Maybe it is not a terrorism but the result is the same

#1
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/677699.html

A week ago today, at about 7:00 P.M., Israel Defense Forces soldiers killed Aya al-Astal, 9, of Khan Yunis. She was killed east of the city, close to where the Kissufim checkpoint was located.
Note, that she was killed on Palestinian land, accross the border. There is no barbed wire to prevent children to enter dangerous areas. Alas, poor kid simply lost her way.

At about 7:30 P.M. last Thursday, the IDF informed the Palestinian security coordinator that "soldiers shot and hit a terrorist."

"She was so small, I almost thought she was a doll," Ziada said this week. He saw a large hole on the left side of her neck, and then noticed bullet holes in her left knee, right arm and the left side of her abdomen. The IDF report said she was carrying a large backpack. Ziada and his men found no pack in the area.
No doubt that the Israeli soldier knew pretty well that he killed a children but he knew also that he would not be punished.

"They say they have such sophisticated equipment for night vision," Saliman said over and over. "Couldn't they see it was a little girl? Doesn't the soldier who shot her have children, or little brothers and sisters?"
Do you agree that it is a right time to form buffer zone and and to send UN peacekeepers (including British) in the region to prevent such tragic incidents?
 

Legs

ADC
Book Reviewer
#2
KGB_resident said:
Do you agree that it is a right time to form buffer zone and and to send UN peacekeepers (including British) in the region to prevent such tragic incidents?
I won't go into the rights and wrongs of a buffer zone with UN peacekeepers, because it's not something that I feel I know enough about to make a sensible comment. However - where do you suggest the British Troops you mentioned would come from? If you look through ARRSE enough you can see how overstretched we already are (Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, NI, etc etc etc).
 
#3
I'll admit in the past the Israelis have been too "gung-ho" and shoot first, then check........however as terrorists have shown before they have no regard for sex or age to use as their tools and just because a "large pack" isn't there now, doesn't mean it was never there :?

Two sides to every story KGB-man :wink:
 
#4
Didn't the Israelis, commenting recently about the Met's shooting of the 'innicent' Brazilian, claim that their policy was to arrest suspected suicide bombers? Perhaps the policy excludes aid workers and children. Either way, the IDF regularly kill civilians - firing rockets into housing areas, bulldozing houses - for no reason other than they suspect someone involved in terrorism may be in the area, and they do it with apparent impunity.

One is bound to ask why our own government, which happily prosecutes its own soldiers for lesser crimes, isn't more critical. I wonder if there may be a clue in the name of Bliar's unelected special adviser on the area - Lord Levy.
 
#5
The whole area is full of tragedies. Picking one individual one and asking if it's right or wrong would need not only evidence, but also the need to take in to account the risks and fears that ordinary soldiers from Israel have to face, the horrors that they have seen and the total disregard for age, sex, nationality and social standing that palistinian terrorists have shown.

You can't openly use such forms of terror in the fulfillment of your aims and then cry foul when your targets are on the edgy side and a tragedy occurs. Oh, sorry yes you can...... they've been doing it in N. Ireland for years, silly me. Looks like one rule for one side and the rule of law for the other then.
 
#6
Legs said:
KGB_resident said:
Do you agree that it is a right time to form buffer zone and and to send UN peacekeepers (including British) in the region to prevent such tragic incidents?
I won't go into the rights and wrongs of a buffer zone with UN peacekeepers, because it's not something that I feel I know enough about to make a sensible comment. However - where do you suggest the British Troops you mentioned would come from? If you look through ARRSE enough you can see how overstretched we already are (Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, NI, etc etc etc).
Palestine was under British control before creation of Israel. So the UK bears at least moral responsibility for security there. As to the countries and territories you mentioned then:

NI - there is a visible progress in NI. I don't see terror acts, riots. And political process goes in the right direction.

Bosnia - there is no war now. The main task: to catch alleged war criminals Karadzhic and Mladic it too hard (no matter how many British troops would be in Bosnia). Or maybe you think that blowing of house of Bosnian priest is a noble task to British armed forces?

Afghanistan - democratic (or 'democratic'?) elections took place there. So people of Afghanistan is able itself to resolve own problems. British presence, almost symbolic taking into account the size of Afghanistan can't solve any problem and will produce only senseless deaths.

Iraq - Iraqi people was liberated almost 3 years ago and will live peacefully without British forces (and without problems caused by them). Nothing will be changed in Basra even after immediate withdrawal of the British. Moreover the Dutch are ready to send their boys in Iraq.

By contrast, even few hundreds of British paras could prevent innocent deaths in tiny Gaza Strip. Israelis are brave enough to kill children, innocent civilians but I doubt that they will confront with British armed forces.
 
#7
I'm sick and tired of Israel and Palestine and I supsect the whole world is. Everything that could potentially work has been tried and it didn't work. Israel and Palestine's problem is exactly that, Israel and Palestine's problem and both sides are just as bad and just as equally guilty. I don't think sending British troops there would solve anything!
 
