwise. Sharon has ALWAYS been far smarter than that.
2. A few mortar attacks doth not an Intifada make. The IDF DID go into the West Bank cities, when israelis were being killed in Tel Aviv, Netanya and Jerusalem by the dozen. Anyone who thinks that whats happening now is ANYTHING like Winter/Spring 2002 is not paying attention to events in Israel.
3. Abbas has not cracked down on Hamas (or the other terr groups) yet. By your own citation they have continued to fight PA govt forces. Doesnt sound like they trust Abbas, do they? Maybe hes waiting till hes strong enough to take them on (which by all accounts hes not). Maybe he has no intention of taking them on. Time will tell. In EITHER case Israel is better off out of Gaza - but if the former case, its MUCH better off out of Gaza.
4. Abbas has let Hamas participate in elections - er, Hamas has participated in ALL past PA elections. It has the support of at least 30% or so of the Palestinian populace. Banning them from elections would mean civil war now, and would start it on the least favorable grounds (not disarmament, but "restraint of democracy") such a thing was NEVER in the cards - where prey tell, did you get this idea?
5. There is abundant evidence that large numbers of Pals are willing to accept eventual peace with Israel. Many of those, are, unfortunately, willing to sympathize with terror when the get frustrated with the substance of negotiations. Not nice people, you could say. And you need to be careful in negotiating. But that doesnt mean you cant negotiate. And trying to hold them down till they say uncle will probably never work, and will cost Israel far too much, in lives, in treasure, in international good will, in the meanwhile.
"essentially ceding Gaza to a declared terrorist entity without question. "
a declared terrorist entity thats walled in and vulnerable to air power. IF Hamas takes over, by no means a given.
by the way, do you have any better source for the Strella report than EUrabia quoting Arutz Sheva, claiming to know what happened at a cabinet meeting without saying a word about sources? You ARE aware of the biases of Arutz Sheva, arent you?
from Haaretz, at the time of the Mombasa attack
"The two strella missiles narrowly missed the Arkia jet, raising speculation that it had used decoy flares -- countermeasures akin to those of combat aircraft.
"Israel has been working on programmes to protect civil aviation from terrorist missile attacks since the 1970s," said Yigal Eyal, a Hebrew University lecturer on insurgency and former Israeli intelligence agent. "The Mombasa incident could mark a successful application of some sort of anti-missile technology aboard the plane," he said.
"This could just be a matter of Strellas being too primitive for the job, and missing," said one Israeli security source. But others said both Strellas missing the airliner at an altitude of 500 feet was unlikely unless it had countermeasures such as flares deployed from the aircraft."
Too primitive for the job, and missing. Couldnt bring down a civilian airliner, and yet they will end Israeli control of Gaza air space. Uh huh.
Sources for Strella (try Google, it is fascinating). I sourced the Eurabian Times because that is where I read it first. I always double-check sources, and if it is single sourced, I will state so up front. Is the Washington Times and the Jerusalem Post good enough for you?
Oh, and here is what the International Crisis Group says about the threat from Strellas:
So you think its just fine for Strella antiaircraft missiles to be smuggled into Gaza? In you own words, "Uh huh."
Now onto your criticisms.
Wrong, the policy of isolating the PA, dismantling the terrorist leadership and building the fence was working just fine and may have led to the defeat of the PA and allowed the necessary conditions to defeat the terrorist groups as well. I'm of the mind that the PA cannot be negotiated with, as it is a terrorist organiszation. Try reading the PLO charter, and ask yourself why the PA coddles terrorists and incited the Intifada.
"A few mortar attacks doth not an Intifada make." Sure the Israelis should just accept this without defending themselves, particualrly when the PA does little to stop them and conducts catch and release. I never equated it to the height of the Intifada, I just said the Intifada is continuing via mortar attack (and some suicide attacks as well).
The terrorists attacked the PA when Arafat was in charge. They are opportunistic and use violence against the PA to initmidate as well. That Abbas cannot or will not act on this tells you plenty. How is he going to get strong enough when he courts the terrorists to join the security forces?
Do you think we should let declared terrorist groups participate in our own elections? Should al Qaeda in American be able to run for office in the USA? I think the situation in Palestine will not be resolved until there is a civil war, so we'll violently disagree on that no doubt.
"And trying to hold them down till they say uncle will probably never work, and will cost Israel far too much, in lives, in treasure, in international good will, in the meanwhile."
Since when has international good will existed towards Israel in the international community? [Crickets chirping] I believe the majority of the PA people would accept a two state solution, and I feel terrible for them because their political masters are criminals and terrorists who do not agree. A price they must pay for their tacit support of terrorism will need to be the collapse of their society, just as the Japanese and the Nazis needed to truly taste defeat to reform. I think the Israelis were ont his path until they chose the appeasement option to negotiate with a party that is not ready or willing to negotiate in good faith.
Now onto your criticisms.
1. Israel has no choice but to deal with the PA...
Wrong, the policy of isolating the PA, dismantling the terrorist leadership and building the fence was working just fine and may have led to the defeat of the PA and allowed the necessary conditions to defeat the terrorist groups as well.
It worked BECAUSE they were dismantling Hamas and IJ, and leaving enough of the PA intact so that they DIDNT have to maintain a continous occupation of Pal cities.
I'm of the mind that the PA cannot be negotiated with, as it is a terrorist organiszation. Try reading the PLO charter, and ask yourself why the PA coddles terrorists and incited the Intifada.
They coddled Hamas not becaue of words in a charter (theoretically amended, but thats a long and technical debate) but because Arafat cynically used Hamas as a negotiating tool. Abbas has not yet done so.
2. A few mortar attacks doth not an Intifada make...
"A few mortar attacks doth not an Intifada
make." Sure the Israelis should just accept this without defending themselves, particualrly when the PA does little to stop them and conducts catch and release. I never equated it to the height of the Intifada, I just said the Intifada is continuing via mortar attack (and some suicide attacks as well).
