The supposedly moderate (and modern) Palestinian Prime Minister, the one who is supposed to make the Palestinians fiscally responsible and who says he needs $5.6 billion over the next three years to do so, more than the Palestinians have ever received before, says that Israel’s strikes of the last few days—which killed only Palestinian terrorists who were responsible for sending rockets aimlessly into Israeli civilian areas, wounding three Israelis last week, including a two-year-old child–are “crimes.”
Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad called on the international community Tuesday evening to intervene and put a stop to Israel’s strikes in the Gaza Strip.
The Israeli army has launched a series of airstrikes in Gaza in the past two days against Qassam cells responsible for rocket attacks on Israel. The strikes left 11 Islamic Jihad militants dead Monday.
And by the way, a big woo-hoo! to the IDF for scoring 11 terrorist hits and zero civilian casualties. Not that the Palestinians or even the media seem to care. Here’s the video of one hit.
On Tuesday evening, the PA leader condemned Israel’s “crimes against our people in the Gaza Strip and Qabatiya in the West Bank,” and called on the international community to intervene immediately “in order to stop Israel’s aggression against the Palestinian people.”
That “crime” in Qabatiya that he’s complaining about? That would be the arrest of a top PIJ terrorist.
A top Islamic Jihad terrorist, who was responsible for attempting to transport a car carrying 400 kilograms of explosives into an Israeli city in September 2002, was arrested near Jenin in a joint IDF and Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) operation, it was announced on Wednesday afternoon.
[…] he IDF called Sayoud’s capture “significant,” adding that the Islamic Jihad member was a prominent member of a terror cell behind the bombing of the Stage nightclub in Tel Aviv in February 2005 and two suicide bombing attacks at the Netanya mall in July and December 2005. Each of the attacks killed five Israelis.
Let me point out that Salam Fayyad is the man that Condoleeza Rice believes is going to put the Palestinian economy on track. He is the “moderate” that world leaders think is going to help create the Palestinian state that will supposedly live in peace side by side with Israel. And yet, he calls the deaths and capture of Palestinian terrorists “crimes,” which would indicate that he is yet another terrorist thug who shaved his beard, put on a suit, and put away the Filistina Uber Alles t-shirt and the picture of the entire state of Israel labeled “Palestine.”
I do sometimes feel like Cassandra screaming from inside a cave. I really do. The world truly does have one set of rules for everyone else, and another set of rules for Jews. How else can you explain the $7.4 billion successful fundraiser to create a state of murderous Jew-haters next to the world’s only Jewish state?
India has a terrorist problem with Pakistan, but no-one thinks India’s terrorism problem would be reduced if India tried to occupy the entirety of Pakistan. Right now, what happens is: (1) Terrorists commit an atrocity in India; (2) India threatens to realiate against Pakistan unless the Pakistani government stops tacitly sponsoring terrorists; (3) Pakistan does crack down on terrorism for a little bit, before turning a blind eye to or sponsoring terrorists again; (4) Return to step 1. No real peace, but no real war either.
That’s the best anyone can realistically hope for with Israel and Palestine. (Not an exact parallel, but close enough.) Terrorism wasn’t a major security problem for Israel before ’67. The Gaza strip is the model Israel should be following — responding to attacks with air strikes and temporary military incursions, if necessary — rather than continuing the occupation until the end of time.
Note, too, that Hizbullah and Hamas came into being partly as a result of Israeli occupation. Occupations can reduce terrorism in the short term, but in the long run they become counterproductive.
Lefty, the occupation is due almost ENTIRELY to the Arab refusal to negotiate with Israel after the 1967 Six Day War. The Three No’s of Khartoum: No negotation, no recognition, and no peace with Israel, were the response to Israel’s offer to return everything except Jerusalem. That’s EVERYTHING except Jerusalem.
So pardon me if I shed no tears for any bullshit excuses that are made for terrorism today.
And by the way, if Israel followed the Indian/Pakistani example, all the Arabs in Israel would be expelled to Gaza and the West Bank. That’s not an example I would use in this situation.
And gee, what’s the common thread between the India/Pakistan situation, and the Israel/Palestinian situation? Why, it’s the Muslim inability to live under the bailiwick of any other religion.
The “occupation” that Hamas is trying to end is the “occupation” of Muslim lands by Jews. Read the Hamas charter. They’re not trying to kick Israel out of the West Bank and Gaza. And they’re quite open about it. This is from last month.
Of course, there’s also their charter, which essentially says the same thing. Hamas didn’t come into being because of the Israeli occupation of the lands captured in 1967. They came into being to destroy Israel. Period. Don’t buy into their lies. Read the charter. And listen to their spokesmen.
When a Muslim terrorist group says they’re going to kill you, believe them. They’re not exaggerating.
