Squizzer and several more forum members here, have accused Israel of ignoring UN resolutions. Lets see one obvious breach of resolutions.

The case of security Fence.

Agencies
Wednesday October 22, 2003
Guardian Unlimited

Israel today said it would ignore a resolution passed by the general assembly of the UN calling on it tear down its West Bank "security fence".

The deputy prime minister, Ehud Olmert, claimed that the body, in which all the UN's member states have a vote, had "always acted against Israel", and insisted that the building of the barrier would not stop.

Israel says it needs the structure to protect it from suicide bombers, but Palestinians say that the sprawling network of fences and concrete barricades on the occupied West Bank amounts to a land grab.

"The fence will continue to be built. We have to worry about Israel's security, and it is clear that we will not act according to the instructions of a hostile, automatic majority," Mr Olmert told Israel Radio.

The vote was carried 144-4, with 12 abstentions. Unlike the 15-nation security council, the general assembly does not have the power to make its resolutions legally binding under the UN charter. However, it is an important indicator of international opinion.

The resolution was backed by the EU, one of the sponsors of the current road map peace plan, in return for Palestinian supporters substituting a statement calling the barrier "illegal" with one saying it was "in contradiction" of international law.

They also dropped a demand for the international court of justice, in the Hague, to deliver an opinion on the legality of the barrier.

The US, however, voted against the resolution. Its deputy ambassador, James Cunningham, said that it still made a legal judgement and objected to it not naming Palestinian groups carrying out suicide bombings in Israel.

The resolution, which condemned attacks on Israelis, "demands that Israel stop and reverse the construction of the wall in the occupied Palestinian territory, including in and around east Jerusalem, which is in departure of the armistice line of 1949 and is in contradiction to relevant provisions of international law".

Shocking. Israel told UN to F*** off. Why?

Is Israel's Security Barrier Unique?

by Ben Thein
Middle East Quarterly
Fall 2004


On July 9, 2004, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that Israel's security barrier was a violation of international humanitarian law and human rights law. Eleven days later, the United Nations General Assembly voted 150-6 to condemn Israel and demand removal of the barrier. All twenty-five members of the European Union supported the motion.[1] The EU position would not have been so offensive had it not then undertaken an act of stunning hypocrisy. In August 2004, the EU put out tenders for companies to construct a European separation fence to prevent migration into the EU from countries excluded from it.[2] European officials undertook to build a wall less than one month after condemning Israel's barrier at the United Nations.

EU countries are not the only ones to display hypocrisy. Several states voting to condemn Israel themselves have built barriers on disputed land, often as a response to terrorism. Israel's decisions rest on firm precedent. India, for example, has built a barrier along its line-of-control with Pakistan. Following a number of violent confrontations with Yemeni soldiers and tribesmen, the Saudi Arabian government unilaterally began constructing a barrier on land disputed by its southern neighbor. Morocco has built a barrier against Algerian infiltration in the disputed territory of Western Sahara. Ironically, while both British foreign minister Jack Straw and Turkish foreign minister Abdullah Gül condemned Israel's security fence, both their countries have built their own barriers to combat terrorism. In Cyprus, it is the U.N. itself that, at significant hardship to the local populace, sponsored a security fence reinforcing the island's de facto partition.

The idea of physical separation between Israelis and Palestinians predates the current Palestinian intifada. A brutal 1992 terrorist murder of a teenage girl in Bat Yam helped motivate Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin to negotiate the Oslo accords. Physical separation was not yet on the table. But in 1994, in response to a suicide attack in Tel Aviv, Rabin declared, "We have to decide on separation as a philosophy."[3]

While Rabin's assassination sidetracked the barrier plan, Prime Minister Ehud Barak revived the idea. Shortly before the collapse of the July 2000 Camp David summit, Barak gave a speech arguing that separation would both guarantee security and preserve the Jewish identity of the state. Barak continued to state that "a physical separation" would be "essential to the Palestinian nation in order to foster its national identity and independence, without being dependent on the state of Israel."[4] However, it would be a Likud government that would actually bring the goal to fruition. On February 21, 2002, following a rash of suicide bombings, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon declared his support for the barrier. Whatever resistance there was in his government was swept aside the next month after Palestinian terrorists killed 80 Israelis and wounded 600 in twelve different suicide attacks. On April 14, 2002, Sharon's security cabinet approved a plan to build three "buffer zones" in areas where terrorists had frequently infiltrated Israel;[5] construction began two months later.[6] While the West Bank security fence is long by Israeli standards at about 500 miles when complete,[7] it is, nevertheless, small in comparison to other barriers in existence.
India and Pakistan

A case in point is the separation barrier between India and Pakistan. Upon their independence in 1947, a massive exchange of populations took place. Millions of Muslims streamed from India into Pakistan while millions of Hindus fled in the opposite direction. The two countries fiercely disputed possession of the provinces of Jammu and Kashmir, fighting three wars in subsequent decades. In 1989, the Indian government, frustrated at the continued infiltration of terrorists from Pakistan, constructed a security barrier along the frontier in the states of Punjab and Rajasthan. The barrier worked and infiltration subsided.[8] Five years later, India sought to extend the barrier 620 miles through Jammu and Kashmir. More than 80 percent of the barrier's planned route was on disputed land.[9]

The Pakistani government's reaction to India's barrier-building was harsh. Islamabad accused India of violating both the U.N. charter and the two countries' cease fire agreement. In July 2003, Pakistani military spokesman, Shaukat Sultan, declared,

the border in Jammu and Kashmir remains un-demarcated … any measure to alter the status of these and any attempt to erect a new impediment is a direct violation of international commitments, and Pakistan opposes it. Border fencing is not allowed.[10]

But the Indian government disagreed, citing its right to defend itself against terrorism. After all, since 1989 more than 40,000 people have perished in Jammu and Kashmir in terrorism and insurgency-related violence.[11] And, just as Israel has found its barrier to be a successful deterrent, so, too, has India. According to the chief-of-staff of the Indian army, Nirmal Chand Vij, the number of terrorists inside Jammu and Kashmir plummeted almost 50 percent in the year after the barrier's construction. The fence stopped almost 90 percent of infiltration attempts.[12] India's vote against Israel's West Bank barrier[13] may have undermined its own position, a fact that was not lost on at least one Pakistani senator. In a July debate in the Pakistani senate, Ishaq Dar suggested that Islamabad parlay the ICJ ruling into a move to condemn India's fence construction along its line-of-control.[14]
Saudi Arabia and Yemen

The kingdom of Saudi Arabia, one of Israel's most vociferous critics in the Middle East and a staunch financial supporter of groups such as Hamas, has also constructed a border fence on disputed land.[15] Saudi Arabia and Yemen have disputed their border for more than seventy years. Both countries dispute the demarcation laid out in the 1934 Taif treaty, and today, almost 1,000 miles of desert and mountains remain undefined. While both countries may initially have been content to live with the status quo, that changed with the 1990 discovery of oil in the disputed zone. The Saudi government moved to build a "military city" near the disputed border. Violence occasionally flared. In November 1997, for example, after a Yemeni soldier lowered a Saudi flag in the disputed area of Qarqa'i, several Saudi and Yemeni soldiers died in an exchange of fire.[16] Another bloody clash took place in January 2000 when Saudi troops occupied Jabal Jahfan, a mountain long controlled by Yemen.[17] A June 2000 attempt to resolve the dispute failed. While both Saudi and Yemeni leaders signed the resulting Jeddah treaty, the text left unresolved large tracts of the border.[18]

