Terrorism works

[drdon326]

There has been much talk about terrorism's "root causes" following last week's London bombings, but I have yet to hear anyone mention the most important cause of all: the fact that terrorism has thus far proven extremely effective – thereby encouraging the terrorists to continue.

If you accept the West's formulation of the terrorists' goals, that may sound counterintuitive. The Israeli "occupation," for instance, could have ended in 2000, when Israel offered to uproot most settlements and establish a Palestinian state, with east Jerusalem as its capital, in some 97 percent of the territories. But since the Palestinians responded by launching a terrorist war, not only is there still no Palestinian state, but Israel has reconquered areas it vacated in 1995. Thus the terror would seem to have been counterproductive.

-

Yet if you examine the terrorists' real goals, rather than the West's starry-eyed interpretation of them, it turns out that terrorism has scored tremendous achievements over the past five years.
In Israel's case, for instance, Hamas, which pioneered suicide bombings inside Israel, has never concealed the fact that its goal is Israel's eradication. And many Palestinians share this goal: Opinion polls repeatedly found that while 40-50 percent of Palestinians viewed the intifada's goal as expelling Israel from the territories, the other 40-50% (exact proportions varied) viewed the goal as "liberating all of historic Palestine," including pre-1967 Israel.

Rephrasing the question produced even larger majorities: In a Pew Research poll published in June 2003, 80% of Palestinians said their "rights and needs" cannot be met as long as Israel exists.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1121221100927

.................................................................

[leveymg]

1. Terrorism is counter-productive - it works well as provocation when

used as part of a false-flag operation. It changes political conflicts into wars that favor the militarily stronger party. One always has to ask when there's been another terrorist outrage, qui bono - who is likely to benefit from this? Did Arafat benefit from the Martyrs Brigades, I ask?

Did the Saudi faction most opposed to western dominance of Arabia benefit from 9/11?

Is there a modus operandi to be seen in both operations?

Agreed, as we've seen in Iraq (and in Vietnam and other asymmetrical conflicts going back for an eternity) terrorism -- once a war has started -- is an effective guerilla strategy in dealing with an occupying power.

[Monkie]

2. terrorism works against israel because it destroys its legitimacy?

from the article:
"Toward this goal, terrorism has produced substantial progress – because a necessary precursor to eradicating Israel is destroying its international legitimacy, which is precisely what has been occurring over the last five years. For the first time since Israel's founding, the question of whether Israel has a right to exist has become an open and acceptable topic of debate in the West."

an interesting exercise in circular logic..

also from the article:
"Even in the West, opinion polls in recent years have consistently ranked America second only to Israel on the list of most hated countries and greatest threats to world peace.And even when not discussed explicitly, the idea of Israel's illegitimacy is gaining ground implicitly – as in the Christian divestment campaign, or the famous December 2003 poll in which 59 percent of Europeans deemed Israel the greatest threat to world peace."

my personal feeling is this is a problem that cannot be solved by logic exercises or by blaming the terrorists.59 percent of Europeans see israel as the greatest threat to world peace,and this at a time when anti-arab and anti-muslim feelings are the norm in the west.
when such a large group of people consider israel a larger threat to world peace than Iran or North-Korea or any of the other "evil" countries blaming the terrorists for this is not likely to change any of their minds.This isnt so much a problem for me but it would be in israels interest to do more to change this perception, if that is what it is.

[leveymg]

3. No, it's Likud's cynical response to terrorism that is illegitimate.

Their opportunistic tactic of ratcheting up hostilities whenever peace threatens to break out has turned world opinion against Israel. It doesn't help that the Right-wing also assassinated the leader of the moderate-left faction that was trying to reach a peaceful accomodation with the Palestinians and the Arab world.

[eyl]

6. Y'know

I don't remember peace ever impending, either in a threatening manner or otherwise.

