Tel Aviv bombing is part of self-defense: Hamas

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
"Who will rid me of this insolent priest?"

Turbulent priest.

[lord of the mark]

Re: Re: Re: Siro

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


The fact is that a low-level state of war has existed for a long time. I don't particularly care about the pretexts needed for Israel to carry out military operations in the PA. My real concern is that there is some sort of actual net benefit to be achieved by anything you guys choose to do. Would an invasion of the West Bank actually do anything, or would it be just another exercise in futility. Do you have some sort of endgame planned, or is this all just running around with your head cut off.

I dont think that strikes on IJ are part of an endgame, but are part of managing the problem. And yes, theres considerable evidence that attacks on key individuals in terrorist groups DO reduce the quantity of attacks.

As for a longer range plan, there are several things going on at once. One, is to continue to apply pressure on Hamas to accept Oslo, recognize Israel, renounce terror, and enter negotiations on that basis. Plan B, is to prepare for a unilateral establishment of permanent boundaries for Israel.

[Ming]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I'm tired of his baiting.

I'm tired of baiting and personal attacks.
Discuss the topic... NOT THE POSTERS!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Cort Haus


Turbulent priest.

"we were living, and partly living"

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



"Secondly, of course Hamas is responsible for its own actions. If it condones such attacks and does nothing to prevent them, then as the purported government of the PA it takes some responsibility for the damage inflicted. "

Hamas already has SOME responsibility, by tacitly approving attacks, as Arafat did

Arafat was head of the "government". His approval was both an indication of the government's tendency toward inaction against terrorist attacks and an action giving political cover to those who carried them out (further legitimising them). His responsibility for the attacks is measured by how much concrete action he could have taken as well as what effect his statements of approval/lack of statements of disapproval had on the support base of the terrorist groups.

The two measures are already conflated in one action.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Arafat was head of the "government". His approval was both an indication of the government's tendency toward inaction against terrorist attacks and an action giving political cover to those who carried them out (further legitimising them). His responsibility for the attacks is measured by how much concrete action he could have taken as well as what effect his statements of approval/lack of statements of disapproval had on the support base of the terrorist groups.

The two measures are already conflated in one action.

I dont think even Arafat ever (post-Oslo) explicitly condoned attacks on Israeli civilians, west of the Green Line. Which is my point, that this goes further. If you have quotes showing Arafat explicilty approving an attack on civilians in Israel (not the territories) post 1993, Id be interested in seeing it.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


No, it doesn't. Just like me applauding what the Nazis did in WWII wouldn't make me responsible for it.

thats specious reasoning because the Nazi atrocities are 60 years old.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

KH, have you ever seen "Murder in the Cathedral"?

No.

Alternatively, are you aware that Ariel Sharon was investigated by the govt of Israel, and fired as Defense Minister, for actions taken by the Lebanese Phalange Minister, which no one in the IDF condoned, because of issues related to negligence in preventing and stopping it? Do you think if he had condoned it, that would have made him MORE responsible? I do.

I think that:

a) The IDF is a more capable force than are any of the various militant groups in the PA. This places greater responsibility on them for equivalent ****ups.

b) That if Sharon had made a statement condoning the act then he should have been held to be more responsible for the same two reasons I posted above. He would have given more indication that he failed deliberately (proof issue), and also would have emboldened the Phalange to commit further atrocities.

Hamas' statement of support does make them more responsible. Their responsibility is measured by their power and influence. In this case, I doubt their influence among the rival militant groups because I'm fairly certain that the Palestinian population is already enough behind terrorist attacks that a condemnation from Hamas would do little to sap this support. Therefore Hamas' major responsibility is for what it can prevent by force of arms. The political issues are comparatively minor.

[Cort Haus]

It seemed to me that the main difference between Arafat and Hamas is that Hamas were more honest and open in their intent to destroy Israel. Arafat had the same goal, but would pretend otherwise.