I nowhere said they should "just accept this" Now stop putting words in my mouth. I think that they should not let it deter them from pursuing the best strategy, which now involves leaving Gaza, and putting the burden on Abbas to maintain order. And, putting the burden on the Bush admin (which still advocates the road map) to hold Abbas to account. And if Abbas fails, Israel cashes in, and gets much stronger support on the fence and on the West Bank, which are more important. Oh, and, hitting back in Gaza if necessary. Having Jews live in settlements in Gaza is NOT a strategic advantage to the IDF.
3. Abbas has not cracked down on Hamas (or the other terr groups) yet...
The terrorists attacked the PA when Arafat was in charge.
Rarely.
They are opportunistic and use violence against the PA to initmidate as well. That Abbas cannot or will not act on this tells you plenty.
Too soon to say what it tells us. Arafat loyalists are all over the PA structure. Purging an organization like that is a long, slow process. Esp cause if you purge everyone at once, they tend to toss you out. If you really follow the Isreali press closely, youve seen many items on the purging thats underway.
How is he going to get strong enough when he courts the terrorists to join the security forces?
I presume hes taking foot soldiers into an organization where he feels he can watch them better when theyre on the outside. Kinda like how we're taking low level ex-Baathists into the Iraqi security forces.
4. Abbas has let Hamas participate in elections - er, Hamas has participated in ALL past PA elections...
Do you think we should let declared terrorist groups participate in our own elections? Should al Qaeda in American be able to run for office in the USA?
Sigh. Do you really not understand that Palestinians dont see Hamas the way we see AQ? Im NOT one of those who justify that or draw a moral distinction between the different brands of terror - but I live in the real world, and I dont think its REALISTIC to expect the Pals to tolerate the banning of Hamas from elections. And no, crushing the PA wont make them more likely to, it will make them LESS likely to.
I think the situation in Palestine will not be resolved until there is a civil war, so we'll violently disagree on that no doubt.
Actually, I think a Pal Civil war IS quite likely, and MAY be necessary. I just have a very different view of the roles of certain individuals in that war, and of the necessary preparations. And I dont think someone as favorable to Israel as you or I would like will have ANY chance of winning such a war.
5. There is abundant evidence that large numbers of Pals are willing to accept eventual peace with Israel...
"And trying to hold them down till they say uncle will probably never work, and will cost Israel far too much, in lives, in treasure, in international good will, in the meanwhile."
Since when has international good will existed towards Israel in the international community? [Crickets chirping]
Ok, I'll ignore trade with Europe (very important economically to Israel) the relationship with Jordan, the cool (but real) peace with egypt, etc. Lets get down to brass tacks. Theres plenty of good will for Israel in the only remaining superpower. Which ultimately matters more than the rest of the world combined, at least to Israel. And THAT goodwill has increased considerably since Sharon announced the Gaza withdrawl. and would plummet under the strategy you suggest.
I believe the majority of the PA people would accept a two state solution, and I feel terrible for them because their political masters are criminals and terrorists who do not agree.
All evidence is that Abbas would accept it as well, and was angry at Arafat for turning down the offer at Taba.
A price they must pay for their tacit support of terrorism will need to be the collapse of their society, just as the Japanese and the Nazis needed to truly taste defeat to reform.
Are you ready to throw the first nuke? Do you have any idea how many japanese and germans died in WW2? And that was after a campaign to run the world,accompanied by genocide of millions, NOT a campaign (however filled with terrorist attrocities) for independence. The analogy to the occupation of Germany is a false one. And the US will not tolerate that kind of crushing. Israel would be completely, 100% isolated. Its all very well to live in the US and point at obnoxious articles in the Guardian or Le Monde, and say Israel is already isolated. Its quite another to live in a country of 5 million people and contemplate the loss of all trade, and all support. Israelis are quite capable of moving elsewhere, and if things get bad enough they will. and immigration will drop. Oh, the folks who listen to Arutz sheva might stay - but there arent enough of them to keep the Pals down the way you would like, and thats not an Israel I (or most Israelis) would like.
I think the Israelis were ont his path
No. They werent.
By the way, have you ever been to Israel?
by the way i already google. Most of what i found were reports of what Arutz Sheva, and report of the same from ISrael Radio - not clear if A7 was quoting IR or vice versa. And no source.
The Wash Times quotes an unnamed source that strellas were PROBABLY imported. It does not confirm the cabinet meeting story. The JPOST story requires registration - could you copy it?
"has a range of about 9 kilometers"
which is farther than from Gaza to Ben Gurion.
Now maybe youre positing that they get smuggled somehow FROM Gaza into Israel. But getting Jews out of Gaza makes it EASIER to seal Gaza from Israel. If they can smuggle from Gaza into Israel, they can probably as easily smuggle directly from Egypt into Israel.
I still fail to see how CIVILIAN Jewish settlements in Gaza help protect Israel. All they do is give the terrs hostages, and force the IDF to dilute its manpower.
Pragmatic question: is it reasonable to think the IDF can reduce attacks against Israel to a level any lower than it is right now, given any resource you can think of? History suggests no way. As we have seen in Iraq, its practically impossible to stop a couple of guys with a mortar and a pickup truck, and thats with a potentially much more cooperative populace than the IDF has to deal with.
So assuming that is true, and I am fairly confident even occupying the territories with every resource at the IDFs disposal would not prevent every attack (quite the opposite if the history of occupation and insurgency tells us anything), the question becomes what is the point of amping the fighting back up? We've been down this road before, and we know where it leads. The bottom line that nobody seems willing to face is that short of ethnically cleansing the entire Palestinian population (and then you start getting attacked from over whatever border you send them anyway) there is simply nothing Israel can do to utterly stop attacks. So why not at least try a different approach, build the wall, get behind it (kind of the point of having a wall after all), and see where that takes us?