[leveymg]

8. The closest approaches are periodic, followed by provocations

Some key dates:

On September 13, 1993, Israel and the PLO signed a Declaration of Principles (DOP) (text of DOP) on the South Lawn of the White House. The declaration was a major conceptual breakthrough achieved under the Madrid framework. It established an ambitious set of objectives relating to a transfer of authority from Israel to an interim Palestinian authority. The DOP established May 1999 as the date by which a permanent status agreement for the West Bank and Gaza Strip would take effect. Israel and the PLO subsequently signed the Gaza-Jericho Agreement on May 4, 1994, and the Agreement on Preparatory Transfer of Powers and Responsibilities on August 29, 1994, which began the process of transferring authority from Israel to the Palestinians.

Further information from pro-Israel sources: <13>,

Tensions with Jordan were lessened on July 25, 1994 when the two nations signed the Washington Declaration which formally ended the state of war that had existed between them since 1948. On October 26, 1994, Israel and Jordan signed a historic peace treaty at a border post between the two countries on October 26, 1994, witnessed by President Bill Clinton, accompanied by Secretary Warren Christopher. Israel ceded a small amount of contested land to Jordan, and the countries opened official diplomatic relations, with open borders and free trade. Govt Israel, Govt Jordan

Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat signed the historic Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip on September 28, 1995, in Washington, D.C.. The agreement, witnessed by President Bill Clinton on behalf of the United States and by Russia, Egypt, Norway, and the European Union, incorporates and supersedes the previous agreements and marked the conclusion of the first stage of negotiations between Israel and the PLO.

The accord broadens Palestinian self-government by means of a popularly elected legislative council. It provides for election and establishment of that body, transfer of civil authority, Israeli redeployment from major population centers in the West Bank, security arrangements, and cooperation in a variety of areas. Negotiations on permanent status began on May 5, 1996 in Taba, Egypt. As agreed in the 1993 DOP, those talks will address the status of Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees, Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, final security arrangements, borders, relations and cooperation with neighboring states, and other issues of common interest.


Assassination of Rabin
The assassination of Prime Minister Rabin by a right-wing Jewish radical on November 4, 1995 climaxed an increasingly bitter national debate over where the peace process was leading. Rabin's death left Israel profoundly shaken, ushered in a period of national self-examination, and produced a new level of national consensus favoring the peace process.


Election of Netanyahu
In February 1996 Rabin's successor, Shimon Peres, called early elections. Those elections, held in May 1996 and the first featuring direct election of the prime minister, resulted in a narrow election victory for Likud Party leader Binyamin (Bibi) Netanyahu and his center-right National Coalition and the defeat of Peres and his left-of-center Labor/Meretz government.

Despite his stated differences with the Oslo Accords, Prime Minister Netanyahu claimed to continue their implementation, but his Prime Ministership saw a marked slow-down in the Peace Process. (Netanyahu supporters argue that this slow-down was in response to Palestinian terrorism.)


Hebron and Wye River agreements
Prime Minister Netanyahu signed the Hebron Protocol with the Palestinian Authority on January 15, 1997. The Protocol resulted in the redeployment of Israeli forces in Hebron and the turnover of civilian authority in much of the area to the Palestinian Authority. Since that agreement, there has been little progress in the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. A crisis of confidence developed between the parties as the parties had difficulty responding to each other and addressing each other's concerns. Israel and the Palestinians did agree, however, in September 1997, to a four-part agenda to guide further negotiations: security cooperation in the fight against terror; further redeployments of Israeli forces; a "time-out" on unilateral actions that may prejudge the outcome of the permanent status talks; and acceleration of these talks. The U.S. sought to marry continued implementation of the 1995 Interim Agreement with the start of the accelerated permanent status talks. In order to overcome the crisis of confidence and break the negotiating impasse, President Clinton presented U.S. ideas for getting the peace process back on track to Prime Minister Netanyahu and Chairman Arafat in Washington in January 1998. Those ideas included all aspects of the September 1997 four-part agenda and would allow for the start of accelerated permanent status negotiations. The Palestinians agreed in principle to the U.S. ideas.

