8 Children Killed in Israeli Attack

[Roland]

"No, because they are politicians, not militants."

Then attacks on politicians who order attacks are ok (Sharon or Eliezer)?

[Kropotkin]

Oh wait, opened up the Haaretz daily and the IDF did. Nice. I take it back.
(even if they blaimed the deaths mostly on terrorists using civilians as shields.)

[Shiber]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
No, I've yet to see anyone of the Israeli goverment show remorse for the suffering of innocent palestinians in their anti-terrorist operations.

Seriously now, have you ever opened an Israeli newspaper? Or listened to a Knesset debate? (they're being broadcasted on TV so everyone can watch them)
What you're saying is inherently wrong, since there are parties such as Meretz (which currently has 10 seats in the parliament and was a member of several governments during the last ten years) which sympathise with the Palestinian people and condemn IDF attacks and incursions saying that these will hurt innocent civilians and will only incite more resistance and violence, and often actively aid humanitarian efforts.
The abovementioned party is not an "arab party", btw. Though it has arab members it was founded by Jews and led mostly by Jews, so it's not just the arabs in the Knesset that look out for themselves.

[Kropotkin]

I was speaking of the present goverment. I can't watch or understand a Knesset debate anyhow.

[Shiber]

I apologize for the remarks made in my previous post regarding reading Israeli newspapers. I am also glad you red Ha'aretz. You should read it more often, there are some opinions there that you might like.
Just as a side note, roughly 15% of the Jewish population in Israel that read newspapers read Ha'aretz. It's considered to be a paper of high quality (it gives extensive coverage to culture and the columnists are better writers than most other Israeli columnists) but it's also considered politically unbalanced (though it doesn't claim to be such).

[Shiber]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
I was speaking of the present goverment.

Then you are still wrong but nevermind that, I don't think I'll be able to convince you anyway.

Originally posted by Kropotkin
I can't watch or understand a Knesset debate anyhow.

Yeah, it's too bad they can't add English subtitles as the debates are being broadcast live. Sorry, I didn't realize you can't read Hebrew (kindof egocentric of me isn't it?).

[Kropotkin]

Of cource I might have missed out on some form of remorse from the Israeli goverment. As I don't find the time to read Haaretz daily (and yes it's a quailty paper, that's why I try to read it) and other news in Sweden is afterall sometimes about other things than the Israeli goverment. Still, I haven't heard any and I follow the development of the worlds longest and bloodiest soap-opera quite often.

[Kropotkin]

Oh and no, nothing egocentric about assuming people can't read the world language hebrew.

(wouldn't matter still, would still not be able to see the broadcast)

[Shiber]

Originally posted by Roland
"No, because they are politicians, not militants."

Then attacks on politicians who order attacks are ok (Sharon or Eliezer)?

This is a very tough question you're asking. If I answer yes, then it also means that attacks on Yassir Arafat are legitimate (which is totally against my opinion), as well as attacks against George W. Bush (for ordering the bombing of Afghanistan which produced a much grimmer target/innocent kill ratio than any Israeli campaign has ever produced). If I answer no, then it would raise other difficult questions such as why, or what it is that gives army officers this immunity, and it would also appear like I'm defending my side without considering all the facts.
I'm afraid I simply can't answer your question.

[Roland]

"If I answer yes, then it also means that attacks on Yassir Arafat are legitimate (which is totally against my opinion)"

Good point. As for the rest I'm unsure what to make of assassinations of (real or suspected) terrorist leaders. But accepting civilian casualties in this situation is murder.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Shiber
I wouldn't call this a terrorist attack. Terrorist attacks are meant to strike fear and terror into the hearts of civilians, while this operation was not meant to do so. Though you could argue that Israeli air strikes do strike terror in the hearts of Palestinians, this is not the real goal of those missions.

I disagree. It was a 'terror attack' because it was 'intended to strike fear and terror into the hearts of civilians'. I think the Israeli government has recently embarked apon a programme designed to do just that. For example, the idea of arresting the families of suicide bombers is meant to scare Palestinian civilians into helping prevent the suicide bombings. Similarly, the Israelis are demonstrating in this missile strike that it is dangerous to live near a known terrorist, with the hope that the Palestinian civilians will not back Hamas out of fear for their own lives.

Admittedly, this was not the only reason for the strike - they wanted to kill the terrorist leader - but it is pretty obvious that they knew civilians would die too. Saying it is not an act of terror because there was an additional motivation is not valid, since one would them be implying that the attacks on the WTC on 11th September were not terror attacks (they had the additional affect of partially collapsing the US economy).

[Shiber]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
Oh and no, nothing egocentric about assuming people can't read the world language hebrew.

Hey hey, take it easy, I was just being cynical.
What I meant was that I forgot that these broadcasts are in Hebrew. Well, not really forgot, just didn't pay much attention to that fact when posting that other message. I didn't really think that everyone in the world understands Hebrew. I'm not stoopid you know.

[Shiber]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh


I disagree. It was a 'terror attack' because it was 'intended to strike fear and terror into the hearts of civilians'. I think the Israeli government has recently embarked apon a programme designed to do just that. For example, the idea of arresting the families of suicide bombers is meant to scare Palestinian civilians into helping prevent the suicide bombings. Similarly, the Israelis are demonstrating in this missile strike that it is dangerous to live near a known terrorist, with the hope that the Palestinian civilians will not back Hamas out of fear for their own lives.

Admittedly, this was not the only reason for the strike - they wanted to kill the terrorist leader - but it is pretty obvious that they knew civilians would die too. Saying it is not an act of terror because there was an additional motivation is not valid, since one would them be implying that the attacks on the WTC on 11th September were not terror attacks (they had the additional affect of partially collapsing the US economy).

You are twisting things around. The goal of the operation was not to scare people away from living near known terrorists! That's ridiculous.
I mean, I'm sure the IDF would have preferred that all Palestinian terrorists would have been living in Terror Ave. or Terror Block, but they certainly won't list this in their list of goals. The Palestinians can live wherever they want in their cities. Yes, some may prefer not to move into a certain neighborhood because they know one of the apartments belongs to a terrorist leader or is a Hamas safehouse etc', but this is only an unwelcome byproduct of IDF's operations, not an intentional goal.
As for arresting the families of suicide bombers or demolishing their house (a proposal which was dropped btw, after the Israeli high court of justice strongly opposed it), it is a deterrent, and it is not aimed at Palestinians in general but at the families of suicide bombers who often know about their son's intentions (and therefore are associates of murder) and often strongly support it (I've seen videos of a Palestinian mother kissing her son which was about to go out to perform a suicide bombing and saying that she whishes he would kill as many Israelis as possible).
According to the same logic you could also say that if the US declares that anyone who is caught trying to cross the border of the US and is identified as a terrorist will be sent to prison is also an act of terror because it'll 'strike fear in the hearts of civilians' (which also happen to be carrying a bomb in their suitcase or trenchcoat) and make them think twice about entering the USA in fear of being sent to prison.

[Shiber]

Originally posted by Roland
As for the rest I'm unsure what to make of assassinations of (real or suspected) terrorist leaders.

If America managed to assassinate Osama Bin-Laden, would you say that you are unsure what to make of it? Or have I completely missed your point?

Edit: added quote.

[Kropotkin]

There's also mothers of suicide bombers that claims they didn't have a clue that their son was about to blow themselves to pieces at some bus-stop.

Good it was dropped, the Israeli goverment is conducting too many forms of collective punishment as it is on occupied grounds.