Exploiting Mumbai's tragedy

[shira]

Exploiting Mumbai's tragedy

Why did the terrorists choose to attack Chabad House? The speculation threatens to set back Muslim-Jewish relations

Richard Silverstein
guardian.co.uk, Thursday December 4 2008 16.30 GMT

Pakistani militants have been known to select prominent foreign targets within Pakistan, as the Mumbai terrorists did last week. But few, if any, Pakistani militants have been known until now specifically to target Israelis. I say, Israelis rather than Jews because the single surviving terrorist noted that they chose Chabad House to avenge the suffering of the Palestinians. Therefore, the attack was anti-Israeli, though not necessarily antisemitic.

<snip>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2008/dec/04/mumbai-terror-attacks-israel

[shira]

1. thoughts? comments?

[Vegasaurus]

2. If Jews or Israelis had been killed only in the hotels or restaurants

one could say that they had not been targetted specifically.

However, because the terrorists hit the Chabad House, specifically staking it out in advance and knowing that it was a place Israelis went, it is clear that anti-Zionism was underneath the action.

The fact that the surviving terrorist said that they hit Chabad House to avenge the Palestinians is further proof, and that will do nothing positive at all to advance Jewish/Muslim or Israeli/Muslim relations.

[bemildred]

3. Well, generally I like Mr Silverstein.

This particular article seems likely to generate more heat than light. That might be why nobody else wants to jump in. Just my 2 cents.

[shaayecanaan]

4. Its probably more the case that not many people particularly care...

what he thinks. I can't say that he stands out from rest of the punditocracy.

For some reason known only to themselves the right-wing types here absolutely obsess over this guy and every single thing that he writes. God only knows why, he's hardly the first Jew to criticise Israel. That might explain why the OPer posted the OP and then less than sixty seconds later made another post asking for "Questions? Comments?"

[pelsar]

5. he simply doesnt know a whole lot...

when he writes about israel, every time i've read his articles he has factual mistakes, speculations that within days or weeks are proven wrong etc.

hes one of the cult types that facts and history arent to be bothered with......and he believe what he believes....just like any religious person

[azurnoir]

7. He is himself a DUer

and although he has not posted here in sometime he posts as richards1052

[shira]

9. so, do you agree with the author?

His article was panned at CiF by not only the pro-Israel side but also those usually most hostile towards Israel. I'm interested in whether those here, moreso the anti-Israel side, agree with the author's position. If so, this would mirror the CiF comments of those who are usually very anti-Israel. The author of this piece managed to unite both pro- and anti- Israel commenters. Quite a feat if you ask me.

Your "right-wing types" comment also intrigues me.

What immediately came to mind is something some of us here were just beginning to discuss the other day:

http://www.rothman.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=321&Itemid=1

I'm well aware many so-called progressives accuse "right-wingers" of maintaining that the UN has an anti-Israel bias, but here we have an example of the entire US congress (save for Ron Paul) agreeing to this "right-wing" position. The vote was 400-1. Does this make all progressives in Congress (and every democrat voted for this) "right-wingers"? If so, how fascinating!

And how about our incoming Sec. of State, HRC, for using Palestine-Media-Watch as a main resource to combat hate in the OPT? Is HRC a "right-winger" too, since it's usually just "right-wingers" who are accused of using this "hate" resource?

Just curious about your definition of "right winger", that's all.

[azurnoir]

6. There is another possibility that occured

last weekend as to why Israeli's or Jews might be targeted

Israeli media reports on Friday revealed that slain Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto intended to establish official relations with the Jewish state if elected and was seeking Mossad protection in the interim.

Speaking to The Jerusalem Post, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert grieved over Bhutto's assassination following an election rally on Thursday, and said that upon her return to Pakistan in October after years of exile Bhutto conveyed to him via a mutual acquaintance that she wanted close ties between Israel and Pakistan.

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=14909

considering that her husband Asif Ali Zardari was recently elected President of Pakistan I suppose it could be possible that part of the attack was to preempt any possible thought of relations between Israel and Pakistan, something that has not been mentioned

hopefully Richard is wrong about the setback in relations between Jews and Muslims no matter what that would be a win for the terrorists

[bemildred]

8. Well, yeah.

I just don't see that it needs much "explaining", in the sense that it's not a new sort of occurrence. One can examine closely the motives of the parties involved, but I don't know that it will clarify much. I mean, you have to be in a fairly demented state to plan or carry out this sort of thing. It seems clear it was a provocation, but I rather think it's going to sink back into the long history of such things without much long-term effect. But it's too soon to judge that. So I'm just spouting off. It may or may not prove to have tipped Pakistan over the edge, but the Bushites have been working on that for a long time as it is. All you can do is speculate, and once you start speculating, there is a lot of room to roam around in without nailing anything down.

