Sharon’s Preemptive Zeal

[Violet_Crumble]

By Neve Gordon


CommonDreams.org
21 September, 2003

No more than a month ago I sat with a friend drinking coffee at the Hillel Café in Jerusalem. Today it is a shattered edifice, with blood stains on the floor. Indeed, this was the first thought that crossed my mind after hearing the news about the horrific suicide attack that left another 7 Israelis dead and 45 wounded. “I could have been there,” I said to myself.

It is a frightening thought, one that has crossed the mind of many an Israeli, particularly since the eruption of the second Intifada in September 2000 -- a period in which 244 suicide attacks have been carried out. Just as disturbing, though, is the thought that this bloody reality has been accepted by the Israeli public as part of their daily routine; so much so that the same people who are terrified to leave their homes now consider Israel’s gory mode of existence as their karma, as if the political realm were in some odd way predetermined.

But politics, as the great Jewish thinker Hannah Arendt repeatedly stated, is the realm of freedom, where humans actually have the opportunity to begin something new through speech and deed. Even “in the epochs of petrifaction and foreordained doom,” she claimed, the faculty of freedom, “which animates and inspires all human activities and is the hidden source of production of all great and beautiful things” usually remains intact.

What Israelis and Palestinians have been witnessing in the past few weeks is a concerted effort to destroy the road that might have led the two peoples out of a foreordained doom and into a new beginning. Notwithstanding the impression some people might have, this myopic effort has been led by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, not only by Hamas. His strategy is one of preemptive strikes.

http://www.countercurrents.org/pa-gordon210903.htm

[mddemo]

1. pre emptive strikes

I probuably disagree with many on these boards about pre emptive strikes but i believe that terrorists have to be taken out, you have no choice, eventually the people that support them will realise the price is to high to pay. Yeah you will lose innocents as will thy, but theres no other option, as winston churchill once said "appeasement is hoping that the crocodile will eat you last"
I liken it to my neighbourhood growing up, there were some lunatics you could reason with, and there were others you just prayed you didnt cross their paths, for to do so would mean trouble, there was no reasoning, no talking nothing you could do to stop them bar actually killing them, and then you would have to do the same with every member of their family if you wanted to live in peace. One of the reasons i joined the army was to get away from these nutters, at least if i had to deal with nutters, it was me alone who would have the burden, not my family.

[Resistance]

2. yeah

Hamas argues the same thing: that they have "no choice" left but to resort to desperate attacks.

[mddemo]

3. deperate attacks

Mayby the difference here is i was a soldier, so to me blowing up buses of civilians, or pizza restaurants, or universities, killing athletes, throwing old men in wheelchairs off of ships, intentionally is way beyond the pale. It amazes me the way some can equate the two, mayby the problem is i was taught that terrorists are evil and wrong no matter what the circumstances, mayby it was growing up with bombs going off all over the place in my country that made me this way. No idea but ill stick to my thinking, you stick to yours.

My question is this, if the palistinian terrorist put down their arms tomorrow what would happen, now if the Isralies did the same thing do you think the palistinians etc would just say ok now we can have peace. I dont think so.

[Resistance]

5. I don't know what the difference is to you

To me, blowing up houses, or shopping centers, or razing farmland, killing children and peace activists, slamming missiles into civilian crowds, intentionally, is just as beyond the pale as is the acts which you list in your post. What amazes me is the way some fail to see the equation between the two: both are awful, and both deserve condemnation.

If the Palestinians put down their arms tomorrow, the settlement expansions which steal land that doesn't belong to Israel would continue.

If the Israelis put down their arms tomorrow, the settlement expansions which steal land that doesn't belong to Israel would continue.

On edit, well maybe in the 2nd scenario the settlements wouldn't keep expanding since Israeli colonialism couldn't be backed by force. The point is that no matter what has happened up until now, Israel has continued to steal land from the Palestinians. Suicide attacks or no suicide attacks. Peace talks or no peace talks. The conquest continues.

[mddemo]

6. settlements

I get it now, its about jews living in Palastine,what your saying is that no jews should be living in any area that is Palestinian, while i agree on some kind of right of return for the palestinians, it seems the Palestinians and their supporters want Palestine jew free. You have to remember that prior to the declaration of independance their were many jews living in the west bank areas, gaza and outwith the borders of Israel.

[Resistance]

8. ?

I have not said anything about keeping "Palestine Jew free".

[Violet_Crumble]

9. No, you didn't get it...

Which is why you tried the 'so what yr saying is....(insert something poster didn't say)' routine just then. What I'd say is that no Israeli should be living in any area that's Palestinian while retaining their Israeli citizenship and expecting the IDF to protect them as Israeli citizens while they live in their strictly Israeli-only enclaves and use their Israeli-only bypass roads and some of them terrorise the Palestinian population. Do you agree?

Violet...