The U.S. continued working intensively with the parties to reach agreement on the basis of U.S. ideas. After a 9-day session at the Wye River Conference Center in Maryland, agreement was reached on October 23, 1998. The Wye Agreement is based on the principle of reciprocity and meets the essential requirements of both the parties, including unprecedented security measures on the part of the Palestinians and the further redeployment of Israeli troops in the West Bank. The agreement also permits the launching of the permanent status negotiations as the May 4, 1999 expiration of the period of the Interim Agreement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wye_River_Accords

September 1999 - Wye River memorandum signed. The revised Wye memorandum includes specific deadlines for implementing the accord.

SNIP

The two sides will establish a framework for final peace talks by February 15, 2000, with a goal of signing a permanent accord by September 2000.

edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9909/04/mideast.05/


September 17, 2000 - Ariel Sharon makes an inflamatory speech asserting Israeli sovereignty over the Temple Mount - rioting follows. The site is home to the Western Wall, the last remaining segment of the ancient Temple, and to two major mosques, Al Aqsa and the Dome of the Rock. Those sites, making up Islam's third holiest site behind Mecca and Medina, mark the spot where tradition says the Prophet Mohammed ascended to heaven. The event marks the start of the second Intifada.

[eyl]

14. That list you gave

is basically a list of the dates of agreements between Israel and the Palestinians, plus Rabin's assassination, Netanyahu's election, and Sharon's visit to the Mount. The implication (correct me if I'm wrong) seems to be that there were these agreements, then these three events took place, provoking the Palestinians.

However, this completely ignores the Palestinian side of the conflict. For example, after the signing of the Oslo Accords, terrorism went up. I don't remember the exact numbers - there's a thread around here somewhere where I posted them - but in the three months following the signing of the accords, there were about twice as many Israeli fatalities from terrorism than during the previous nine months. The PA, which was supposed to fight terrorism, helped them instead (I can personally attest to a case were PA security forces were used in an attempt to prevent the arrest of a Hamas terrorist), when its security forces weren't participating in terrorism themselves. Terrorism only started dropping after the PA took action against Hamas in 1996 - which happened because, following a series of suicide bombings, Israel threatened to invade - and the arrested terrorists didn't stay in jail for long.

AFAIR, the PA did not uphold a single one of the obligations or limitations placed under it by the Oslo Accords - certainly not the security provisions. Netanyahu came under a lot of fire for not upholding the Israeli side of the agreement, but that came after he proclaimed that Israel would not abide by the agreement if the Palestinians did not.

Then, of course, there's that time that everyone who likes to look back nostalgically at the halcyon days of Oslo ignores - the Tunnel Riots. During those, the Palestinian security forces attacked IDF troops, killing 17 of them in all (I can also personally attest to the attacks, though my outpost was lucky - we didn't have any fatalities). I can't prove that Arafat ordered the attacks - though I believe he did - but it is a matter of public record that the PA's official press (and remember, that people who've published things Arafat didn't like have ended up in jail or worse) fanned the flames by publishing what anyone with any knowledge on the subject must have known were falsehoods. Personally, those incidents, and even more so the responses in Israel (both in the government and the opposition) and internationally, were what convinced me the Oslo Accords were headed for a collapse.

[drdon326]

4. The 59% you refer to.....

is pretty good proof that according to the author, "a necessary precursor to eradicating Israel is destroying its international legitimacy, which is precisely what has been occurring over the last five years."

Its seems the so-called "eurabia" is a reality.

But as terror attacks increase in europe ( as they inevitably will) I suspect there may be a change in the perception you refer to.

[drdon326]

5. OMT...UK multi-culturalism under spotlight

The radicalisation of some younger members of Britain's 1.5 million-strong Muslim community has led to often heated debate. Now questions are being asked about whether British-style multi-culturalism is succeeding or failing.


Protests over Rushdie's novel in the 1980s was a turning point

Muslims have lived in Britain for centuries, but only relatively recently have they become the focus of controversy.