Violence erupted in 2002. In the Saudi border town of Jizan, Saudi border guards confronted Islamists smuggling weapons from Yemen. Thirty-six Saudi soldiers died in the ensuing firefight.[19] Following additional violence along the border, the kingdom decided unilaterally to build a security barrier along their border with Yemen. Saudi officials claimed that this barrier would stem the weapons flow and almost daily attempts at infiltration by Islamist insurgents from Yemen.[20] Talal Anqawi, the head of Saudi Arabia's border guards, dismissed any parallels to Israel's security barrier, telling the Arabic daily Asharq al-Awsat,

What is being constructed inside our borders with Yemen is a sort of a screen … which aims to prevent infiltration and smuggling … it does not resemble a wall in any way.[21]

If Anqawi sought to create a litmus test for the permissibility of barriers, he failed. While the ICJ referred to Israel's security fence as a "wall" throughout its decision, less than 5 percent of the barrier is actually concrete slab. The rest is a network of fence and sensors. While the Saudi government presses the U.N. to sanction Israel to force compliance with the ICJ decision, the kingdom, through its own actions and statements, has actually created a precedent for Israel. Saudi statements labeling Israel's security barrier an "internationally wrongful act" and demanding its "destruction,"[22] illustrate the hypocrisy of both the Saudi and ICJ positions.
Turkey, Syria, and Cyprus

While Pakistani and Saudi criticism may not be anything new to Israel, some of the most vociferous criticism has come from an unexpected quarter. For much of the last decade, the strategic partnership between Turkey and Israel has grown although it recently has taken some hits at the hands of Turkey's ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP). Their bilateral relations were based not only on their common interests as the region's only democracies but also on the common threat posed to both by terrorists. Therefore, it came as a surprise when the Turkish prime minister so harshly condemned Israel's barrier.[23]

The Turkish stance is more surprising given its own positions vis-à-vis two other barriers, both of which are built on disputed land. In 1939, Turkey annexed Hatay, a province populated primarily by Turks but claimed by Syria. Syrian maps still depict Hatay as part of Syria.[24] Throughout the 1980s and through most of the 1990s, Syria supported the Kurdistan Workers Party (Partiya Karkaren Kurdistan, PKK) in their terrorist campaign for a Kurdish state in Turkey. The Turkish government responded by fortifying their frontier—including those portions around Hatay still hotly disputed by the Syrian government—and by constructing a high fence along the length of the border and laying over 500 miles of minefields.[25] While no serious international lawyer questions the status of Hatay—a 1937 League of Nations referendum recommended separation from Syria—the Turkish government's condemnation of Israel's barrier may provide the Syrian government with unwanted ammunition should they decide to pursue more seriously their complaint against Turkey.

Turkey's experience with barriers extends beyond the Syrian frontier. When Cyprus became independent in 1960, its constitution was intended to balance the interests of the Turkish minority with the Greek majority. In 1974, the Greek government supported a coup that installed an ardent Greek nationalist who promised to unite the island nation with Greece. Turkish troops intervened, enforcing a division of the island. In 1983, the Turkish sector formally proclaimed itself the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus but was recognized only by Turkey. The green line separating the two sides stretched 120 miles. The U.N.-monitored buffer zone varies in width from less than 20 meters to more than 4 miles. Five villages lie in the buffer zone, and approximately 8,000 people live or work in a no-man's land. Hardest hit was Nicosia, the capital, where some streets remain divided by cement partitions. Ironically, while the U.N. has condemned Israel's wall for inconveniencing Palestinians, in Cyprus, it was the U.N. itself that constructed the barrier in order to preserve peace and security.[26]
Morocco and the Western Sahara

The Israeli government chose not to argue its case before the ICJ, maintaining that the court did not have jurisdiction. The court's ruling was political; it blatantly ignored numerous precedents. However, while in the case of India and Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, and Turkey with both Syria and Cyprus, disputes occurred between recognized states, in the case of Israel and the West Bank, an exact parallel does not exist. While the Palestinians claim the West Bank and Gaza, those territories are in fact disputed rather than formally occupied, for the Palestinians have never been independent nor do they have a precedent for their claim. Prior to the 1967 Six-Day War, Jordan controlled the West Bank, and Egypt managed Gaza. Before World War I, they were Ottoman territory.

A somewhat analogous case exists on the periphery of the Arab world. Until November 1975, Spain controlled a 100,000-square-mile stretch of desert on the northwest coast of Africa. Upon the Spanish withdrawal, both the governments of Morocco and Mauritania, as well as the indigenous (but Algerian-supported) Polisario Front (Popular Front for the Liberation of the Saguia el Hamra and Rio de Oro) laid claim to what became known as the Western Sahara. On October 16, 1975, the ICJ pushed aside Moroccan claims to the contrary and ruled that the local Sahrawi tribes had the right to self-determination without regard to Moroccan claims of traditional suzerainty.[27] The subsequent low-intensity conflict has been long and bitter. The Spanish government initially sought to supervise a joint Moroccan-Mauritanian administration but withdrew from the arrangement the next year. Mauritanian forces, bloodied by the Algerian-backed Polisario Front, gave up the fight in 1979, allowing Morocco to take almost complete control of the region. The Polisario Front launched attacks on both Moroccans and Sahrawis, causing a refugee exodus into Algeria.[28]

Amid the shadow of continued Polisario terrorism, in 1983, the Moroccan government began construction of a massive 1,500-mile, 3-meter high barrier of sand and stone. The Moroccan army laid more than one million land mines along the barrier, all of which was constructed on territory claimed by a non-state liberation movement. Approximately 120,000 Moroccan soldiers guard the line. The barrier has been remarkably effective at providing security for Moroccans once harried by Polisario terrorists.[29] Some Sahrawis have not been as fortunate. The barrier divides communities; Sahrawi accessibility and mobility is severely constrained. While the Israeli supreme court ruled on June 30, 2004, that Israeli planners needed to take not only security concerns but also Palestinian hardship into account when constructing the barrier, the Moroccan government has labored under no such constraints.

Despite having taken far more aggressive actions in response to a terrorist threat that is considerably less severe, the Moroccan government, nevertheless, filed a written statement to the ICJ objecting to Israel's security barrier. The Moroccans accused Israel of "annexation of Palestinian territory" and demanded the barrier's dismantling.[30]
Northern Ireland

Outside the Islamic world, one of the security barrier's fiercest critics has been Great Britain. British foreign secretary Jack Straw joined other European Union leaders calling for Israel to dismantle the barrier. According to Straw, "Whatever the claimed short-term advantages of the barrier, actions such as this are unlikely in the long term to deliver the peace and security Israel seeks."

Straw's statement ignores not only the success of the Indian, Turkish, and Moroccan barriers, but also the United Kingdom's own experience.[31]

The British government partitioned Ireland in 1921, largely along sectarian lines. While twenty-six counties gained independence as the Republic of Ireland, six other counties remained in Great Britain. Beginning in the late 1960s, the Provisional Irish Republican Army initiated a terrorist campaign to reunite Ireland, in the course of which more than 3,500 died and 30,000 were wounded.