Before the PLO was brought in to Yesha, most cities and towns in Judea and Samaria were patrolled by Israeli Border Guards. Not combat soldiers in tanks and APCs, but police officers in jeeps. IIRC, a battalion was repsonsible for most of Samaria.
Bringing the PLO in to Yesha has been an absolute catastrophe, as I thought was plainly obvious to all (my mistake). Far from making peace possible, they have brought a terrorist war, not to mention massive corruption. The international community (alas, increasingly including the Israeli gov't) has decided to sponsor and legitimise the PLO - by any standard, a terrorist organisation. If Israel's 'place in the world' slips because the IDF finishes off a group with the blood of thousands of Jews (not to mention Americans, Westerners, Arabs, you name it...), so be it. That Israel's place in the world is improved because it doesn't slaughter these murderers says more about the world than Israel.
Does that make this level of terrorism acceptable? Should Israel accept that, every couple of months civilians will be killed and injured?
Has there been any indication that he is going to move against Hamas? They're about to join the PLO. Abbas is recruiting Hamas and PIJ terrorists in to his 'police', and inviting them to form a government with him.
'Time will tell'. No, his actions will tell. They're telling me that Hamas's status is secure, and improving thanks to peacemaker-in-chief Mahmoud Abbas.
Do you have an objection to my biases, too?
It is accepted amongst many Israeli security experts that, like the alleged nuclear arsenal, it is best not to talk about the counter-measures that may or may not be deployed on Israeli airliners.
#9 Mark Buehner
Yes. Before any withdrawal is considered, the Egypt-Gaza border should be made in to a moat. The IDF suggested it, but the Israeli gov't would prefer to give the Philadelphi corridor to the Egyptians. The number of weapons smuggled in to Gaza is immense:
That's from Arutz Sheva, in March 2005.
Cutting the terrorists' lifeline would be a cheap-and-easy means of limiting terrorist attacks. It'd also be much easier to do in Gaza than Iraq.
One terrorist group destroying another is nice, but it won't change anything except the names on the cheques from the U.S.
liberalhawk,
Setting aside the rather insulting first question, the 'campaign for independence' is a pretty euphimistic way of saying 'killing millions of Jews'.
Speaking of the two-state solution...
Zahir Muhsein, former PLO executive committee member - 1977.
BTW, good post, Bill.
I think Sharon should be given the benefit of the doubt.
He figued out how to stop the stupidfada when the range of Israeli opinion went from not likely to impossible.
I don't think his generalship has declined.
#15 M. Simon
Sharon is a politician now, not a soldier. His priorities are by definition very different.
This is being driven by political considerations. Bush has decided he "needs" to appease the Muslims, anti-Israeli Euroweenies (including Blair) and the anti-Israeli Democratic Party and Media which passionately hates Israel and loves the Palestinians. So Israel will play "nice" with Abbas knowing full who and what he is. No different from Arafat and unwilling to confront his terrorists and pay the price of Michael Collins for the sake of his people (who are also, truth be told, monumentally stupid).
However, withdrawal from Gaza can have opportunities for action. Hamas and the other terrorists will undoubtedly redouble their efforts to attack Israel through terror seeing the withdrawal as their "victory." However, the Israeli response to some great provocation (some mass terror attack) has the potential of simply assigning Gaza and some rump of the West Bank as the Palestinian State for all time and expelling all Palestinians into that rump area from the West Bank with relatively low political costs (assuming the Palestinians do their usual and massacre patients in a hospital or something). Launching punitive raids to kill terrorists and DESTROY PROPERTY including politically connected dealers (ala Sherman). Then building a whacking great wall to insure the deal's sealed.
When wheeler-dealers have things to lose (like money), you know serious stuff, they'll move. They'll even risk their lives for their money. If they have to. It's not anything like a fait accompli, but withdrawing from Gaza allows Abbas and men around them to have something to lose, something that Israel can take away to force an accommodation (and allow expulsion of Palestinians from around Jerusalem which also means loss of property and wealth). Above all else Abbas does not want to be poor and neither do the people around him.
Ultimately the conflict is driven by politics, if the people and the leaders are miserable enough and lose enough property they will surrender if they see a way to keep their property. This is the strategy Israel should follow IMHO.
#16,
War is politics by other means.
So Sharon has the understanding of a military man and the nuance of a politician.
Tigers do't change their stripes.
liberalhawk: By the way, have you ever been to Israel?
Ever been to Gaza? What purpose does the place serve, other than being the tail-end of the Egyptian arms trade? Those arms are not limited to Strellas, either.
You discount the Strella threat, but in 1972 Palestinians were arrested at Rome airport with Strella missiles. Maybe El Al has countermeasures, but most airlines don't. The stuff that comes into Gaza doesn't always stay in Gaza, and the terrorist's enemies are not limited to Israel.
Perhaps somebody can explain to me why we treat israel's enemies as being within 900 light years of even considering for .01 nanoseconds thir right to exist ... instaed of their stated goal of extermination and pushing them into the sea.
Why entertain the lie ?
The "Lets Pretend" stuff .. not them, us, why do we talk as if there exists an honest broker outside of Israel and the USA ?
The farce ,,, whats the point ... They want the Jews dead ,, and thats all they want, they dont care a wit about anything else.
A blown up buss of little jewish 9 year olds makes the whole reason smile and pass out sweets .... same for the moonbat left planet wide.
I just dont get the ruse .... Is it because then we have to decide what to do about reality ? is it because the options based on the fraud are easier to deal with ?
The left, I understand their dethachment from reality ,, well except the reality they want dead Jews and play blame the victim every time they see splattered kids all over the inside of an arcade ..
the killers are the same creatures that setoff car bombs in crowds of kids in iraq .. Our marines that had to pick up tiny kid body parts off rooftops know what the reality is ..
its all the same reality .... so why the fraud . why the pretending,, I dont get it. .. How can you have a debate based on a fraud ?