Three big crises over the last decade and a half have heightened tensions between Muslims and non-Muslims:


The Rushdie affair of the late 1980s

The attacks of 9/11 in the US, and their implications for Britain

And now, potentially most serious of all, this month's London bombings
They pose awkward challenges for British policy-makers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4681615.stm

...............................................................

appears their perception on a number of things might be changing.

[Monkie]

7. eurabia doesnt scare me,even if its a bit of a myth

I doubt many muslims see Europe as embracing them.
the population of Europe that is muslim at this moment cant be much more than 5%-10%.Public perception of muslims in Europe must be at an all time low yet i see no sign of anyone seeing Israel as having international legitimacy, beyond a small circle of enthusiasts.
I still find it hard to comprehend myself how we went from the jewish people having the sympathy of the world after the shock and horror of what occurred in WWII to the state of Israel and its problems of lack of legitimacy in the eyes of that same world.And in such a short time.
So while i personally dont think Eurabia is a bad thing if that means we all learn to get allong i dont think its a reality now or has any bearing on Israel

[Coastie for Truth]

9. ANGLICANS AND ISRAEL: Bad English - Martin Peretz - New Republic

Martin Peretz. writing in The New Republic, in the context of the Anglican Church's divestment, raises a universal truth that goes far beyond the one issue of divestment.

I post this four paragraph except in the context of "as in the Christian divestment campaign, or the famous December 2003 poll in which 59 percent of Europeans deemed Israel the greatest threat to world peace."

ANGLICANS AND ISRAEL: Bad English
by Martin Peretz (Web Post date: 06.30.05) (Issue date: 07.11.05) from The New Republic Online <http://www.tnr.com/> at http://www.tnr.com/sam/public/click.mhtml/325/0
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050711&s=peretz071105



I once heard David Pryce-Jones, the learned English novelist and historian, talking about a new instance of the phenomenon of fellow-traveling: the fellow-travelers of Palestine. This, of course, has its precedents in the blind but exuberant support given to both fascism and communism by intellectuals and clerics who had concealed from themselves the evils of these two ideologies. In England, Anglican clerics were part of the establishment ambit of fascist sympathizers disguising themselves as antiwar idealists. These were the folk who soiréed at Cliveden, read and wrote in the /London Times/, chatted wittily at All Souls--appeasers all, as seen in the movie /The Remains of the Day/. And the Anglican Church also had its devotees of Stalin, the most noteworthy (or notorious) of whom was Dr. Hewlett Johnson, the "Red Dean of Canterbury," who wrote the adoring agitprop volume, /The Socialist Sixth of the World/. He was a luminary in Henry Wallace's pro-Soviet campaign for president of the United States on the Progressive Party ticket. Among Wallace's most notable supporters were bishops and other high churchmen from the mainstream American Protestant denominations.

They were silly, but they were at least prisoners of ideals. Fascist sympathizers feared the dread evil of communism, and communist sympathizers feared the dread evil of fascism. And communism purported to build a just society, a new relationship of man and man, though it turned out in many ways to be worse than fascism, more murderous, more delusional, more long-lasting. In any event, both of these armed doctrines tried hard to delude their followers with the lure of high ideals, some rooted in one or another version of the Christian ethic. But what vision of a good society do the ideologists of Palestine proffer to their boosters all over the world? Really nothing, except another miserable state like the others in the Arab Middle East. The new fellow-travelers lack even the feeble extenuations of the old ones.

Indeed, anyone who envisions a future Palestinian polity must wrestle with the grim and ongoing realities of a stagnant class structure, unproductive economic habits, an uncurious and increasingly reactionary culture, deeply cruel relationships between the sexes and toward gays, no notion of an independent judiciary, and a primitive religious mentality that gains prestige in society even as it emphasizes the promise of sexual rewards in paradise for martyrs--a crude myth that has served successfully as an incentive for suicide bombings not only in Israel but also in Iraq and throughout the Arab world. And no real challenge to any of these backward actualities has arisen in all of the turmoil the movement has sown.