The British government's response to the terrorist campaign was the creation of a "peace line" dividing Catholic and Protestant neighborhoods in Belfast. In some places, barriers traverse backyards and separate houses. Some of the barriers are more than thirty feet high. Exposing Straw's hypocrisy, Belfast's barriers have actually proliferated during Prime Minister Tony Blair's administration. In 1994, there were 15 of them; a decade later there are 37.[32] But, the "peace line" has been effective from a counterterrorism perspective. Prior to the barriers' construction, it might take a dozen policemen to secure any given neighborhood. After the British government erected the barriers, two policemen could do the same job.[33] The Daily Telegraph, generally the British broadsheet most sympathetic toward Israel, pointed out the hypocrisy of the British government's position toward Israel in a February 24, 2004 editorial:

Israel's fence exists to prevent suicide bombings. The Belfast peace lines exist to prevent large-scale intercommunal disorders … but a barrier is a barrier, whatever its name … their [British and Israeli] policies towards the nationalist areas of Belfast and the Palestinian areas of the Holy Land have one thing in common … to provide security."[34]

Good Fences Make Good Neighbors

When the ICJ ruled on July 9 that Israel's security barrier was illegal, it based its decisions exclusively on interpretation of international humanitarian law. Fourteen of the fifteen judges ruled that Israel should raze its barrier. The one dissenting justice, Thomas Buergenthal, was American. He argued that the court failed to consider all relevant facts. He wrote, "The nature of these cross-Green Line attacks and their impact on Israel and its population are never really seriously examined by the court." While the ICJ claimed that Israel could not invoke "the right of legitimate or inherent self-defense," Buergenthal disagreed. After all, in resolutions 1368 and 1373, the U.N. Security Council reaffirmed the right to combat terrorism without limitation to "state actors only."[35]

And there is little doubt that the security barriers work. Suicide attacks in Israel declined 75 percent in the first six months of 2004 compared to an equivalent period in 2003.[36] The Israeli government is not alone in this conclusion. Many of the most vocal critics of Israel's security barrier have employed the same defense. Their immunity from ICJ and U.N. criticism illustrates both the politicization of the International Court of Justice and the inherent bias of the United Nations. U.N. secretary general Kofi Annan's criticism of Israel's security barrier,[37] especially when juxtaposed with his silence regarding the region's other security barriers, illustrates the double standard.[38]

Perhaps the greatest tragedy of the ICJ decision, however, is that it creates a precedent that allows terrorism to trump security. Israel will not be the only victim. The Turkish government, which vociferously condemned Israel, unwittingly undermined its own security with regard to Syria. Some Pakistani politicians already seek to use the ICJ's decision on Israel to undermine India's self-defense. While separate peace processes proceed in Cyprus, Western Sahara, and Northern Ireland, it was the dampening of terrorism made possible by the security barriers that allowed the space for diplomats to resume negotiations. On a number of levels, the ICJ decision was a ruling against peace and security, not only in Israel but also across the region and elsewhere.

[1] The New York Times, July 21, 2004.
[2] Israel Business Arena, Aug. 12, 2004.
[3] David Makovsky, "How to Build a Fence," Foreign Affairs, Mar./Apr. 2004, p. 52.
[4] Ehud Barak, "Peace as My Paramount Objective," Mideast Mirror (London), June 28, 2000.
[5] The Jerusalem Post, Apr. 15, 2002.
[6] Ibid., June 12, 2002.
[7] "Concept and Guidelines: A Fence, Not a Wall," Israel Diplomatic Network, at http://securityfence.mfa.gov.il/mfm/web/main/document.a...usID=0&DocumentID=-1.
[8] Frontline (Chennai, India), Sept. 15-28, 2001, at http://www.flonnet.com/fl1819/18191290.htm.
[9] PakTribune, Mar. 26, 2004, at http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.php?id=59496.
[10] The Washington Post, July 30, 2003.
[11] BBC News, Nov. 25, 2002, at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/353352.stm.
[12] The Peninsula On-line (Doha), May 22, 2004, at http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news.asp?secti..._news20040522749.xml.
[13] "General Assembly Emergency Session Overwhelmingly Demands Israel's Compliance with International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion," U.N. press release, July 20, 2004, at http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2004/ga10248.doc.htm.
[14] PakTribune, July 23, 2004.
[15] Dore Gold, Hatred's Kingdom: How Saudi Arabia Supports the New Global Terrorism (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2003), pp. 126-7.
[16] BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, Dec. 12, 1997.
[17] Ibid., Jan. 27, 2000.
[18] Brian Whitaker, "Commentary on the Border Treaty," Yemen Gateway, July 1, 2000, at http://www.al-bab.com/yemen/pol/border000629.htm.
[19] The Independent (London), Feb. 11, 2004
[20] The Guardian (London), Feb. 19, 2004.
[21] Asharq al-Aswat (London), Feb. 9, 2004, quoted in ibid.
[22] "Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territories," written statements to the ICJ, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Jan. 30, 2004, at http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imwp/imwpframe.htm.
[23] The Guardian, June 4, 2004.
[24] E. Melhem, "The Sanjak of Alexandretta: A Forgotten Syrian Territory," Az-Zawba'ah, Nov. 1998, at http://home.iprimus.com.au/fidamelhem/ssnp/.
[25] Interview with Turkish military official, July 2004.
[26] "Facts and Figures," U.N. Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus, at http://www.unficyp.org/Facts+figures/facts+fig.htm.
[27] "Western Sahara, Advisory Opinion of October 16, 1975," ICJ, at http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idecisions/isummaries/isasummary751016.htm.
[28] "Western Sahara," Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, 2001, U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, Mar. 4, 2002, at http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2001/nea/8281.htm.
[29] The Guardian, Dec. 19, 2003.
[30] "Legal Consequences," written statements to the ICJ, Kingdom of Morocco, Jan. 30, 2004, at http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imwp/imwpframe.htm.
[31] The Birmingham Post, July 22, 2004.
[32] Associated Press, July 11, 2004.
[33] The Irish Times (Dublin), Mar. 5, 2003.
[34] "Our Very Own Berlin Wall," The Daily Telegraph (London), Feb. 24, 2004.
[35] "Legal Consequences," declaration of Judge Buergenthal, ICJ, July 9, 2004, at http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imwp/imwpframe.htm.
[36] Ma'ariv (Tel Aviv), June 23, 2004.
[37] Los Angeles Times, Nov. 30, 2003.
[38] Kofi Annan, news release, U.N. headquarters, New York, July 21, 2004, at http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2004/sgsm9427.doc.htm.

I believe that there was a resolution about "Targeted Killings". We ignore that one too.

The Logic of Israel's Targeted Killing

by Gal Luft
Middle East Quarterly
Winter 2003

Israelis dislike the term "assassination policy." They would rather use another term—"extrajudicial punishment," "selective targeting," or "long-range hot pursuit"—to describe the pillar of their counterterrorism doctrine. But semantics do not change the fact that since the 1970s, dozens of terrorists have been assassinated by Israel's security forces, and in the two years of the Aqsa intifada, there have been at least eighty additional cases of Israel gunning down or blowing up Palestinian militants involved in the planning and execution of terror attacks.