#8
KGB_resident said:
Palestine was under British control before creation of Israel. So the UK bears at least moral responsibility for security there. As to the countries and territories you mentioned then:

NI - there is a visible progress in NI. I don't see terror acts, riots. And political process goes in the right direction.
Firstly, we left Palastine because of the armed uprising there. They wanted us to leave and we left. All legal and moral responsibility stopped right there.

Secondly, the reason that there is now less violence in NI is due to the fact that BLiar has caved in to almost everything. That is one of the few examples of a western democracy allowing terrorists to get what they want with violence.

Are you advocating that the Palestinians get what they want because of their use of violence? Or that they would show any more respect to a western army standing as a protective buffer and stopping them having access to the land they crave? Your simplistic view of middle eastern diplomatic solutions does you no credit at all KGBr.
 

Legs

ADC
Book Reviewer
#9
KGB_resident said:
Palestine was under British control before creation of Israel. So the UK bears at least moral responsibility for security there. As to the countries and territories you mentioned then:
Again, I'm no history buff, but India was under British control before they were given independance. So should we also be stepping in between India and Kashmir?

Just because we once were involved, doesn't mean we should be involved over everything. The British Empire spanned the globe, and many countries came under our sphere of influence. Should we send troops to each of those countries that has an armed disagreement with a neighbour?
 
#10
Plant-Pilot said:
Secondly, the reason that there is now less violence in NI is due to the fact that BLiar has caved in to almost everything. That is one of the few examples of a western democracy allowing terrorists to get what they want with violence.
Wasn't one of the reasons we left Palestine/Israel because of the actions of groups like Stern and Irgun, whose methods included the depressingly familiar murder of British police and soldiers? Many Israeli terrorists went on to high positions in Israeli government.
 
#11
Plant-Pilot said:
...the need to take in to account the risks and fears that ordinary soldiers from Israel have to face...
I would like to attract you attention to few details

1. The girl was killed on Palestinian territiory, by shot was made across the border. Israelis were free to place their tank (the girl was shot from a tank) deep enogh in their territory. If the girl crossed the border then it would be another story.

2. Israel demands HAMAS to stop violence. But should Israel stop violence too?

3. The rules must be simple: if you cross this line you could be shot. The line should be marked by barbed wire, barrier to prevent its crossing by random strangers, including children.

4. Each terror act in Israel is beiing reported in main-stream mass-media. But routine killings on daily or weekly basis in Palestine are 'not interesting' to 'free press'.

Only such cases as this you can find on BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3733638.stm

Without revealing their identities, soldiers from the Givati brigade platoon told Israeli television how Iman al-Hams had been shot on 5 October in the Tel Sultan neighbourhood of Rafah.

"We saw her from a distance of 70 metres. She was fired at ... from the outpost. She fled and was wounded," a soldier said.

While Iman was lying, wounded or dead, about 70m from the Israeli guard post, the platoon commander approached her and fired two bullets from close range at her head, the soldiers said.

He then went back a second time, put his weapon on the automatic setting and - ignoring their objections on the walkie-talkie - emptied his entire magazine into her body.

"We couldn't believe what he had done. Our hearts ached for her. Just a 13-year-old girl," one soldier said.
Yes of course we need to take in to account the risks and fears that ordinary soldiers from Israel have to face.

Tapes of a radio exchange between the captain and other soldiers were broadcast by the Israeli media in the wake of the killing.

In the recording, Iman is clearly identified by soldiers in the military’s operation rooms as “a little girl” who was “scared to death”. According to the tape, Captain R instructed soldiers under his command that “Anything that’s mobile, that moves in the zone, even if it’s a three-year-old, needs to be killed”.

Btw he was acquitted.
 
#13
Legs said:
KGB_resident said:
Palestine was under British control before creation of Israel. So the UK bears at least moral responsibility for security there. As to the countries and territories you mentioned then:
Again, I'm no history buff, but India was under British control before they were given independance. So should we also be stepping in between India and Kashmir?

Just because we once were involved, doesn't mean we should be involved over everything. The British Empire spanned the globe, and many countries came under our sphere of influence. Should we send troops to each of those countries that has an armed disagreement with a neighbour?
You are right of course and I didn't use the word 'MUST'. I pointed out that namely there in Palestine the British CAN help to resolve a real problem while in other places the problems are rather being created by British presence.
 
#14
No, the results aren't the same. If it was a Palestinian terrorist it would have been a school or pizza parlor and you would have had several children killed and dozens maimed. If you can't understand the simple difference between that and a screw-up by security forces then I probably won't be able to explain it to you.
 