[mddemo]

13. ok

I think the settlers who take the law into their own hands are as bad as Hamas, ive no problem with them being tarred and feathered or whatever. My problem is this belief that these people have no right to live were they live, isnt that the same argument that the anti palestinians always use. As to being protected by the IDF, who else is gonna protect them. At the moment even with the IDF protecting them they get attacked. NOthis is one barrel of pickled fish that aint gonna swim again. Personally i believe in dismanteling the settlements except in a few cases, let isreal build the wall, and mayby in 100 years they will live together.

[Violet_Crumble]

17. The thing is...

My problem is this belief that these people have no right to live were they live, isnt that the same argument that the anti palestinians always use.

Israelis don't have the right to live wherever they want to when it's other peoples land they're living on and it's never been part of Israel. How is that the same argument as that made by bigots who claim that the Palestinians, a people who have lived on that land for centuries, have no right to live there? Those settlers don't have the right to live where they live, which is why I support dismantlement of the settlements, something I suspect will never happen. It's good to see we agree on dismantling the settlements, and agree it's probably going to be a long time before both people can live together, so that's why I think the sooner peace is achieved the better, so they can finally get on that long path....


Violet...

[mddemo]

18. arafat

So tell me how does arafat, being egyptian have any more right to live there than someone whos parents were born in the west bank circa 1930.

[Violet_Crumble]

19. Haven't you danced this dance in another thread?

It was carefully explained to you why Arafat is Palestinian. Yr question doesn't make any sense anyway...

Violet...

[mddemo]

20. birth rights

if you accept that arafat is a palestinian, then you also accept that the jews have as much right to be there as him. after all didnt their parents come from there too. cant have it both ways you know.

[Violet_Crumble]

22. I've already answered that in the other thread...

The people yr referring to as having the same rights as Palestinians to live in the Occupied Territories are citizens of Israel and international law states the settlements are illegal, so they have no right to be there. In case you haven't noticed, citizens of a state can't just move wherever they like and remain citizens of the state they came from and claim that where they've moved to is now part of the state they came from. What part of this are you having trouble understanding? It seems pretty simple to understand to me...


Violet...

[The Magistrate]

28. A Point To Remember, Mr. Demo

At the time Arafat was born, all the Near East south of Syria was England's: there was little in the way of real national boundaries within the colonial realm. Even under the Ottoman, leading families of the region had established domiciles in all the major metropolitain areas, from Damascus to Cairo. Arafat is a member of the al'Husseini clan, which was the dominant lineage of Palestinian society for some centuries.

[Darranar]

25. Ah, so you think the settlements are legitimate?

Guess what, they're on stolen land. Yep, STOLEN LAND! how would you like it if I stole your back yard and built a fence around it, and then built a house on it? And if you approached it,of course, you'd be shot. Any plants you had in your back yard are runined. if you depend on them for food, tough.

The settlements are not only illegal, but they have a devestating humanitarian effect on the palestinians.

[mddemo]

10. military

Ok heres a soldiers perspective, if someone ambushes people from an olive grove, that grove is gone, you clear it away to make it harder to snipe from, if a terrorist is living in a building, then that building is a legitimate target, if you live in that building and know that the terrorist is there, then you are in fact facilitating the terrorist. If a homicide bomber kills people then you make sure that the people who facilitated him suffer, ie knock down his house, though you may grow more terrorists, its the cumlative effect you are going for, you must make any attack on your people so costly that the terrorists realise that they can twin, and the people around them, the so called pond that they swim in, start to realise that they are in a no win situation.

[Resistance]

15. ah

and, in the end, all the Palestinian buildings are crumbled to the ground, their farmland is burned to the ground, and their markets are devastated from missile strikes and bulldozings. There is nothing left, due to the "fight against terrorists" and making them realize they can't win.

Is it at all conceivable to you that the real goal of Sharon's regime isn't fighting terror at all - but to use that as a cover for destroying everything Palestinian? Remember, this guy isn't a liberal peace-loving compromiser - not in the least. He's a right-wing warmonger who, if he's at all like any other right-wing warmonger, is fueled by racism, religious fundamentalism, and hatred. I've said it before: I believe actions speak louder than words. And so far, actions are showing me that yes, there is a real agenda here of destroying Palestinian livelihood, and exacting upon them the same kind of revenge which Hamas also plots against Israeli civilians. It goes way beyond the whole "fighting terror" thing, like with Bush invading Iraq - everyone knows the real motive is not "liberating Iraqis", it's much more sinister. Same with Ariel Sharon.

[Gimel]

21. You see the Hamas offences

I have read for the first time, Resitance, that you are sort of condemning Hamas, but only in relation to the Israeli retaliation, saying it's the same thing. Is it not appropriate to condemn and irradicate the primary (meaning origional) offenders?

Why denounce Israel at every opportunity, and claim that Hamas is only doing the only thing possible?

Are the properties of Hamas more valuable than human life (Israelis)?

everyone knows the real motive is not "liberating Iraqis", it's much more sinister. Same with Ariel Sharon.

Here you are attributing motives which are assumed by you (and many Palestinian supporters and websites) to be behind Israel and US actions. This is an over-simplification of the situation.