Many critics view this mode of operation as operationally senseless and illegal. It is deemed to be operationally senseless because assassinating Palestinian militants only brings harsh retaliatory action, resulting in even more Israeli casualties. They regard it as illegal, since it infringes on the sovereignty of foreign political entities and because it gives the security services discretion to decide on the killing of certain individuals without due process. Most important, claim the critics, there is no compelling evidence the killings are effective in reducing the terror menace.

This is exactly where they have it wrong. True, terror persists despite the assassinations, and the policy does have shortcomings. What is less apparent is the profound cumulative effect of targeted killing on terrorist organizations. Constant elimination of their leaders leaves terrorist organizations in a state of confusion and disarray. Those next in line for succession take a long time to step into their predecessors' shoes. They know that by choosing to take the lead, they add their names to Israel's target list, where life is Hobbesian: nasty, brutish, and short.

Fighting terror is like fighting car accidents: one can count the casualties but not those whose lives were spared by prevention. Hundreds, if not thousands, of Israelis go about their lives without knowing that they are unhurt because their murderers met their fate before they got the chance to carry out their diabolical missions. This silent multitude is the testament to the policy's success.
Chronicle of Targeting

Israel has traditionally resorted to assassination as a reaction to mounting waves of Palestinian terror activity. The first wave of terrorism occurred in the 1970s with a series of airliner hijackings, attacks on Israeli targets abroad (including the massacre of eleven Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics), and cross-border infiltrations of terrorists from Lebanon. This initial wave resulted in heavy casualties, demoralizing Israeli society. Since the infrastructure of Palestinian terror groups was located mainly in host Arab countries, all of them in a state of war with Israel, extradition or other forms of coordinated legal action against the terrorists were not options. The only way to retaliate against them was by targeting the perpetrators and the masterminds.

The long arm of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), the General Security Service (GSS), and the Mossad often reached and surprised terrorists in the most remote locations. In one attack, in April 1973, Israeli commandos led by Ehud Barak—who dressed as a woman—landed in Beirut and killed senior members of the Fatah movement including Yasir Arafat's deputy Yusuf Najjar and the Fatah spokesman Kamal Nasir. Israel also stood, allegedly, behind the 1979 explosion in Beirut that killed Hasan ‘Ali Salamah, founder of Fatah's elite Force 17. Another spectacular operation took place a decade later in April 1988 when an Israeli commando force under the command of today's IDF chief of staff Moshe Ya‘alon landed in Tunis and killed the head of the Palestine Liberation Organization's (PLO) military branch, the second in seniority in the organization, Khalil al-Wazir (Abu Jihad). Apart from settling the score with Abu Jihad, who was responsible for many bloody terror attacks, Israel sought to weaken the PLO leadership, believing that such a blow would help quell the intifada that had erupted five months earlier. The attempt to influence strategic developments by means of an isolated military strike failed, and the intifada continued for another five years.[1]

The signing of the 1993 Oslo agreement changed Israel's approach to the PLO from an adversary to a peace partner. Consequently, Israel ceased military action against PLO activists and unofficially pardoned those known as terrorists in the pre-Oslo era. Nevertheless, the targeting of members of terror organizations opposed to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, such as Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), continued with even greater intensity. In October 1995, following a series of suicide attacks which claimed the lives of dozens of Israelis, Mossad agents shot and killed the head of the PIJ, Fathi Shiqaqi, in Malta. Three months later, Hamas member Yahya ‘Ayyash, also known as "The Engineer," who masterminded suicide attacks in which fifty Israelis died and 340 were wounded, took his last phone call when a booby-trapped cellular phone exploded in his hands.

In addition to targeting Palestinian terrorists, Israel also used the assassination policy in its war against the Shi‘ite movements Hizbullah and Amal in southern Lebanon. Hizbullah is one of the most secretive and intricate guerrilla movements in existence. The discreet and small makeup of its military branch—only a few hundred strong—made penetration of its ranks difficult. Nevertheless, over the eighteen years of its occupation of south Lebanon, Israel succeeded in targeting several key military leaders of Hizbullah and Amal. The most significant operation took place in February 1992 when Israeli helicopters fired missiles at the car of Hizbullah's leader, ‘Abbas Musawi, killing him and members of his entourage. Amal's operations officer, Hussam al-Amin, was killed in a similar way in August 1998.

With the outbreak of the Aqsa intifada in September 2000 and the release from Palestinian jail of some eighty Hamas and PIJ prisoners—all serving sentences for their involvement in terror attacks—the Palestinian Authority (PA) abdicated its responsibility to fight and prevent terrorism. To make things worse, the Tanzim, the armed militia of Arafat's Fatah movement, took a leading role in the armed struggle against Israel, involving itself in hundreds of shooting and suicide attacks against Israeli civilian targets. In the absence of security cooperation with the Palestinian security services, Israel stood alone against a mounting wave of terror. In the twelve months that followed, there were at least forty cases of assassinations of middle- and high-level Palestinian activists. Nineteen of them belonged to Hamas, nine to the PIJ, twelve to the Tanzim and Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, and two to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP).

The first took place on November 9, 2000, near the West Bank town of Bethlehem, when an Israeli Apache helicopter fired a laser-guided rocket at the vehicle of a Tanzim leader, Husayn ‘Abayat, killing him and wounding his deputy. The same mode of operation was repeated on February 13, 2001, against Mas‘ud ‘Iyyad, a Force 17 officer trying to establish a Hizbullah cell in the Gaza Strip, and against PIJ activist Muhammad ‘Abd al-‘Al, who according to the IDF was responsible for terrorist acts and was on his way to carry out two major attacks.

The use of attack helicopters to intercept terrorists in Palestinian-controlled territories—or "Area A" as it appears in the Oslo agreements—proved to be precise and effective. The main downside of helicopter attacks was that such operations did not allow Israel any deniability. For this reason, Israel claimed responsibility for all helicopter assassinations while remaining mute in most cases in which activists were gunned down in the middle of the street or by long-range sniper bullet. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon explained:

Sometimes we will announce what we did, sometimes we will not announce what we did. We don't always have to announce it.[2]

And indeed, there have been several cases of activists being killed when the car they drove mysteriously blew up. In another incident, on April 5, 2001, a member of the PIJ who learned from ‘Ayyash's mistake in using a cellular phone, was killed when the phone booth he regularly used blew up. There were also other unexplained accidents. Israel never claimed responsibility for these killings, but the sophisticated technology involved, such as unmanned aerial vehicles, surveillance, and voice recognition devices, left little doubt that its hand was at work.

Then, on July 22, 2002, in what was referred to by Sharon as "one of our greatest successes," Israel ascended another rung in the ladder of escalation, using a one-ton bomb dropped from an F-16 fighter jet to kill Salah Shihada, the leader and founder of Hamas' military wing of ‘Izz ad-Din al-Qassam in Gaza. Shihada was one of the most senior activists to be targeted since the outbreak of the intifada. The organization under him was responsible for fifty-two attacks on Israeli targets, killing a total of 220 Israeli non-combatants and sixteen soldiers. Despite that, the assassination drew heavy criticism by the international community when the bomb killed fifteen civilians, including nine children.
The Debate

It was not Shihada's killing but one prior, that of a West Bank dentist, Thabit Thabit, on December 31, 2000, which sparked the debate both in Israel and abroad regarding the morality, legality, and effectiveness of assassinations. There was something about Thabit's resume that made people suspect that he was somewhat less than the classic profile of a terrorist who merited the death penalty.