Which takes us back to the church deleriants for Palestine. What kindles the fire in their hearts for Palestine? There is little or nothing in Palestinian society that would fill a progressive with enthusiasm. And these churches do not generally exult in the promise of yet one more nation-state. In fact, these churches are against the nation-state, especially the U.S. nation-state. (In Nottingham last week, the Anglicans demanded the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq.) And, even if you take to the harshest reading of Israeli behavior in their ongoing conflict with the Palestinians, dozens and dozens of other peoples in the world, some of whom have a much sounder claim to be a real nation than those for whom the official Anglicans and Presbyterians shed so many tears, suffer infinitely more deprivation and indignity than they do. But tears are not shed for those people at Canterbury Cathedral in England or, for that matter, at Christ Church in Cambridge, Massachusetts, whose rectors have for years been virtual street agitators against Israel. So I come to an unavoidable conclusion. The obsession here is not positive, for one side, but rather negative, against the other side. The clerics and the lay leaders on this indefensible crusade are so fixated on Palestine because their obsession, which can be buttressed by various Christian sources and traditions, is really with the Jews. A close look at this morbid passion makes one realize that its roots include an ancient hostility for the House of Israel, an ugly survival of a hoary intolerance into some of the allegedly enlightened precincts of modern Christendom.

[Monkie]

10. i agree totally with your case for their being a large undercurrent of

fascism in Europe, and always has been,but i was arguing that it has the muslims/arabs as handy scapegoats at the moment so its significant that those numbers are still so high in Europe.
As for the article you cite on the Anglican church,i find its argument strange.I dont have to agree with fascisms idea of a just society is the implication.The article says that the palestinians are worse than the fascists because they dont even have ideals,and thats quite something to contend that they are morally less than the fascists.Yet islam also "purported to build a just society" or?
I also find it less strange that anglicans would be able to agree with muslims than that they agree with communism.They are after all "people of the book".I dont see the problem with disinvestment either?How can we in a democratic society say "you must invest your own funds into something you dont agree with?Using non-violent legal means to change is a pillar of liberal and democratic thought.
I have my own personal bad experiences with christianity and anglicans and i have read a bit of history but i cant jump from there to the articles conclusion

[Coastie for Truth]

11. I agree with the last paragraph--

The clerics and the lay leaders on this indefensible crusade are so fixated on Palestine because their obsession, which can be buttressed by various Christian sources and traditions, is really with the Jews. A close look at this morbid passion makes one realize that its roots include an ancient hostility for the House of Israel, an ugly survival of a hoary intolerance into some of the allegedly enlightened precincts of modern Christendom.

In my way of thinking there is an "identically equal" (=) to all forms of negative selection,i.e., "selective disinvestment" of the Anglican/Presbyterian kind = "Jim Crow" = apartheid = "Numerous Clausus" = dhimmi = "Gentleman's Agreement" = restrictive covenants = redlining = Plessy v. Ferguson. All the same -- all identically equal (=), all a Sin against whatever one believes in and against humanity. That is one of the foundations of progressivism/liberalism.

I used the phrase "selective disinvestment" of the Anglican/Presbyterian kind to differentiate it from the "Green" or "positive" investment of the Unitarian-Universalist's investment funds. (with which I agree).

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Coastie for Truth]

13. Noted.

It was valid 50 years ago to use these words to describe the treatment of individual jews and jews as a people.

Noted.

:shrug:

[Jim Sagle]

15. Short of jumping into the sea, nothing Israel could do COULD change this

perception, since anyone who feels this way is living in a sick fantasy of hate.

[Behind the Aegis]

16. Unfortunately...

I feel there are a few people who are hoping for that very action.

[Jim Sagle]

17. That's one thing I like about a progressive online community like DU.

People like that are not welcome here.

[Coastie for Truth]

18. There are many such people

and Israel is what they verbalize in public - but, as noted in append 9, above, "ANGLICANS AND ISRAEL: Bad English - Martin Peretz - New Republic" it is much deeper (and much more dangerous and hateful).

Using "Israel" as a handle for a more deep seated and wide ranging bias (bigotry) is the last (minimally) socially acceptable bias in so-called "polite" society. That is the point in Peretz' article.