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.

Pastimes : The Boxing Ring Revived -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: goldworldnet who wrote (3142)	4/19/2002 12:08:37 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

MEDIA MISS ISRAELI RESTRAINT By JONATHAN FOREMAN April 17, 2002 -- DO the reporters covering Israel's incursion into the West Bank know anything about war? Their hyperbole about the campaign's bruality shows an ignorance of how other armies have fought hundreds of armed men hiding out in cities and towns. The media seem to have no idea of the difficulties the Israelis face in opposing guerilla tactics in an urban area against an enemy who don't wear uniforms and who choose to hide among a civilian population. Some civilian casualties are an inevitable consequence of the way that the various Palestinian militias choose to fight. It took centuries for the European powers to evolve laws of "civilized" warfare - rules designed to spare the lives and property of noncombatants. And even after those rules were all but universally adopted (in the 18th century) they didn't always achieve their aim. But a corollary of those rules was a general detestation of guerilla warfare - because it necessarily involved abrogations of the laws of war, not just by the guerillas but by anyone trying to beat them. All wars involve cruelty, but the task of defeating a guerilla enemy has a merciless logic all its own. This is even more true in an urban environment. This fact makes the Israeli campaign in the West Bank - and the hyperbolic international reaction to it - all the more remarkable. Regardless of Ariel Sharon's reputation, the tactics chosen by the Israeli army - sending infantrymen from house to house - simply make no sense unless the avoidance of civilian casualties was a priority. If the Israelis were truly as callous or reckless about civilian casualties as CNN and the BBC imply, they could have destroyed the "terrorist infrastructure" at much less risk to their own men: * The last time American troops fought guerillas in an urban area was the battle of Hue in 1968. We didn't hesitate to use artillery and jet aircraft in support of the Marines. * The early French response to the uprising in Algeria included the naval bombardment of a rebel-controlled town, randomly killing up to 8,000 people. * The Russians literally pulverized the Chechen capital of Grozny in 1999. And if the Israelis were as monstrously cavalier about human life as their enemies claim, they would simply have shelled or bombed Ramallah and Jenin into submission. That's what Syria's then-President Assad did at Hama in 1982 - where he crushed the Muslim Brotherhood at the cost of at least 10,000 lives. It's possible that atrocities were committed in "Operation Defensive Shield." But we don't know that, and certainly shouldn't trust rumors and propaganda from people with a record of distortion - some of whom have also claimed that "the Jews" destroyed the World Trade Center. If some crimes did take place, it's hardly surprising: This kind of warfare has a brutalizing, disinhibiting effect on even the best-trained soldiers. (Historically, democratic societies have certain strengths at war - but ironically find it harder to restrain their soldiery in the face of provocation.) It took the highly disciplined troops of the British Army in Northern Ireland at least a decade to develop effective techniques that did not involve "Bloody Sunday" type incidents. The fact is: If the enemy blurs the distinction between civilian and combatant, you'll likely wind up doing so yourself. The opposite is also true: If you know that women and children are not going to fight you, then you will find it easier to keep them out of your gunsights. The Israelis could be forgiven for learning the wrong lesson from the past two weeks: That next time they go after the people who've been suicide-bombing their kids, they might as well just level Ramallah and Nablus and Jenin. Why take the risk of fighting from house to house if you're going to be treated as if you've done a Grozny anyway? nypost.com Posted by JHalada on the AMD thread. Tim