Its a total waste of intellect, what other dimensional existence is in disussion here...It seems so disconnected to me ...
#17 Jim Rockford
It is politically costly to kill a few low-level jihadis caught in the act of firing rockets. There will never be a point where expelling any number of Arabs will have a low political cost.
I can't say I like the idea of deliberately waiting for Israelis to be killed in large numbers before taking action - so as not to upset the world too much. Essentially, you're saying that Israel must sacrifice civilians in order to defend itself. That doesn't sound like a world worth appeasing.
#18 M. Simon
Leading a military unit will always be different to giving the orders to an army. An officer will have two major concerns: for his men, and for the mission. A politician has to consider other MKs, the U.S., the electorate, the media, the other policies Likud is trying to put in to action, the Supreme Court... War may be politics by other means, but that doesn't mean the roles in question are the same.
I've never understood this. A lot of commenters are saying, more or less, that the Palestinian people are never going to give up terrorism. In fact, everything they say implies they believe "Israel will only be safe when the Palestinians have been eliminated", but they never actually say it.
Is this just because it is too terrible to say, or do they actually believe there is a possible solution that doesn't involve their elimination?
If they truly feel that the Palestinians cannot ever accept the existence of Isreal, what other permanent solutions do they propose?
I think Israel takes it's current path because in the long run, there is no other direction that doesn't risk leading to that unacceptable denouement. Is there risk to their people and the security of their state? Absolutely. But there are other dangers to a people besides physical ones.
#22 Tom West
The problem is wider than that. Terrorism is funded by the Arab world. $150m from the Arab League this year, for example. The palestinians are the tool the Arab world is using to destroy Israel.
As I mentioned above, the amount of terrorism against Israel increased enormously when the Oslo 'peace process' brought the PLO in to Yesha - complete with cash, guns and military training from the U.S., Germany, the U.K., etc.
For Israel to win, and for some semblance of normalcy to return to the territories, the PLO must be destroyed - root and branch. The tunnels in to Gaza should be blocked with a moat. All 'confidence building measures' should stop immediately - the jihadis will only use them to kill more Israelis.
The problem is not how to stop the palestinians from adopting terrorism, but how to stop them getting the money necessary to carry out attacks. Terrorism on the scale launched by the PLO, Hamas, et al, takes huge amounts of money. Feeding, arming, indoctrinating, bribing, looking after the families of 'martyrs', expensive cars and suits for the respectable faces... The palestinians aren't an innocent party in all of this, but it is fair to say that when the PLO were brought in, terrorism was foisted upon them. The PLO was the 'only legitimate voice of the palestinian people', after all. The only game in town.
Most Arabs - and certainly most palestinians - may be virulent antisemites, but short of genocide there's not much to be done about that. There is, however, a distinction between hating Jews and blowing up a bus. The first step towards limiting the latter is making it very hard to do. That doesn't just mean the fence, or IDF counter-terror operations. It means going after the money.
The main problem is Arab governments and individuals who sponsor terror. I'd like to see a revival of Operation Wrath of G-D to limit financing by individuals. Governments might take more convincing.
A rather long and rambling answer to a direct question, which I'll answer now: I think it may come to 'us or them' - though transfer would be much preferable to genocide. That said, there are things that can and should be tried before that.
Jibril Rajoub: terrorists promise calm until after retreat, at which point we will be able to re-evaluate the situation.
Great. Terrorists promise 'calm' so long as Israel is retreating, but will carry out more attacks when Israel is not.
I forgot the great Ya'alon quote:
Tom ... you nailed it ...
On the other hand, our own ethics dont allow us to exterminate then outright ... we dont do that ... they would if they could ,,, we dont ... eventually they will ... then we will do what we have to ...
The Bible says we will be burying them for weeks after that happens ..
But yes, the plain truth is too ugly ... so we are in denial ... pretending there is hope.
How do you relate to those who slowly saw off the head of a middle age brit school teacher for the camera,
How do you comprehend that ... where is the commonality that allows one to understand that ..
We dont understand that magnatude of evil, its other worldy and alien ....
Many think we can retain our sensibilities fighting such creatures ... in the end, we will need to get even more horrible than they can.
A good example is Japan .. who was ready to repel us with sharp sticks ... down to the last civilian.
The Japanese would do everything they did, even the wonded and those feining surrender only to blow up our people when we came close ....
we took very few prisoners because they didnt surrender, unless it was a fake surrender.
It got bad enough that during and after Iwo Jima,, passing troops would shoot the dead to make sure they was dead, and that what we faced taking Japan.
It was the atom bomb,, that showed we can be more horrible than the Japanese, and it probably saved the lives of 10 Million japanese and 2 million of us.
They had already stated that was ready to "spend" that many defending Japan .. and it was not a bluff.
The head choppers alre almost identical in both their fanaticism and their barbarity ..
And we might indeed, have to get even more horrible than they ,,, and when that becomes self evident we will ..
They only think they are dark ... they dont know the meaning of dark ... once we accept that reality.
And eventually, we will ... too bad we will sacrafice too many of our people before the leftist media is finally running from the american lynch mobs,, and we are ready to do ... what we have to do ...
There are many ways to inflict mass pain and horror .. and we have the know how, and the ability,, to do all of them...
Its not if, but when ..
.
Im wondering when the world of Islam pisses off China ... would be neat to see a gaggle of head choppers being chopped up by a troupe of 16 year old girls with swords .. with the pretty red tassles ...
I can hear the conversation "Yours weak burkas, ours train with blades, and you are their new training targets"
No problem with a hostile press ... some atvantages the Chinese have .... they are not western liberal pu...ies ...
