Wednesday, September 26, 2007

26-Sep-07: What are the rational limits of restraint?

Reports of explosive rockets being fired randomly into Israel by thuggish Pal-Arab gangs are so commonplace as to be unreportable by virtually every branch of the global media. It's just one big yawn once the Qassam and grenade tally enters the thousands. A death here or there is occasionally reported, but if there's no blood, there's no interest.

Small wonder then that the thugs make endless efforts to get back into the headlines. And it seems they're making some progress. This afternoon, there are the first reports of two Qassam rockets being found primed, aimed and ready, in the suburbs of Jerusalem, along with a large cache of explosives. The location is a few minutes walking distance from the southern edge of Israel's capital city.

Quoting Pal-Arab sources, Haaretz says "two rockets were found today between the Aida refugee camp and the Beit Jala municipal building, in an area facing the Jewish neighborhood of Gilo in East Jerusalem. The words "God is great" were written on the rockets in Arabic. The rockets are about one and a half meters in length and 20 millimeters in diameter.

"In recent years, Palestinian militants have attempted to smuggle rockets into the West Bank... Several other attempts to develop Qassam rockets in the West Bank, with information from the Gaza Strip or Syria, have been thwarted, and rocket launchings have remained almost solely a Gaza phenomenon."

No longer. Now what?


Anonymous said...

GAZA (Reuters) - Israel killed nine Palestinians in military operations in the Gaza Strip on Wednesday and threatened a major ground sweep of the Hamas-run territory to stem cross-border rocket fire.

Is your bloodlust sated yet?

gharqad tree said...

Israel withdraws from Gaza in September 2005. Over 1,000 rockets are launched from Gaza during 2006, 1,800 in the past year. At least 2,500 attempts to indiscriminately murder Israelis have been launched from territory Israel no longer occupies.

Disengagement has worked so well, why don't you try it in the West Bank as well?

The-View-From-Ramot said...

Bloodlust is a strange word to use, given what's known about the people killed.

At 2 o'clock this morning (2am, for the literacy-challenged) near Beit Hanoun, which every Israeli knows is where the bulk of the Qassams are lobbed into Israel from, two Palestinians out of today's death-toll died. Hamas, by its own account, says these were its gunmen. 5 others were injured. These people were preparing to fire rockets into Israel - into anywhere in Israel. 10 Qassams were fired in this way yesterday, along with dozens of mortars.

Yesterday (Wednesday) afternoon, a different Israeli strike eliminated 5 terrorists traveling in their jeep in the Zeitun neighborhood. There's no dispute about their identity: these individuals all belonged to the Army of Islam terror gang, the individuals behind the kidnapping of Cpl Gilad Shalit and Alan Johnston of the BBC. Palestinian sources say one of the dead was Khatab Al-Makdisi, the terror group's spokesperson.

People like "anonymous" hide behind the anonymity of statistics. Eleven Palestinians dead, therefore further proof of Israeli bloodlust.

A more thoughtful way of relating to this might be to look at the circumstances. Nowhere on earth is the war on terror more actively prosecuted than here. Nowhere on earth do the defenders of a society take more care in separating out the thugs from the innocents when doing their difficult work. There are great distinctions between the two sides - but only if you're paying attention.

Persuading 'anonymous' will never be the issue, since his/her ideological motivation speaks for itself. The fact that 10 Qassams and dozens of mortars were fired into Israel yesterday, immediately prior to Israel's intervention, plays no role in his/her thinking and never will.

The real issue is having people far from the action understand that we are in the midst of a deadly and ugly ongoing war. There are two sides in this war - only two. One side wants it to go on, and does not care at all about the price paid on either side of the fence. And the other side, the Israeli side, has a society to protect, and constructive lives to live.

This is precisely what enrages the Pal-Arab terrorists and their moronic supporters, and keeps them focused on exacting a price from us. The fact that in doing so they cause their own sisters and brothers endless misery is of zero consequence to them. It has always been that way in this part of the world. This is one of the reasons, among many, that you must never dialogue with terrorists but, as with a deadly illness, do what needs to be done to eliminate it. Everything in civilized societies depends on getting that right.

gharqad tree said...

Anonymous is not worth wasting breath on, but hopefully people not yet blinded by ignorance and hatred will read the comment above and understand that the west is not being told the full story.

At least 2,500 rockets. The fact that they have no aiming or guidance systems but are pointed towards populated areas is proof that each of these rockets is intended to kill, and that their low success rate is thanks entirely to Israeli preparedness and sheer good luck.

But none of that counts as bloodlust or aggression: only the Israeli response does, right, anonymous?

Anonymous, the clue is in the report you cite: the Israeli raids are a response to ongoing rocket fire coming from Gaza. Stop the rockets, then the IDF won't need to conduct such operations.