Arafat also tended to trouser the money himself, rather than spend much of it on his people's welfare. So 2-0 to Hamas, in a wierd sense. If I was Israel I might find it prefereable to deal with someone who was openly trying to destroy me than with someone who was covertly trying to do so.

[Solver]

I see this as a very big event for the ME situation. The previous PA government condemned terrorism, on words. It doesn't matter for this argument whether they actually supported it (which they did). But still, the government was officially against these acts, which were indeed carried out by groups not associated with the government.

Now, a bombing was carried out, and it was supported by the official government. That can be viewed as a full-scale declaration of war. Israel now can easily declare that terrorism is the state policy of the PA...

A tough moment for Olmert.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


I dont think even Arafat ever (post-Oslo) explicitly condoned attacks on Israeli civilians, west of the Green Line. Which is my point, that this goes further. If you have quotes showing Arafat explicilty approving an attack on civilians in Israel (not the territories) post 1993, Id be interested in seeing it.

I don't know that he did or didn't. I do know that he didn't condemn them as strongly as he might have. Vacillation on the condemnation is just a point on the spectrum between approval and disapproval.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


I dont think even Arafat ever (post-Oslo) explicitly condoned attacks on Israeli civilians, west of the Green Line. Which is my point, that this goes further. If you have quotes showing Arafat explicilty approving an attack on civilians in Israel (not the territories) post 1993, Id be interested in seeing it.

Didn't Arafat say one set of things in English and another set of things in Arabic? Also, the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade were under his wing. So he had to be responsible for his actions. If he did not approve their attacks he would have expelled them from Fatah.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Whoha


thats specious reasoning because the Nazi atrocities are 60 years old.

And in this case the attack was X hours old

If you want to be pedantic, in neither case can a statement of support make one responsible for an act which has already occurred (be it a thousand years ago or one second ago).

The statement of support makes you responsible in part for any further acts which may not have occurred had you not supported the original act. It also indicates a level of responsibility for "sins of omission" prior to the acts (provides evidence about your existing state of mind).

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


No.

Alternatively, are you aware that Ariel Sharon was investigated by the govt of Israel, and fired as Defense Minister, for actions taken by the Lebanese Phalange Minister, which no one in the IDF condoned, because of issues related to negligence in preventing and stopping it? Do you think if he had condoned it, that would have made him MORE responsible? I do.

I think that:

a) The IDF is a more capable force than are any of the various militant groups in the PA. This places greater responsibility on them for equivalent ****ups.

b) That if Sharon had made a statement condoning the act then he should have been held to be more responsible for the same two reasons I posted above. He would have given more indication that he failed deliberately (proof issue), and also would have emboldened the Phalange to commit further atrocities.

Hamas' statement of support does make them more responsible. Their responsibility is measured by their power and influence. In this case, I doubt their influence among the rival militant groups because I'm fairly certain that the Palestinian population is already enough behind terrorist attacks that a condemnation from Hamas would do little to sap this support. Therefore Hamas' major responsibility is for what it can prevent by force of arms. The political issues are comparatively minor.

see, the mainstream Fatah leadership is still on record as being opposed to terrorist acts. And residual fatah dominated security forces, like the Preventive Security Service, would, ISTM, eagerly take on IJ. In the past their excuse was the fear that Hamas would oppose them, leading to civil war. IF Hamas were to come out against terrorism, and to join with mainstream Fatah against IJ and AAMB, Im not sure how they dont have enough force of arms to easily win. So I guess im not getting your implication that Hamas is limited in its physical ability to stop terrorism.

Second, you should see Murder in the Cath, if you get the chance. Or just read it. Its very good, aside from the relevance to this topic (King Henry, having given tacit approval in advance to the murder of the Archbishop of Canterbury, has the murderers executed
and yet is wracked with guilt about it.)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


I don't know that he did or didn't. I do know that he didn't condemn them as strongly as he might have. Vacillation on the condemnation is just a point on the spectrum between approval and disapproval.

Yes, and a lovely spring day is just a point on the spectrum between a freezing winter day, and a sweltering summer day. The existence of spectrums does not lessen the importance of distinctions.