Colt, im not saying your suggestion for cutting off the rat lines is a bad idea, its a good idea, but if you think that would stop the violence history suggests you are wrong. Starving an organic insurgency (unless you want to literally starve the populace ala the Ukraine) has never as far as I know succeeded. The problem is that the fancy rockets and mortars you might interceed have never been the major killer of Israelis. Dynamite strapped to the chest and AK-47s have far and away been the biggest killer, and those things are simply too easy to smuggler or make to ever realistically eliminate. So if we are talking about reoccupation, sealing the borders, and trying to search every truck, hand cart, ship, and donkey feeding several million people, at the end of the day there will be more dead Israelis as the suicide bombers start up again. Again, I agree that limited actions can and should be taken to seal off the tunnels and ratlines, but dont think that means peace, especially if at the same time you intend the IDF to be tearing apart the territories trying to eliminate the PLO, Hamas, and Jihad.
#28 Mark Buehner
Can we keep the goalposts still for a few moments? You asked:
I replied with this suggestion:
I'm not clear why you replied with this:
It will not stop the attacks - nor did I say it would. However, the reason Gaza is such a vipers' nest is (a) it is full of terrorists and (b) it is full of weapons. For bullshit political reasons, killing the terrorists isn't practical. So stopping the flow of arms is a good second option.
Israeli government policy is the exact opposite. Far from making it all but impossible to smuggle arms in large quantities from Egypt in to Gaza (as a moat would), they're going to turn the Philadelphi corridor over to Egypt.
Again, I never said those things would be eliminated. But look at the number of weapons smuggled from Egypt to Gaza:
Explosives and rifles, the biggest killers, would be all but stopped from coming in to Gaza. Yes, explosives can be mixed, and makeshift guns can be produced. But compared to 5,000 assault rifles in the last 30 months and two tons of explosives, I'd prefer a fight against the homemade stuff any day.
Strawman, as noted above. Also, I'm more concerned with winning than 'peace'.
There hasn't been a suicide bombing against Israeli troops in Yesha for months now. There was one in Gaza, in which a Shabak officer was killed when a suicide bomber was taken for questioning. We often hear that the decrease in suicide bombings is due mostly, if not entirely, to the fence. If those people are right, surely the cells responsible would have shifted their sights towards Israeli soldiers?
The fact is that those cell members are either dead, imprisoned or totally disrupted by Israeli counter-terror operations.
Colt, I didnt mean to out words in your mouth. I guess my ultimate point is that attacks right now are at a much lower level than they have been in the past. Both in quantity and causualties. Anything that is contemplated to lower the attacks further should be weighed against the risk of upsetting whatever is responsible for that state. Whether it be political or practical. I would say its a mixture of both. Its easy to say, sure just go bust up more terrorist cells and cut lines of supply, but in practice that means putting a lot of IDF troops back in Gaza, and the consequences of that action are very likely to be the opposite of the results expected. Sure, the IDF can mop up a few dozen or hundred Hamas members, but if that means even a single suicide bomber blowing up a bus in Tel Aviv are you really better off? Israel has been killing terrorists quite effectively for 50 years. Yet here we are. Im not talking about the cycle of violence nonsense, im talking about the very real military consequences of trying to put down an insurgency in an occupied land totally and completely against your presence. You simply cant kill enough of them fast enough when your foot is on their throat. They have nothing to lose. Give them some hope and some breathing space and at least you have something to risk taking away later. I dont back Palestinian terrorism in any way, but I have to tell you if Canadian troops invaded Chicago I would be out doing something about it no matter how good their justification. IDF forces in the OT is simply the ultimate provocation, no matter how just their cause.
That's a false compromise. Read the Hamas charter, or Fatah's, or a PIJ press release. They're in this for the whole bloody place. It is naive to think that by not having troops in Yesha, terrorists won't be trying to bomb Tel Aviv. Before the latest terror campaign started, over 90% of palestinians lived under the PLO, not the IDF. Israel had offered most of what they were asking for. But the suicide bombers came anyway, by the dozen.
There's a real compromise here, though:
A compromise of security. Why is it that you're willing to make the clearly flawed point that killing large numbers of terrorists means a succesful terror attack, and yet willing to advocate leaving those people alive and giving them space to move? Isn't that more likely to result in dead Israelis?
I'm sick of people advising Israel to fight back by not fighting, especially by those who backed the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Odd how the solution to insurgencies in those places is not immediate withdrawal, no?
You want to talk about military consequences? What message did al-Qaeda and jihadis the world over get when the U.S. fired cruise missiles, which destroyed close to nothing, in response to the African embassy bombings?
That's a false compromise. Read the Hamas charter, or Fatah's, or a PIJ press release. They're in this for the whole bloody place."
I dont doubt it, but now you are mischaracterizing my point. All I said was the reality on the ground at this moment is a relatively low rate of violence, while stepping up Israeli operations would almost certainly increase that violence. Im talking about the objective reality on the ground at this moment. Not the overall history of the region.
"It is naive to think that by not having troops in Yesha, terrorists won't be trying to bomb Tel Aviv."
Sure they would try. But its also naive to think that its not easier to convince somebody to strap a bomb to their stomach when an Israeli soldier is kicking in their neighbors door compared to standing behind a wall 30 miles away.
"Before the latest terror campaign started, over 90% of palestinians lived under the PLO, not the IDF. Israel had offered most of what they were asking for. But the suicide bombers came anyway, by the dozen."
Not until Arafat started the intafada, and the violence grew proporionally to the number of Israeli troops in the territories.
"A compromise of security. Why is it that you're willing to make the clearly flawed point that killing large numbers of terrorists means a succesful terror attack, and yet willing to advocate leaving those people alive and giving them space to move? Isn't that more likely to result in dead Israelis?"
No. Again, you are talking theory instead of reality. The reality is that Israel has been killing Hamas for decades and yet Hamas still survives and in some sense thrives. Hamas isnt the total danger. Its the 17 year old kid they talk into blowing up their body on a bus, and its far easier to do when Israelis are wandering their neighborhoods.