You'd support that, wouldn't you Anonymous? An end to the rocket attacks against civilians, and an end to the Israeli responses?

Yeah, of course you would.

Anonymous said...


You are correct in only one thing. The side that wants the conflict to go on is Israel. Not the every day average citizens of Israel but rather the gov't which is beholden to the settlers; a bunch of fanatics who make jihadis look like schoolchildren.

I guess us "moronic" supporters of the Pal-Arabs just have a better understanding of the situation; likely as we are not influenced by being involved in the conflict or having vested interests in it.

Remember, the most powerful party in a conflict has the ability to end it or prolong it. In this case, that would be Israel.

The-View-From-Ramot said...

As odious as it is to respond to an anonymous critic when self-disclosure is so fundamental to the democracy of forums like this, we'll make one last comment before reverting to our policy (no email address, no platform for your views here):

You observe that "the most powerful party in a conflict has the ability to end it or prolong it. In this case, that would be Israel."

This is so clever that we hesitate before responding. But having hesitated, we'd like to point you to a comment appearing in the media this morning via AP, with its origin in the Iranian government's news agency:

"Together we are surely growing stronger, and in truth no one can defeat us,'' the Iranian leader said." (Source:
So.. you want the "strong" side to the conflict? Go talk to the super-democrat from Teheran, the one who's funding the bus-bombers and child killers from Hamas and Hizbullah. He's telling you how strong he is. Now go tell the self-satisfied demagogue to stop threatening the Jews of Israel with destruction. We'll be standing right behind you so have no fear. What's the worst he can do to you? (Hint: visit where you can review the list of "offenses" for which the Iranian government will hang you publicly. They include apostasy, blasphemy, pederasty, adultery and prostitution).

gharqad tree said...

The trouble with anonymous comments is that it's impossible for those of us who use names to be sure we are addressing the same Anonymous as the Anonymous we addressed previously. Thus, frequent logical inconsistencies cannot be pointed out because it's impossible to be sure that it's the same person behind the arguments. I guess that suits him/her/them very well, however.

For example, no response to the simple question: would Anonymous support an end to the rocket attacks that lead to Israeli operations? Is Anonymous failing to answer that because s/he doesn't want to, or because it's a different Anonymous with simliarly weak arguments? It's impossible to tell.

Anonymous said...


Your rebuttal makes no sense.

No wonder you have a policy of picking and choosing when to display anon messages. You use this tactic as a shield to stifle debate and logic you cannot rebutt.

Have a good one!

gharqad tree said...

Anonymous, your dismissal of VfR's rebuttal makes no sense.

No wonder you offered not one single reason or argument in support of your assertion.

And besides, the logic of your original point was utterly flawed, despite the rhetorical presumptiousness of the opening 'remember':

"Remember, the most powerful party in a conflict has the ability to end it or prolong it. In this case, that would be Israel."

Something else to remember: the "weaker" party in a conflict also has the ability to end or prolong it.

An example? The Republican terrorists in Northern Ireland were weaker than the British armed forces, but it was they who told the British in secret contacts that they wanted a way to end the conflict. They recognised that they would never achieve a united Ireland by murdering people, so they effectively gave up and disarmed. That is one example among many that demonstrate the absurdity of your logic.

The stronger power in a conflict can choose to end it. But so too can the weaker side.

As I keep saying, and you keep avoiding: if the 'weak' Palestinians announced to the world tomorrow that the war was over, that the rocket attacks would end, that they wanted peace in which to build a state alongside Israel, that they were dismantling their arsenals in a verifiable way (as happened in Northern Ireland) then Israel would have no pretext to mount raids into Palestinian territory.

Your logic is superficial. The side that is weaker is not immune from moral responsibility. The strength of the Israeli army does not absolve Palestinians from their large portion of blame for the ongoing war. And the strength of the Israeli army has no logical bearing on the ability of the Palestinians to choose to end the war and dismantle their arsenals as the Irish Republicans eventually did.

"logic you cannot rebutt"? Not quite.

Chaya said...

No amount of logical argument will convince someone who has been brainwashed by Islamic or Leftist (who are currently in a 'marriage of convenience') ideology. And especially not here. I'm not saying you shouldn't continue to try if this person keeps coming back for more. The best thing you can do is to send this blog - and others like it - to your friends and to organizations and to the media.

gharqad tree said...

Chaya I absolutely agree with you, and it's nice to make your virtual acquaintance. I don't reply to Anonymous in order to try to convince him/her of anything - as the saying goes, you cannot reason someone out of a position they were not reasoned into. However, if other rational people ARE capable of responding to reason, it doesn't hurt to post the arguments here.