[Violet_Crumble]

23. Okay, what do you think is the real motive for 'liberating Iraq'?

I'd be interested to hear what you think...


Violet...

[Gimel]

32. Only a parallel

I'm not in the "Iraq" discussion here. This would need to cover a lot of background material first to gain an understanding. Here were just looking at some basic parallels and attributing it to Sharon. I am disagreeing. That's the point of discussion.

[number6]

31. so If a sniper shoots at police from you corn field

I'll come and burn it down, if he gets on your roof
and shoots , I'll bulldoze your house down, that ok ???

[Violet_Crumble]

7. What I find offensive...

Is the way yr so appalled by the killings of civilians only if they're not carried out by the military of a nation. Yr attitude towards civilian deaths as the result of pre-emptive strikes carried out in the name of fighting terrorism comes across as a bit callous....

You were taught that terrorism is evil and wrong, but were you taught what terrorism actually means and how that way over-used term tends to get slapped on just about everything and everyone nations like the US have a gripe with? And if you think terrorism is so evil, what do you think of the US, what with it being condemned for terrorism in the World Court?

Suicide bombings are terrible and clearly terrorism, but those who try to argue that violent retaliation that leads to the deaths of innocent Palestinians is acceptable and refusing to think about ways to stop these attacks without using violence and killing as an 'answer' haven't been thinking very hard at all...

As for yr question, during the recent ceasefire when Hamas wasn't carrying out attacks, the Israeli govt replied by carrying out attacks on Hamas leaders which killed bystanders, including women and children. So, why do you think the current Israeli govt is the slightest bit interested in peace? I sure don't...

Violet...

[mddemo]

12. hamas peace

And you believe that Hamas calling a ceasefire was actually a ceasefire, i dont think so, no one during a legitimate ceasefire continues to stock up on ammo, carry out recces etc, this in military terms is called regrouping. A good anology for the unfortunate civilian deaths is theres a bank robbery and the criminals come out firing, unfortunetly during the firefight with the cops, a stray bullet from one of the cops guns catches a bystander. Whos to blame, the bystander, the cop or the bank robbers.

[Violet_Crumble]

'Unfortunate civilian deaths'???

Uh-huh. Got it now. Listen, instead of muddying the waters by calling these innocent people 'unfortunate civilians', let's just call them 'collateral damage' in future. That way the word civilian is kept out of it and we can try to convince ourself they're not real people getting killed....

Unless you have some factual evidence to prove otherwise, it looks like the ceasefire WAS a ceasefire. How long it would have held will never be known due to the Israeli govt's actions in provoking them by attacking and killing Hamas leaders AND innocent civilians during the ceasefire....

Violet...

[mddemo]

16. collateral damage

actually as a british serviceman collateral damage is a phrase we dont use when civilians are killed, its a term i dont like as it only dehumanizes what is in fact a tradegy for the people involved.

[Violet_Crumble]

24. What's the difference?

I see absolutely no difference between 'collateral damage' and the callous way you were talking about the killing of civilians in The War Against Terror. Both ways dehumanise people....



Violet...

[sushi]

27. If the Palestinians terrorists

put down their arms tomorrow, do you think the Israelis would dismantle the settlements?

[mddemo]

4. analogy

Once again i am goin gto use an example of my childhood, in my neighbourhood there were some guys who when you were fighting them if you said enough, they would stop, and then there were others that no matter what you said, they would just keep pummeling you until you were battered and bloodied. The only option you had was to fight back and fight hard.

[Resistance]

11. well

Again, I am certain that Hamas spokespersons would argue the same thing: that there is "no choice" but to "fight back and fight hard" against the Zionist occupier.

[mddemo]

14. zionist occupier

Well the problem with that is that Hamas says a jew who has lived his whole life in tel aviv, whose parents lived their lives there is still a zionist occupier. With that mindset native americans could insist apon every non native american get out.

[Jackie97]

26. Why not?

"With that mindset native americans could insist apon every non native american get out."

If you read your history closely, you'll find that native Americans did insist upon that because white people were taking over their land. Whites of course saw themselves as the victim and "fought back". We can't hardly find a full blooded Native American today as a result. Couldn't that happen with the Palestinians if this keeps going on?

[MariMayans]

30. doubtful

The Israeli's had the bad luck to start their little adventure after extermination as a tool of conquest fell out of favor largely because of distaste for Hitler's Judeocide which gave moral backing to the project.

This meant they had to use expulsion but this quickly fell out of favor through both Hitler and Stalin's abuses so had to be abandoned. This left apartheid which eventually also became disfavored.

If they had started all this a few hundred years ago they would have had a free hand to wipe them out and there would only be a few scattered people who even remembered there ever was a Palestinian population.

[sushi]

29. You forgot something

Why do "they just keep pummeling you until you were battered and bloodied?"

Because you have something that's theirs, and you keep taking more!

"The only option you had was to fight back and fight hard."

You mean terrorize back.