"I'm sick of people advising Israel to fight back by not fighting, especially by those who backed the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Odd how the solution to insurgencies in those places is not immediate withdrawal, no?"
And im sick of advocating mindless striking back when we know for a fact all that will do at the moment is increase the violence directly at Israeli citizens on a daily basis. If the entire, or even a large proportion of the populations of Afghanistan and Iraq were against us, we would not be able to stay there. Period. As it is a small portion of Iraq is causing us a lot of misery. The IDF understands that as well, which is why they are the last ones who want to reoccupy the territories. Im not talking about 'fairness', yes it would be fair for Israel to go in and take out the bad guys, im talking about the reality of the situation, which is that doing so will spark more attacks, not less.
"You want to talk about military consequences? What message did al-Qaeda and jihadis the world over get when the U.S. fired cruise missiles, which destroyed close to nothing, in response to the African embassy bombings? "
Has nothing to do with nothing. Ask the Russians in Chechnya or Afghanistan, or the Israelis in Lebanon, or a hundred other occupation situations. Fine, its not fair, but the bottom line, ultimate reality is that when you put your boot on a mans throat, he will slice your leg, no matter how good your justification is. Consider it a reflex. Israeli soldiers in Palestinian towns create suicide bombers. Like it or not. There is nothing we can do about it. Its a fact and we have to deal with it, not lash out in righteous anger. What you are suggesting has zero long term prospect for being anywhere but exactly where we are, if not worse. So we can keep stepping on ants, or maybe we can try to think of a long term solution that minimizes violence effectively. And that is mutually exclusive of Israeli troops in the Territories. Fair or not. Get behind the wall. If somebody hurls a mortar, use your antiartillery radar and hit em back 10x as hard. Thats a lot easier to accept then Israeli troops kicking in doors and having running street battles in Haifa.
#33 Mark Buehner
The fact - reality, not theory - is that the Israelis are getting to the suicide bomber cells very, very early on. Several get killed or arrested a week. I don't mean squadrons of tanks, but small groups of Israeli troops kicking down doors.
Therefore let the cell leader continue with his plans? Good grief.
Rubbish. Look at the first graph on this page. Operation Defensive Shield began in late March 2002. Until that point, the PLO governed more than 90% of the palestinians - and nearly 500 Israelis died. That was September 2000 - April 2002. April 2002 - June 2005, about the same number have been killed.
Before the IDF went back in to the territories, in a 21-month period, 500 Israelis were killed - predominantly civilians. After the IDF went in, in a 38-month period, 500 Israelis - mostly civilian, but increasingly military - were killed.
Huh? Have you done it yourself? Or is this in theory? Also, Hamas hasn't existed for decades.
If you want to be scared of angry teenagers, go ahead. I'll reserve my concerns for the people who strap the bomb to his chest.
'Mindless striking back'? If Fatah had just blown up a night club, yes, I might be up for some random slaughter. I'm fallible: I get angry sometimes. I'd be worried if I didn't, but that's beside the point. I am suggesting the IDF do what it is doing, but expand it to include more terrorists. Oh, and dig a moat.
Incidentally, what do you think terrorists do most of the time? From this:
I'd infer that a significant proportion of the jihadis sit around waiting to be provoked. You acknowledged that they want to destroy Israel, but somehow maintain that a good number of them aren't really too fussed - until a Jenin PIJ cell gets snuffed. So the Jews can usurp Allah's words, sow misery the world over, occupy Muslim lands... what's on VH-1? Shoot Ahmed the 'engineer', and suddenly it's war? And that isn't theory, it is reality. These people DO NOT CARE how many Israeli troops are in Yesha. They care about how many Israelis there are. Period.
Haifa is in Israel, by the way.
And for someone opposed to 'mindless striking back', unleashing 155s on a town seems pretty out of character. The Israelis did that in April 1996. 90 dead, 100 wounded. That gives me pause, hard as it might be to believe.
Also, suggesting something you know isn't going to happen as a means of convincing me to change my mind will not work.
"And for someone opposed to 'mindless striking back', unleashing 155s on a town seems pretty out of character."
The concept of sovereignty is important. It is an ancient and I believe inherint concept in human nature. Shooting somebody on the street is always morally different than shooting them inside your doorstep. If Syria fires rockets into Israel, nobody worth talking about on the planet will be surprised or complain when Israel flattens them. If the Israelis back up to about the green line and the Pals fire rockets over the wall, same answer. A sovereign nation has the responsibility to keep its people from creating international incidents from their territory. If they dont or cant, they must accept the consequences. That is the most fundamental of international laws, but more importantly common sense.
"The Israelis did that in April 1996. 90 dead, 100 wounded. That gives me pause, hard as it might be to believe."
Why? Tens of thousands of civilians die in any given war and nobody blames the defender (unless its the US I suppose).
"Also, suggesting something you know isn't going to happen as a means of convincing me to change my mind will not work."
There is no reason it shouldnt happen. If mortars were coming over the border from Mexico to Texas on a regular basis and Mexico couldnt or wouldnt stop it, I dont doubt the results would be the same. Or any border of any country in the world. Sovereignty again. Why wont it happen? Because to get down to brass tacks, Israel is not fundamentally willing to concede the occupied territories to the Palestinians politically, just as the Pals are not ready to conceed Israel. End of story. Sharon has it figured out, the only way to have a shot at peace is disengagement, washing of the hands, and the promise that now that Israel and the Palestinians are seperate and legally recognized states, any agression will be met with exreme prejudice. That will give even the hardcore nutcases pause, and will provide a real incentive for the more moderate Palestinians to reign them in. Probably it will lead to Palestinian Civil War, but the bright side is thats not Israels problem.
#36 Mark Buehner
Or Israel.