Perhaps it was his age, forty-nine; his record as a human rights activist; his job as director general of the Palestinian health ministry; or his wide social circle of friends in the ranks of Israel's Peace Now movement, all of whom attested that he was a staunch supporter of the peace process. The IDF fought back, deploying its chief of operations, Giora Eiland, to explain in a 60 Minutes interview that "Dr. Thabit was, in fact, Dr. Hyde," and that behind the mask of a peace-loving dentist lurked a dangerous Fatah activist involved in many terrorist activities. The General Security Service released information obtained in the interrogation of a Palestinian suspect, showing that Thabit had been a regional commander with authority over units of Palestinian gunmen in the Tulkarem area.[3] Thabit's wife petitioned the Israeli high court of justice to order the government to stop its policy of assassinations. The unprecedented petition presented the Israeli judicial system with the controversial question of whether the assassination policy is in accordance with the law of nations.

On its face, international law prohibits assassinations both in times of peace and in times of war. Furthermore, infringement on the sovereignty of other nations, especially by the imposition of extrajudicial punishment on their citizens, is a gross violation of international law. But the law also specifies that countries should not allow their territory to be a safe haven for terrorists who might bring harm to another country, since terrorists are considered to be common enemies of humankind, and that sovereign countries should prosecute them regardless of their agendas.[4]

In Israel's case, the situation is far more complicated. The PA has not been declared a state, and, therefore from a legal point of view, is not bound by the set of norms, rules, and treaties with which most states comply. But those few treaties signed by the PA—the Oslo and Cairo agreements and the Wye River and Sharm al-Sheikh memoranda—underscored the Palestinian responsibility to fight terrorism using its twelve-branch security apparatus, created and assisted by Israel and U.S. Central Intelligence (CIA) to do just that. The PA has not only failed to do so, it has released terrorists from prison and supplied them with arms and funding. Furthermore, in many cases in which Israel gave the PA solid information about terrorist attacks in the making, the PA, instead of arresting the perpetrators, informed them that Israel knew of their plans.[5] In a legal opinion, Israeli attorney general Elyakim Rubinstein wrote:

The laws of combat which are part of international law, permit injuring, during a period of warlike operations, someone who has been positively identified as a person who is working to carry out fatal attacks against Israeli targets, those people are enemies who are fighting against Israel, with all that implies, while committing fatal terror attacks and intending to commit additional attacks—all without any countermeasures by the PA.[6]

This argument gained little sympathy abroad. Even Israel's closest ally, the United States, expressed its discontent with the practice. The official position of the Bush administration as conveyed by both White House and State Department spokesmen has been that "Israel needs to understand that targeted killings of Palestinians don't end the violence, but are only inflaming an already volatile situation and making it much harder to restore calm."[7] But if the United States showed signs of irritation in public, Israel's war against terror was received with understanding behind the scenes. Departing from the administration's position, Vice President Dick Cheney said in a television interview that he believed the policy of targeted killings could be justified:

If you've got an organization that has plotted or is plotting some kind of suicide bomber attack, for example, and they have evidence of who it is and where they're located, I think there's some justification in their trying to protect themselves by preempting.[8]

Administration officials rushed to explain that they had "a consistent view" of Israeli targeted attacks, and that the "administration at all levels deplores the violence there and that includes the targeted attacks."[9]

But Israel was never deterred by Washington's expressed reservations. Matan Vilnai, Israeli science minister, responded in the summer of 2001 to U.S. criticism of the targeted killings:

I would like to see how the Americans would react if a car packed with explosives blew up in the middle of Manhattan.[10]

Two months later, not a car, but two jetliners blew up in lower Manhattan and with them all the reservations and inhibitions Americans had regarding their own fight against terrorism. A Newsweek poll taken three months after September 11 showed that nearly two-thirds of Americans polled approved of giving U.S. military and intelligence agencies the power to assassinate terrorist leaders in the Middle East; 57 percent approved of expanding targeted killings to Africa and Asia; and 54 percent thought assassinations should be carried out in Europe as well.[11] And indeed, the war in Afghanistan prompted the United States to make attempts on the lives of al-Qa‘ida activists as well as rejectionist Afghan leaders.[12] A U.S. missile also killed Yemen's top al-Qa‘ida commander. Additionally, it has also been reported that President Bush gave the CIA and U.S. special forces authority to use "lethal force" to kill the Iraqi president, Saddam Hussein.[13]

Although Israel has gained more sympathy abroad for its tactic since September 11, not all Israelis are entirely convinced that the method is worth pursuing. Critics of the "selective targeting" policy point out its self-destructive aspect. After each targeting, the Palestinians promise—and in most cases deliver—a hard and painful response. Assassination victims are automatically hailed as martyrs, and vengeful Palestinian admirers of the deceased volunteer to take his place. Following ‘Ayyash's death, Arafat publicly proclaimed him a martyr and a hero; streets in Palestinian cities were named after him; and a wave of suicide bombings resulted in fifty-nine dead and 250 wounded Israelis. Following the January 2001 assassination of the Fatah leader in Tulkarem, Ra'd Karmi, the Tanzim and Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades claimed responsibility for attacks that took the lives of fifty-seven Israelis. Hizbullah is also a vindictive organization. ‘Abbas Musawi's killing was soon followed by the bombing of the Israeli embassy in Argentina. The price was heavy: twenty-nine killed and 242 wounded.

Another drawback: assassinations of key political and military activists may invite similar attempts on the lives of Israeli leaders. The death of Abu-‘Ali Mustafa, secretary-general of the PFLP, assassinated in August 2001, prompted the killing two months later of Israeli minister of tourism Rehavam Ze'evi. Following the killing of Salah Shihada, a Palestinian militant group, the Popular Army Front–Return Battalions, responded by releasing a hit list of twenty prominent Israeli officials, with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon at the top.[14] Targeting Palestinian militants has put at risk thousands of IDF officers and their families who may become targets of Palestinian retaliatory action. This threat is not taken lightly in the IDF. For the first time in Israel's history, Israeli generals now have bodyguards assigned to them.

However, many Israelis dismiss the argument that the killing feeds a vicious cycle of death and violence that might not be to Israel's benefit. They believe there is no causality between Israel's actions and the Palestinians' decision to embrace terror. "Islamic Jihad and others do not need excuses to carry out attacks," said Israel's former deputy defense minister Ephraim Sneh, "since in any case they are constantly trying to harm Israelis."[15]

What is less obvious to the critics is the number of attacks that have been thwarted through the masterminds' removal. "Ticking bomb," a well-known term in counterterrorism jargon, refers to a terrorist or a group of terrorists in the process of launching an attack. Killing the perpetrator or his dispatcher stops the clock. The Karmi assassination was undertaken to prevent him from carrying out his plans, which included the assassination of a prominent Israeli. ‘Umar Sa‘adah, the head of the Hamas military wing in Bethlehem, killed in July 2001, was planning a major attack at the closing ceremony of the Maccabiah Games, the Jewish olympics. [16] At the time of his assassination, Salah Shihada was in the process of organizing a "mega-attack" of six terror operations that were to take place simultaneously.[17] Nobody will ever know the scope of the bloodbath that was prevented by thwarting these attempts. These acts never made headlines; they constitute the silent terror—the terror that never happened.
Political Risks

Targeted killing is a risky business, especially when missions fail, and they often do. The outcome in such cases is operationally damaging, and some blundered attempts have entangled Israel in a diplomatic morass.

