Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (22634)	3/30/2002 9:18:31 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

If we're going to use that logic to explain away the massacre of Palestinian civilians by Israelis, though, shouldn't we use the the same logic to explain the massacres of Israeli civilians by Palestinians? And then the question is "where does it all end"? If you notice the facts involved in most massacres, they either occur against enemy soldiers (take no prisoners), or against civilians who are perceived as providing direct aid and comfort to the enemy. And since 60% (and likely more) of Palestinians advocate the use of suicide bombers to target Israeli civilians specifically, that can readily be construed as making themselves combatants and thus justifiable targets for IDF retaliation. On the part of the Israelis, this may be calculated, knowing that as guerilla groups, they must permit events to escalate to a state were the Palestinians have irrefutably made themselves combatants and thus targetable without major political repercussions. This can take the form of weakening Arafat to such an extent that his rival extremist groups fill the political void and incite the people to cross from being civilians to becoming active combatants. But of course, the Israelis will counter that Arafat has done little to nothing to stem the tide of extremist activity in the PA (probably out of fear for his own life), thus they might as well eliminate him as a political force and let the extremist movement "run its course" and eliminate the ambiguity and required restraint that dealing with Arafat creates. There are any number of scenarios that could be involved here.. But to return to the original point, both societies, Palestinian and Israelis, have their extremists who are creating or permitting events to transpire in such a manner as to arrive at their ultimate goals (destruction of Israel, or neutralization of the Palestinian statehood issue, except on Israeli terms). Massacres can happen as deliberate provocation, or in the blood lust of battle (to preserve ones own soldiers/civilians by eliminating all possibility of opposition). Massacres can also be orchestrated by Machiavellian leaders who are willing to create the conditions where civilians are encouraged to be, or directly placed, in harm's way in order to achieve political goals. The killing of the 12 year boy, probably by Palestinian personnel, was blamed upon the Israelis in order to incite the populace and motivate them to fight. Of course, the population simply would not be willing to believe their own leaders were responsible for that boy's death. But that's the nature of war... We try and civilize it, limit its destruction.. But at its heart, war is about all sides preserving their own people while eliminating and dominating the enemy, by whatever means necessary. It's the difference between boxing and a no-holds barred street brawl to the death. The only rule of war is that, at its most fundamental level, there are no rules, except to win. Hawk