You're assuming that Israel is (or would be, post-retreat) just another country, where the same rules apply. Clinton leaned on Israel hard after Grapes of Wrath, and you're suggesting Israel do it every few hours? Not ONE country is going to blame the terrorists.
That's another thing. The 'peace process' has empowered some of the terrorists - the PLO, Fatah, al-Aksa Martyrs - who have provided protection and assistance to the others - Hamas, PIJ, PFLP, the PRCs, etc. The 'moderates' are weak precisely because the 'international community' decided that the PLO was the sole voice of the 'palestinian people'.
Yes, Pretzel Logic, the title of a steely dan tune.
And also what I see from some in this thread.
They want Israel exterminated, thats their goal, its become the acceptable outcome of socialist Europe (Third way technocrat socialism is regaining its missing component for full NAZI, Jew Hate)
Blame Isreal first is the co-reality of blame America first ,,, dead jews good ... proof of Jewish "oppression" of the terrorists, fighting back bad, more proof of Jewish "oppression".
Their very existence, the fact that there are live Jews in the ME is itself looked at as oppression.
Lots of words here reads as detached from that reality.
And I cant relate to it. it requires a departure from reality to entertain the arguments I see here that seem to be focused on some other dimension.
Some quantum membrane where Islam accepts co-existence, and is not involved in 21 wars around the world because every infidel must be exterminated by direct order of mohammed of the Quran.
'It', being massive retaliation for any attack. Are you really saying that Israel would be able to kill several hundred people a week without consequences?
"You're assuming that Israel is (or would be, post-retreat) just another country, where the same rules apply. Clinton leaned on Israel hard after Grapes of Wrath, and you're suggesting Israel do it every few hours? Not ONE country is going to blame the terrorists"
Ok, first I agree that Israel never gets a fair shake from anyone in the world but the US. Nor will it ever get good press from the Arab states no matter what it does. Those are constants. But, lets not pretend that a lot of the problems Israel has with Europe are at least partially Israel's making. The settlements are a huge issue in Europe. Israel is seen as duplicitously expanding its West Bank holdings while trying to engineer an agreement with the Pals. That is a fact, and its a major sticking point. Im not saying Europe will become Israels best friend if they pull back to the Green Line, but it would absolutely have a very positive influence. Lets not forget that Israels liberal leanings have traditionally been right up Europe's alley. The settlements are by far the biggest thumb in the eye, and Israel simply has no rational or moral justification for them short of just wanting them. When your policy is so crass and so egregious that you simply refuse to discuss it, something is terribly wrong (or as Dan Drezner might put it, Israel's Somebody Elses Problem field is turned on over the settlements). This is an internal political issue that Israel has to settle with itself before anybody else can do any good. I give Sharon credit for recognizing this.
Secondly, if you want to assume nothing Israel could do will change world opinion, then why worry about world opinion? Is the world going to be more angry at Israel for defending the green line than for occupying the territories? Unlikely.
What is Israel trying to accomplish? Occupation certainly cant bring peace. Ethnic cleansing hasnt been seriously considered. What is your end game?
"'It', being massive retaliation for any attack. Are you really saying that Israel would be able to kill several hundred people a week without consequences?"
Do you really think the Palestinians are so suicidal they will absorb hundreds of deaths a week to drop a couple of pointless mortar rounds on Israel? For how long? How can you on one hand make the argument that the IDF can hunt down and carve out the terrorists to a great degree in the OT, but on the other hand the Pals are an unstoppable suicide force bent on seeing themselves wiped out to no purpose. Both cant be true.
#40 Mark Buehner
I expect you were writing this post when I posted #39. Either way, can we keep the goalposts in one place for a moment? I agree that a retreat from Yesha would score some points with the Europeans. Worthless, irrelevant points, but points nonetheless.
But that wasn't the thrust of my point. My point is that, post-withdrawal, Israel will never be allowed to fire artillery in to Arab towns and cities in response to mortar-fire - no matter how much land Israel gives to the Arabs. Grapes of Wrath killed 90 in a single barrage. The terrorists fire several shells a week. It is not an exaggeration to say that several hundred civilians would be killed per week. To repeat #39: Are you really saying that Israel would be able to kill several hundred people a week without consequences?
I'm glad you didn't say 'legal', because that's just false. The Jews have as much right to Ariel or Hebron as they do to Tel Aviv or Haifa - legal, moral and rational.
Did something I said give you the impression I did? :-)
The world is angry with Israel for existing, fullstop. Attempts to lower that anger are either fruitless, or successful - and fatal to Israeli civilians and soldiers.
'Transfer' would be the best solution. Short of that, I'd suggest destroying the PLO (and all terrorist groups), building a moat around Gaza and being much more aggressive in counter-terror activities. Hit smugglers in the Sinai, camps in Syria and Lebanon, hunt down financiers in the Gulf. There is a lot more that could be done to halt terrorism.
Huh? The terrorists are infintely stoppable - see above for a list of suggestions.
You're missing the point. The PLO wanted Israel to perpetrate a massacre. That was the whole point of the intifada. Kill so many Israelis that the IDF massacres some Arab civilians, and the world sends in 'peacekeepers'.
The terrorists have never given a damn about Arab civilians. That's why they use them as human shields. 'Israel kills child, 4' is a far more damaging headline than 'Israel kills irate activist' (or whatever Reuters terms a murderous terrorist these days). Dead civilians killed by Israel is good P.R. for the jihadis. It is a tactic.
As pissed as I can get sometimes, laying waste to Gaza City will help the jihadis. I don't mean recruitment, but European troops. Israel refused to have UNEF troops on Israeli soil after the 1956 Sinai campaign. It is a point of pride. The Israeli government would probably relent, but many Israelis would not. Putting French or German soldiers in Jerusalem or Hebron, or anywhere in the Land, would mean a new Stern Gang. 'Peacekeepers' are more likely to spark a civil war than 'retreat'.