In 1973, for example, a Mossad team in Lillehammer, Norway, on a mission to assassinate a PLO leader, mistakenly targeted an innocent restaurant waiter and caused an unpleasant diplomatic incident between Israel and Norway. Worse, in September 1997, two Mossad agents were captured in Amman after attacking a Hamas leader, Khalid Mash‘al, with a high-tech device intended to poison him. Mash‘al's life was saved after he was treated with an antidote demanded of the Israelis by the furious King Hussein. The failed attempt was not only a blow to the Mossad's impeccable image but also to fragile Israeli-Jordanian relations. It occurred during one of the low points of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process during the short term of the right-wing government of Binyamin Netanyahu. To ease the king's wrath over Israel's violation of Jordanian sovereignty, Netanyahu himself secretly traveled to Jordan, but King Hussein refused to meet with him, sending his crown prince instead. Subsequently, a deal was reached to spare the two Mossad agents from trial in Jordan by exchanging them for Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmad Yasin, imprisoned in Israel. The assassination attempt meant to weaken the leadership of Hamas instead ended up achieving exactly the opposite result.

To make things worse, Israel also found itself involved in an embarrassing diplomatic incident with the government of Canada. It was discovered that the Mossad tried to cover its tracks by equipping Mash‘al's assassins with forged Canadian passports. The Mash‘al case is a good example of the risks involved in assassination attempts carried out in foreign countries. The short-term gain derived from a successful operation can be easily offset by the severe damage to long-term diplomatic relations in the case of a blunder.

Another problem of a systematic targeting campaign is that Israel's actions have become a widely used cover for domestic killings among Palestinians. Many of the feuds and tensions in the divided and highly corrupt Palestinian security establishment are handled violently. Blaming Israel for the murder of every security leader, terrorist, or any other visible figure has become a conditioned reflex among Palestinians. When a powerful car bomb exploded in March 1998, killing one of ‘Ayyash's disciples, Muhi ad-Din ash-Sharif, one of Israel's most wanted terrorists, a finger of blame was automatically pointed at Israel. Only later was it discovered that the killing was a result of internal rivalries among various factions of Hamas. Arafat blamed Israel for killing his confidant Hisham Makki, director of Palestinian television, shot point blank by three assassins in Gaza.[18] Palestinian television hurried to blame the "dark forces of the occupation" for Makki's death, only later to learn the assassination was carried out by the forces of what was then a nascent Palestinian organization called Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades.[19]
To Terrorize a Terrorist

Despite the shortcomings of the current policy, there is nearly a consensus among Israel's defense officials that it is the most effective and least injurious way to deter and prevent terrorist groups from perpetrating terror attacks, especially in light of the PA's refusal to fight terror. Officials believe that despite occasional mistakes causing the death of innocent civilians—in the first twenty-two months of the intifada, forty-four Palestinian bystanders were killed in the process of targeted killings—any alternative tactic would inflict much more harm to innocent civilians.

To assess the real impact of targeted killing on the infrastructure of terrorist groups, one needs to understand their organizational culture, psychology, and behavior. The operational branches of organizations such as Hamas or the PIJ consist of three layers: political-military command, intermediate level, and what can be referred to as the "ground troops." The political-military command echelon—most of which is in the Gaza Strip—consists of a small group, no more than a dozen activists, responsible for funding, political and spiritual guidance, and direction of the organization's strategy. They maintain regular contact with the headquarters of terrorist groups throughout the Arab world as well as with senior leaders of the PA and chiefs of its security forces.[20]

The intermediate level of command is a group slightly larger in size, a few dozens in each Palestinian city. Its members are involved in planning operations, and recruiting, training, arming, and dispatching terrorists. The different cells are loosely connected, and their members do not usually operate outside their area of jurisdiction. Members of this group, especially those living in Gaza, meet frequently with the senior leadership and receive daily orders and funds to finance their operations. Unlike members of the first group, intermediate-level activists are not so familiar to the public, and their killing does not evoke the same rage as does the targeting of senior leaders. For this reason, Israel has so far preferred to target as few senior leaders as possible and focus on members of the second group.

Israel has always believed that draining the swamp is more important than fighting the mosquitoes: the infrastructure of the terror organizations, those who initiate, plan, or facilitate terror attacks as well recruiters, dispatchers, and fundraisers are just as culpable as those who actually pull the trigger or detonate the bomb. Hence, members of the second group are considered "ticking bombs" even if they are not those who personally carry out the attacks.

The ground troops are those recruited to be the actual perpetrators of either suicide operations or what Palestinians refer to as "martyrdom operations"—shooting attacks in Israeli population centers in which the probability of survival of the perpetrator is slim. These volunteers are recruited on an ad hoc basis and maintain contact only with their operators. In most cases they are not exposed to the organization's secrets and have very little knowledge about its structure and operations. Occasionally, due to technical malfunction or cold feet, suicide bombers fail in their mission and are captured alive by the Israeli authorities. A "dud" who breaks during interrogation and provides information on his (or her) dispatchers is a threat to the entire organization. As a result, some operators refrain from exposing their identity to their troops. They prefer to wear a mask or communicate with them indirectly through letters or by phone.[21]

As a result, the nature of Palestinian terror organizations is that they are secretive and compartmentalized. People hardly know each other. There are no headquarters, files, computers, radio equipment, or organizational memory. Removing one activist can handicap or destroy an entire cell, but removal of one cell does not necessarily bring down the entire organization.

Despite defiant Palestinian rhetoric, Palestinian activists' fear of being on Israel's target list is paralyzing, and that is exactly what Israel wants. Explained Sharon:

The plan is to place the terrorists in varying situations every day and knock them off balance so that they will be busy protecting themselves.[22]

While on the run, the Palestinian terrorist's energy is devoted to survival rather than to planning the next attack. The terrorist detaches himself from his close circle of friends and family and begins to live a fugitive's life. He is forced to spend each night in a different location, often sleeping in the open field. Hours each day are wasted looking for a safe haven to spend the coming night. Most difficult is the distance from his home and family. He knows that any contact with his wife or parents could cost him his life. Consequently, he is completely at the mercy of his confidants, not knowing which one of them might be an Israeli collaborator.

Booby-trapped cars and telephones increase the feeling among Palestinian militants that the long arm of the Israeli security forces reaches their most intimate surroundings. They become nervous and suspicious of collaborators who might live among them. A Palestinian journalist conveyed the atmosphere of fear and confusion in the Palestinian street after Shihada's killing:

People are now looking for wanted men. They are stopping them in the middle of the street and will now begin asking for their identification before they enter a specific residential neighborhood. … No one feels safe. … How do you know who will be Shihada number two, and where the missile will come from? … Someone must have told the Shin Bet (GSS) that Shihada was visiting his house; that someone must live among us, and now everyone is looking for collaborators.[23]

And they should. Despite the deep animosity toward Israel, many Palestinians are still willing to face the risk of the death penalty the PA imposes on collaborators and provide valuable information to the Israelis. In a society where more than half of the families live below the poverty line, one can always find people willing to collaborate with the enemy in exchange for money or other benefits.