Pakistan does not threaten to destroy India and kill all the Hindus. The Muslims threaten to destroy Israel and kill all the Jews (or at best drive them into the sea, to find refuge where they can).
If Israel was not so restrained and did not fight by the strictures of Jewish morality there would be no Muslim Arabs left in Gaza now, they having been killed or driven out to Egypt. And if the Arabs in Judea and Samaria contiued terrorism the same thing would happen to them. That’s the Arab way (see the Syrian destruction of Hama in 1982, and the Kuwaiti expulsion of all Palestinians in 1991 for having sided with Saddam’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait). Isn’t it nice that the Israelis act according to Jewish morals, and not the Muslim ones that justify indiscriminate murder?
Meryl, I’m not making bullshit excuses for terrorism, and I don’t think anything I wrote could be construed as such. We both want to make Israel as safe as possible. We disagree on how to acheive that goal.
You bring up the ’67 war. Back then, the occupation was necessary to protect Israel from conventional military invasion: tanks and infantry pouring across the border and wiping Israel out. That threat no longer exists. The fear now is that a pullout would result in Palestine becoming a Grand Central Station of anti-Israeli terrorism and a base for rocket attacks, obviously serious concerns. But I don’t believe a continuing military occupation is the best way to deal with these threats.
I think you misunderstand my point about the occupation bringing about Hamas. What I was trying to point out was that Hamas didn’t even exist until the first intifada. If Israel could have safely pulled out of the territories before 1987 then Hamas might never have come into being, or at least be weaker than it is now.
Ending the occupation now would hardly make Hamas disappear, and yes, I know that Hamas wants to destroy Israel. Yet Hamas need recruits. A Palestinian who has to go through checkpoints manned by foreign soldiers is more likely to become angry enough to join Hamas than a Palestinian who never sees the Israelis. This is why I believe that, purely in terms of dealing with terrorism, military occupations become counterproductive over time. (This isn’t to say that the occupation is the sole cause of all anti-Israeli terrorism. But it is a major factor.)
So I conclude that Israel’s best option is to withdraw from the West Bank. A good security wall – landmines galore! – would defend Israel from terrorist infiltration. (As I understand it, even during the worst of the suicide bombings the bombers almost never came from the Gaza Strip. I ascribe that to the barrier Israel already had around the Strip.) And occasional military strikes could deal with rocket attacks. Hardly an ideal situation, but the least bad option among a lot of crummy alternatives.
I could be wrong: maybe the only way to deal with missile attacks will be through permanent occupation. But I think withdrawing is a gamble worth taking. Israel’s present policy seems to boil down to spending a lot of blood and treasure on the occupation while vainly hoping that a Palestinian Sadat will somehow emerge.
A final comment on India and Pakistan: I’m not claiming that Islam is a pacific religion or that Pakistan doesn’t hope to acquire Kashmir. But despite these things, India can occasionally intimidate the Pakistani government into cracking down on terrorism. I believe a similar situation would emerge between Israel and a Palestinian government if the occupation were ended. Most Palestinians would love to see Israel destroyed, yet Israel would be able to occasionally intimidate an independent Palestinian government into cracking down on anti-Israeli attacks. Or so it seems to me.
Lefty, I think you completely discount the Islam factor. You can’t do that. What started as a land dispute is now a religious war, and the religious aspect is why the peace won’t work. Even Yasser Arafat was lying when he said he wanted peace. He didn’t. He wanted all of Israel. The Palestinians want nothing less than what they had before 1948. They’ve been brought up to believe they can have it. And in their eyes, they’re succeeding. They have Gaza, and Israel is talking about giving them the rest. Why should they stop sending rockets into Israel?
Yes, during the worst of the bombings, not suicide bombers came from the Gaza Strip, due to the wall and checkpoints. The separation fence and checkpoints will keep them out of Israel if the Palestinians get the West Bank. But the fence won’t stop rockets. You’re asking Israel to allow the Palestinians to launch rockets from what is effectively the next block over. All of Israel would be vulnerable. BUT–it would stop the hatred of Israel and the enlistment of terrorists?
No. It would encourage the enlistment of terrorists, because the Palestinians would show that terrorism is working. It got them Gaza and their own state. Why stop now? Now, they can have it all—“Palestine” before 1948.
Israel took a gamble in Gaza. They withdrew two years ago. The Palestinian response was to elect terrorists as their leaders, smuggle in tons of weapons and explosives, and fire rockets on a daily basis into Israeli towns. Please explain to me why Israel should do the same thing in the West Bank when the example of Gaza has yet to be solved.
The United States would never stand for Mexican terrorists lobbing missiles into San Diego on a daily basis. Why should Israel have to?
You want a safe Israel? Then forget about withdrawing from the West Bank until the terrorism stops.