"Israel will never be allowed to fire artillery in to Arab towns and cities in response to mortar-fire - no matter how much land Israel gives to the Arabs. "
Allowed by whom? Your grapes of wrath example is a poor one because the Palestinians still wore that cloak of occupation. Are we worried about world opinion or not?
And what about the prospects of technology adressing the challenge? I know the US is working on a predator type system that integrates anti-artillery and sound triangulation to fire a rocket launched UAV to the source of a mortar or rocket within seconds. A hellfire strike 15 seconds after you fire your mortar would dramatically change the utility of those weapons.
"Short of that, I'd suggest destroying the PLO (and all terrorist groups), building a moat around Gaza and being much more aggressive in counter-terror activities. Hit smugglers in the Sinai, camps in Syria and Lebanon, hunt down financiers in the Gulf."
And whoever the 'they' are in the previous question is going to allow Israel to roam the ME picking off targets at will? That is less provacative then returning artillery fire defending a national border? Honestly, I dont think those are long term solutions. Insurgent history supports this conclusion. Yeh, Israel can mop up a lot of terrorists and close a lot of rat lines, but much like dealing with mice closing up a hole only guarantees they will find a different hole you might not know about. Is Israel really better off stopping 9 out of 10 attacks, but the one that does get through kills 20 civilians in a diner? When the current alternative is much less bloody? Building a wall and shooting anything near it has the nice advantage of narrowing the Pals choices of how and what to attack. Your suggestion provides more targets of opportunity, soldier and civilian.
Grapes of Wrath was an attack on Lebanon.
See #43. There are two main things Western countries are likely to do to hurt Israel: sanctions and 'peacekeepers'. Sanctions would likely be vetoed by the U.S.
'Peacekeepers' would be a European thing. Barrages in to civilian populations would give them an excuse, and hurt Israel more than Qassams.
So no, I'm not worried about 'opinion'. I'm worried about actions.
I hope it works.
Deniable killings aren't harmful at all (except for the dead guys). As for the airstrikes on Syria and Lebanon, I thought defending a national border was acceptable?
The 90+% success rate is what there is now. It has always been the case that the one successful attacker might kill a score of innocents.
"See #43. There are two main things Western countries are likely to do to hurt Israel: sanctions and 'peacekeepers'. Sanctions would likely be vetoed by the U.S. "
Agreed.
"'Peacekeepers' would be a European thing. Barrages in to civilian populations would give them an excuse, and hurt Israel more than Qassams."
And peacekeepers would be vetoed by Israel. Because you are quite correct, they would be nothing more than a shield for the terrorists to hide behind, and Israel is too smart to allow that under any circumstance. Israel can certainly prevent any nation from forcibly inserting them against their will.
#46 Mark Buehner
By force, absolutely. Short of that...
Why the UK and Eurabia call the jews NAZI's
Two girls, two shots to the head
Which of course is from the tactic of the subhumans using children to carry bombs.
Which is why civilized peoples (not leftist) understand why these tactics convert the arabs sending in child bombers to the moral status of subhuman.
The left then goes on and condemns the Jews for defending themselves, with no mention of what we all know, that the Islamic subhumans use their children as human bombs or in other operational roles such as sniperbait to lure the IDF into range of an arab child using sniper.
The end effect is .... the only good Jew is a dead Jew .. they are demonised to that extent, they no longer have the right to defend themselves, only submission to extermination is acceptable.
The leftist media knows this, knows everything, but they brainwash the public by painting the Jews as indescriminate child killers.
Course,, the child killers, are the inhuman arabs using children as killers ... thats objective reality ... but whats important is to falsely paint the Jews as evil, instead of retaining the right to sefly defense, even if the killer is a child with a pack bomb.
No doubt they send kids with nothing in the packs but books and toys ... with instructions on how to look like a bomber .. and probably beat with a stick for 6 weeks till she got it down right.
Toss those in along with the real child pack bombers, we have already that is reality ....
How so perfect to paint the jews as evil incarnate deserving extermination ... which of course is the agenda .. the transparent agenda of the leftist media planet wide.
Sooo ...perfectly,,, putting them in a no win situation,, with the islamic subhumans knowing they will get full support from the leftist media evil subhumans in depicting these propaganda ops.
Its the same reason solgering out of uniform out to put civilians at risk, got the stamp of world contempt at Time of Geneva.
All so clear to me ... all so clear example that the leftist media is as evil and black as the terrorist child using subhumans they make every effort to help.
As well as the leftists generally that knowingly forward the fraud to attack the Jews.
Eventually ,, all of Europe will demand that the Jews in Isreal be exterminated .. and certainly show nothing but support if the Arabs in the region ever do it.. a N Korean nuke on tel aviv will be celebrated by the Eurabian left as a good thing.
We know the nature of the islamic subhumans but beholed the leftist media subhumans that are helping them .. and in doing so making the use of child bombers and pressing Children into other operational roles a high value activity with large returns,, so that more kids will die in the service of convincing the world that all Jews must be killed.
Showing the leftist media is as dangerous to decent humanity as the islamic subhumansm because they are a direct part of the practice .. fully knowingly and with understanding.
This in totality presents a clear moral virdict to all decent (non leftist) people in the west.
I doubt it will be tolerated forever ... the leftist media who are participants in the use of killing kids by using them as bombers and making them targets,, with full understanding by the leftist media in knowing cooperation and eager use to manufacture hate twoard the Jews ...
I know im not the only one that sees this for what it is.
Too bad they will escape justice,, the so called ICC world court is the same leftists hip to the Jew demonisation program ... its so transparent.
Same old Socialist plan .. demonize endlessly,, untill the people themselves demand the Jews be exterminated, the NAZI inspired program all over again.
And the same old Third Way capitalist roader socialists doing it ... but today their SS-propaganda ministry logo isnt on the collar.
Its now the press pass and they call themselves Journalists.