Assassinations of military leaders are traumatic events in the lives of their organizations, often leading to a change in organizational behavior. Commanders become extremely suspicious and cautious. They leave few traces of their whereabouts; restrict information about operational planning to small groups of secret keepers; and recruit new members more selectively. The paranoid environment in which terrorists operate reduces their effectiveness drastically. Trust is the bedrock of any human activity, including terrorism. Without it, the organization becomes disjointed; information cannot be disseminated; people do not feel part of a team; lessons are not learned properly.

Additionally, communication between the different cells breaks down. Following the killing of Musawi, Hizbullah squads began to maintain strict radio silence, preventing Israel from monitoring the organization's action. In the territories, Palestinian militants who fear Israeli eavesdropping refrain from using the telephone to communicate with each other. This leads to further confusion and misunderstandings. Such a dynamic has a cumulative, holistic, negative influence on the organization's effectiveness. The influence cannot be precisely measured or even assessed by empirical tools, but it is certainly profound.
Thankless

Counterterrorism is a shadow war carried out far from the public's eye. It is a war of prevention. Success is an uneventful day in which people go about their lives without being killed, maimed, or stunned by a blast. It is a war without celebrated victories: public consciousness is much better in recording those days in which prevention failed than those of normalcy.

The soldiers of this war drive no tanks and fire no cannons. They search homes, operate surveillance equipment, recruit informers, and interrogate suspects. But no war is sterile, and at times the only weapon able to target the enemy's center of gravity is the hit man.

Knowing that retaliation is inevitable, the decision to use this weapon is difficult and is taken by the highest authority in Israel only when it is probable that inaction will carry an even higher price. Israel is at war, and war, as Clausewitz wrote, has its own grammar.[24] Targeted killing, Israelis overwhelmingly believe, is still an essential part of their war's grammar.

[1] Moshe Zonder, Sayeret Matkal (Jerusalem: Keter, 2000), pp. 238-48.
[2] Ha'aretz, (Tel Aviv), Apr. 6, 2001.
[3] Ibid., Mar. 14, 2001.
[4] "The International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism," U.N. General Assembly resolution 54/109, Dec. 9, 1999, at http://www.un.org/law/cod/finterr.htm; U.N. Security Council resolutions 1368 (2001) and 1373 (2001) at http://www.un.org/terrorism/sc.htm#reso.
[5] Yedi'ot Aharonot (Tel Aviv), July 12, 2002.
[6] Ha'aretz, Feb. 12, 2001.
[7] Richard Boucher, State Department briefing, July 2, 2001, at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2001/4656.htm.
[8] Fox News Special Report, Aug. 2, 2001, at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,31241,00.html.
[9] White House briefing, Aug. 3, 2001, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/briefings/20010803.html#some%20justification.
[10] The Guardian, July 3, 2001.
[11] Newsweek, Dec. 15, 2001.
[12] USA Today, May 9, 2002.
[13] The Guardian, June 17, 2002.
[14] The Jerusalem Post, July 28, 2002.
[15] Ibid., Dec. 12, 2000.
[16] Ha'aretz, July 18, 2001.
[17] The Jerusalem Post, July 30, 2002.
[18] Ma'ariv (Tel Aviv), Apr. 6, 2001.
[19] The Jerusalem Post, Jan. 18, 2000.
[20] Based on author's discussion with Israeli intelligence sources.
[21] Based on author's discussion with Israeli intelligence sources.
[22] The New York Times, Apr. 12, 2001.
[23] The Jerusalem Post, July 26, 2002.
[24] Carl von Clausewitz, On War, ed. and trans. Michael Howard and Peter Paret (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984), pp. 100, 605.

Prior to the wall, was there terrorist activity in those areas?

If terrorists were using those areas, why should Israel be obligated to expose its citizens?

Israel should build the UN, Palestinian Headquarters THEN have vehicles, and pedestrians pass directly “UNDER” & “THROUGH” those buildings where they (the UN) must search every vehicle and pedestrian. This way any suicide bombers would blow-up the UN & Palestinian headquarters… The US should revoke the UN Building in NY and force it to relocate right there on that line. Maybe then, that situation will be resolved.

How long has the situation between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs been going on now?

Does the UN expect Israel to someday pack-up and leave? Do they think that Israel will somehow simply take their country and go somewhere else?

What do they really expect of Israel? Do they think it was a mistake to give Israel the land in 1948 – then recognize them as a nation? I mean, does anyone think Israel is going anywhere?

Didn’t Arafat ratchet things up in the early 60’s? How long will the world sit and watch? Until Hezbollah or Hamas finally get their hands on a nasty-weapon and force Israel to obliterate Lebanon? Didn’t Syria just get their spanking for building a nuclear plant – didn’t hear much from Iran’s President Ahmadinejad about that – wasn’t he claiming he’d attack Israel if they ever crossed into Syrian territories..?

I don’t know – that whole situation is growing old – way too old. Someone needs to bust somebody’s butt – if the Palestinians want to stay, they need to get with the program and act like they can govern themselves without Hezbollah or Hamas setting up rocket launchers in peoples apartments. That issue alone should FORCE the UN to inspect those areas… Why wait until some idiot fires a rocket forcing Israel to respond?

The wall prevents 99.9999999999999% of attacks. Prior to the wall, vast majority of the suicide bombers went from the west bank. It translated to scores of dead in Israel. Now the wall stops them completely. I also can tell from personal experience.

The UN sanctions against Israel are especially absurd considering how UN member nations overlook actions of countries with miserable human rights records.

http://www.aish.com/jewlariousMultiMedia/jewlariousMult...ult/UN-Necessary.asp

quote:

Originally posted by PanzerMeister:
The wall prevents 99.9999999999999% of attacks. Prior to the wall, vast majority of the suicide bombers went from the west bank. It translated to scores of dead in Israel. Now the wall stops them completely. I also can tell from personal experience.

What is it with the UN? They’ve been prejudiced against Israel for years. Even during the last war, Hamas or Hezbollah were using the UN security tower as a hide-out until Israel blew the freaking thing up. Then the UN complained until Israel showed them the clips of Hamas going in an out… and that was WHILE UN police were there! If I were Israel, I’d be tempted to level the UN in NY – just to make the freaking point.

It is weird that there are so many double standards – which everyone knows but for whatever reason, that’s just the way it is… I don’t get it…?