[azurnoir]

11. course it could have been one those 2am thoughts too

mind tends to roam then

did I mention aliens cause well...

[bemildred]

17. Well, I was thinking ...

If I put myself in the mind of someone who runs one of these shows, no mean feat, mind you, given my high moral quality and the moral vacuity of such a person, then I would see all of the parties who actually carry out the attack as disposable tools, and they would be fed some convenient fiction about the entire effort, as far as possible from the truth, as damaging as possible to my enemies, as convenient as possible with their prejudices, but consistent with my original purpose. But there is no way to know here, and if such a person has done his job well, it will never be known.

Edit: And history is very clear: there is no depth of duplicity that is truly unrealistic.

[azurnoir]

22. You are correct for the "master minds" of such attacks

everyone is a tool of some sort and lives no matter whos are expendable

[bemildred]

23. "The end justifies the means."

Which of course means you can justify anything, you just have to invent a golden utopia at the end of it all, and off you go ...

[azurnoir]

24. sounds down right religious n/t

[bemildred]

20. This is good:

Plans of Attack

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/05/AR2008120502606.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4604023

It certainly does seem true that these guys in Mumbai gave a big boost to Taliban in the Tribal Areas, intentionally or not. Maybe it was about Afghanistan.

[azurnoir]

26. I suspect it was about a lot of things

Afghanistan, India/Pakistan. Muslim vs everybody including other Muslims, supposedly Israel/Palestine but the Palestinians Fatah or Hamas wisely do not seem to be biting, but mostly creating terror and deepening division and in that they seem to have been a success

[bemildred]

27. A good plan works in more than just one way.

But if I had to hazard a guess at this point, I would wager that keeping Pakistan from paying too much attention to what is going on in the Tribal Areas, and keeping the new civilian government from functioning effectively, was a principal original motivation. And the Chabad attack looks like an opportunistic red-herring thrown in as a distraction. The interview with Gul posted around here somewheres was interesting in that regard. It seems to me that Israel is a tenuous connection, and Pakistan and Afghanistan is closer and has a long back trail. And what better way than to heat things up with India and stop all this tension reduction stuff that was going on? It's really seems very "business as usual" to me. Almost Bush-like. The Indian 9/11. The Pakistani "Gulf of Tonkin".

[oberliner]

10. The perspective of the attackers themselves

Terrorists whose political aims involve avenging actions by Israel against the Palestinians or others do not themselves appear to make an effort to distinguish between attacking "Israeli targets" and attacking "Jewish targets".

Thus, Jewish community centers are considered legitimate targets for these folks. The distinction made between Israelis and Jews that some folks who oppose Israel go out of their way to make are generally not made by those wishing to conduct these sorts of attacks.

[shira]

12. so are we to believe...

...that these terrorists who believe all Jews = Israelis = Zionists are too stupid to distinguish between these labels? That would appear to be the opinion of the author. I wonder if politics were used to explain the deliberate killing of muslims or blacks, by caucasians, would the "stupid" card be as easily accepted?

btw, oberliner, good post.

[oberliner]

13. Interesting question

My thought is that these people despise Israel and perceive Israel as the Jewish state. Therefore, they don't really make a distinction between Israel and Jew, as it was the Jews who brought about the creation of Israel, and (generally speaking) continue to support Israel, and, in their minds, are therefore complicit in whatever they think Israel is responsible for.

You disagree?

[shira]

14. of course I agree

..it's Jews they're targeting.

If it were "zionists", they could just as well target Bill and Hillary Clinton, George Bush, or any other non-jewish zionist. If Israelis, why not also target with just as much passion the 20% who are not Jews, but arabs?

[azurnoir]

15. So is the claim that the Chabad House was the target

of the attack?

BTW comments #10,12,13,14 had to be one of the most well written question answer sequences I have ever seen on DU congrats

[pelsar]

16. are you wondering if it wasnt a target? n/t

[azurnoir]

18. Not the same question n/t

[pelsar]

19. excuse me?

you wrote:

So is the claim that the Chabad House was the target

maybe my english is a bit rusty...but arent you asking if the terrorists planned to attack the chabad house?...if that is not your question perhaps you can elaborate as to what exactly your "wondering about."

[azurnoir]

21. What I wrote if quoted completely was a question

So is the claim that the Chabad House was the target of the attack?

And no I was not asking the obvious
It is quite obvious that the Chabad House was a target

so to clarify

So is the claim that the Chabad House was the target of the attack?

I was asking the opinion of the poster I was replying to

[Vegasaurus]

25. Of course the Chabad house wasn't THE target of the attacks

but it is significant that it was A target.

I am glad we all agree on this point.