#15
Radical_Dreamer said:
I'm sick and tired of Israel and Palestine and I supsect the whole world is. Everything that could potentially work has been tried and it didn't work. Israel and Palestine's problem is exactly that, Israel and Palestine's problem and both sides are just as bad and just as equally guilty. I don't think sending British troops there would solve anything!
And it is an opinion by Radical_Dreamer! I suspect that Tommy Atkins would use more hard-boiled expressions. Btw, you logic can be applied to Kosovo and Bosnia as well.

Well let's not touch overstretched British armed forces. But peacekeepers in Palestine is the only thing that was not tried for decades of the conflict. Btw, Israelis fiercely object this move. But why?
 
#16
Israel and Palestine are rapidly becoming a real-life heart of darkness. I can't think of a single piece of good news from there in the last five years - certainly not one that events haven't subsequently and rapidly overtaken.

There's an absolute callousness about life on both sides, and I can't see it being broken through any time soon. The situation desperately needs someone who can break free of the oppositional constructs and constraints of the region - for a while, it looked (incredibly!) like Sharon was going to be that man, just as Rabin could have been. But Rabin was shot, Sharon's in a coma, Abbas has been fatally weakened and there's no outsider disinterested enough to be able to get involved constructively.

Like I said, heart of darkness.

sm.
 
#17
Plant-Pilot said:
Are you advocating that the Palestinians get what they want because of their use of violence? Or that they would show any more respect to a western army standing as a protective buffer and stopping them having access to the land they crave? Your simplistic view of middle eastern diplomatic solutions does you no credit at all KGBr.
Plant-Pilot!

The ME conflict is too complex and difficult. Of course, I used the most simple expressions that my very bounded English vocabulary can provide. But my intention was to be easily understood, to draw main line, to stimulate fruitfull discussion.

I think that real simplistic view is a naive belief that negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis can bring piece. I reagard Bosnian deciesion as more right: the border should be drawn by US/UK/UN/EU (+ maybe Russia) and Israel/Palestine must be forced to accept it.

In this context peacekeepers in Palestine must be sent.

But I'm not so naive to believe that this scenario is realistic. Israel doesn't want it (and as a result USA).
 
#18
Virgil said:
No, the results aren't the same. If it was a Palestinian terrorist it would have been a school or pizza parlor and you would have had several children killed and dozens maimed. If you can't understand the simple difference between that and a screw-up by security forces then I probably won't be able to explain it to you.
Virgil!

By the title I meant that the incidenct maybe can't be described as terror act (and I think that it is rather a war crime) but its result - the death of innocent girl is the same as after terror acts.

Really, it is a very hard task to make a definition: what is a terror act? There are clear cases but there is a lot of doubtful ones.

For example, let's look at recent bombing of a village in Pakistan (allegedly made by CIA). Officially USA haven't declared its responsibility. It is a clear mark of a terror act. But I personally think that it was not a terror act, rather again a war crime.
 
#19
The difference between the Israelis and the Palestinians and why ones actions are called terror and the other not is that Palestinian terror groups deliberately target civilians with the utmost of their abilities. If the Israeli army really wanted to they could massacre the palestinian population but they don't. In fact you want to see a government try and masscre a population take a look at Darfur in Sudan now that IS terror...going deliberately after civilians.

Is it so hard to believe that mistakes are made? That they didn't realise? that they paniced? That they tried to cover up their obvious mess up?

Imagine you are some conscript stagging on some gate between Israel and palestine and every day having to worry that someone in going to blow themselves up in your face. I worry that over time and entire generation of Israelis are growing up with nothing but contempt for the otherside making future peace harder and harder.

And as for NI, the whole reason that the IRA were forced to give up arms (supposedly) was the constant work of the army and intelligence services that managed to infiltrate them to such and extent that it was impossible to carry on. It wasn't the negotiations that won, or giving into their demands but rather that we won.

I ask you what else would you have them do in Israel? Sit back and watch the suicide bombers and rockets go off? Remeber people like hamas have pledged to destroy Israel... so what the hell should they do? I think both sides are terrible but I can understand why both sides do what they do... thats the tragedy.
 
#20
machina said:
The difference between the Israelis and the Palestinians and why ones actions are called terror and the other not is that Palestinian terror groups deliberately target civilians with the utmost of their abilities. If the Israeli army really wanted to they could massacre the palestinian population but they don't. In fact you want to see a government try and masscre a population take a look at Darfur in Sudan now that IS terror...going deliberately after civilians.
At the same time, the economic restrictions on life in the Occupied Territories (border controls, movement restrictions, destruction of orchards, etc) have been estimated to cost Palestinians $500,000 a day...I imagine that $182 million p.a. extra in the Palestinian economy might well reduce mortality rates there (not to mention make them less likely to turn to terrorism - generally, wealthy people don't strap suicide belts onto themselves).

Why shouldn't it be legitimate to describe this as 'economic terrorism'?

Agree with what you say about the tragedy of understanding both sides, however...

sm.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
F Current Affairs, News and Analysis 4
dogmonkey The Intelligence Cell 4
O Sappers 7

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top