The US pays something like 25% of the UN budget, not to mention that freaking building sitting on the world’s most expensive real estate; we should be up their behinds… and relocate that place into some old barn. They don’t deserve such extravagant facilities. It’s as though they are expected to be cronies and thieves – and heck, if they happen to be less a thief than the last guy, well, man, that’s really great…

Kofi Anon – IMHO – was a liar and a thief. The oil for food scandal is one of the biggest outrages of our times – yet, everything is kept quiet. I thought I read somewhere Kofi and his son received something like 32-million barrels of oil vouchers – Chirac 42-million, etc, etc… Personally, I think this had more to do with the Iraq war than a lot of the other stuff… It didn’t make any sense for Saddam to be so arrogant knowing the US was just popped on 9/11 – and had 130-thousand troops sitting a stones throw away. There are documents showing Saddam saying he had Kofi, Chirac, and Putin, in his pocket (my words) so there was no chance the US could attack. I think he was counting of the fact that Bush would not or could not attack without UN approval. At the very most, he may have thought he’d get a light spanking – then everything would be back to business as usual. His own generals said, Saddam didn’t believe the US was actually attacking even after the war began. The thousands of acres of warehouses found with old used or empty containers supposedly for medical supplies. The huge ship the US chased into Libya that was supposed to have medical and food supplies for Iraq – ALL empty – in NEW CREATES! This thing was HUGE… and the UN was Saddam’s laundry cleaner for the money…

The rapes and rampages of the UN police in South America – nothing ever really came of that… All the wars in northern Africa – I don’t know – I don’t get it. I don’t now how these people can even sleep at night.
Sooner or later – one of these mindless terrorist groups are going to get their hands on a nasty-bomb… Man, it will be the ugliest thing this world has ever seen… and guess we’re supposed to just sit back and wait until one of them pops Israel…

I'd too say, F*** the UN ,and F*** the Palestinians.

The UN has grown useless.
I don't know why you would get further worked up over them.
After all, their illegal dealings with the oil for food program paid the families (via Hussein) of Palistinean murderers to kill Israelli civillians.
What I am trying to say is Israel should ignore the UN.

As a US citizen, I would like to see our withdrawl from that organization and them removed from our shores.

U.N. rights body considers condemning Israel on Gaza

GENEVA (Reuters) – Israeli and Palestinian leaders should launch investigations of alleged war crimes in Gaza to help rebuild trust and support peace, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights said on Thursday.

At the opening of a U.N. Human Rights Council meeting on the issue, Navi Pillay said that all sides of the Middle East conflict were continuing to violate international law and voiced concern that transgressors are being left unpunished.

"A culture of impunity continues to prevail in the occupied territories and in Israel," she told the 47-member body, calling for "impartial, independent, prompt and effective investigations into reported violations of human rights and humanitarian law."

In a special session due to stretch into Friday, Geneva envoys met to consider a resolution that chastises Israel for failing to cooperate with a U.N.-ordered fact-finding mission into the December-January war in Gaza.

In the report circulated last month, the investigators led by South African jurist Richard Goldstone accused both Israel and the Palestinian militant group Hamas of war crimes in Gaza, but were overall more critical of Israel than Hamas.

Israel has rejected the charges in the report. It however came under pressure in a U.N. Security Council debate on Wednesday to fully investigate its allegations.

Israel's ambassador to the U.N. in Geneva, Aharon Leshno Yaar, said the Human Rights Council resolution -- drafted by the Palestinians with Egypt, Nigeria, Pakistan and Tunisia, on behalf of non-aligned, African, Islamic and Arab nations -- threatened to "set back hopes for peace."


http: //news.yahoo. com/s/nm/20091015/wl_nm/us_palestinians_un_rights

Isn't it surprising that an Israeli would be against the UN.
Just recently the UN has also pointed out that Israel is guilty of WAR CRIMES and CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY for their mudering of civilians in Gaza. Excuse me, they only said it appeared that these crimes have been committed, but this should be studied further....
Bad UN! How dare they question the Israelis murdering civilians! How dare anyone question how the Israelis want to treat people like the Palestinians?! How dare the UN or anybody question the Israelis building walls or barricading people into a slum like existence of squalor?!
BAD UN.... good Israel.

Is it not time for Israel to leave the UN?

And if we had a President that knew who our friends were we would leave it too in support of Israel.

Frisco

quote:

Originally posted by FriscoLady01:
Is it not time for Israel to leave the UN?

And if we had a President that knew who our friends were we would leave it too in support of Israel.

Frisco

Shouldn't our "friends" be countries who follow the American Principles of Basic Human Rights, like Justice for ALL? Or would you suggest that we support countries as our "friends" that oppress and abuse a population of civilians in order to get away with their occupation / confiscation of their homes and lands? We all know that is WRONG, just plain WRONG.

As an American, I would much rather see America support countries which do not create millions of refugees. I would much rather we support the downtrodden, the abused, the PEOPLE, rather than the oppressors, the monarchies, and those who commit WAR CRIMES.
I would rather that America not support the creation of future generations of enemies of America.
I would much rather see our leaders / politicians support America FIRST, instead of doing the bidding of AIPAC.
I SUPPORT our NOBEL PEACE PRIZE WINNING PRESIDENT.
You should too, if you are an AMERICAN.

In light of what we know now, suppose Israel HAD followed what the UN advised back in 1948:

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194 of Nov. 12, 1948

11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;

Was that such a terrible bit of advice? Do you think that if Israel had RESOLVED the grievances of the millions of refugees through the application of Justice as described, rather than fighting those grievances with BULLETS, that THOUSANDS of LIVES would have been spared?

We'll never know, will we? But, it sure would make sense to me that resolving grievances with JUSTICE rather than bullets(!)would be a better way to "make friends" if I wanted to have a "Peaceful Homeland".

To be against the UN because they question a country which kills thousands of civilians with their organized well financed military, i.e., shoots women and children in broad daylight with snipers, is completely against the laws of mankind, and is just plain WRONG.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: DougSabbag,

quote:

...it sure would make sense to me that resolving grievances with JUSTICE rather than bullets(!)

Tell that to your Hamas friends Doug.


IMO, we should just send over a fleet of B-52s and carpet bomb the Gaza Strip with MOABs for a few weeks...(after first giving them warning and sufficient time to remove their squatting azz's and relocate to Egypt, Sudan, Libya or any other "brotherly" nation that will take them)...and end this farce once and for all.

The land will become toxic and uninhabitable for 100 years, so no one gets to live on it.

Problem solved.

"I SUPPORT our NOBEL PEACE PRIZE WINNING PRESIDENT.
You should too, if you are an AMERICAN."

Oh so I am not an American (by your definition) if I do not support a "Nobel Peace Prize Winning President".

Those that gave him that Peace Prize are Terrorist Lovers, what does that make him?

If he was a true man of honor he would not have accepted that trash!

For your information, though I am Catholic I am married to a Jew, my children are Jews, my daughter lives in Tel Aviv with my three oldest Grandchildren, and my son-in-law.

If being an American means supporting someone whom would condone the murder of my children and grandchildren then - maybe I should re-consider being an "American" as you define an "American".

I stand by my comments above 100%!

One more comment to yours:

"Obviously, you are attracted to the "lock and load" solution, but isn't the one which will lead to peace a LOT SMARTER?"

When you have an enemy that will not compromise or surrender as the Palistinians backed by Iran will not, or use trickery as they do to undermine Isreal's security, then I am sad to say there is only one answer:

Destroy them, to the point that they will not rise again.

You are typical of the Americans I know here, not all but many that think that just because it "works in America" it will work throughout the world.

How nieve and childish to think that!

Frisco

This message has been edited. Last edited by: FriscoLady01,

quote:

Originally posted by Sgt_Schlappy:

quote:

...it sure would make sense to me that resolving grievances with JUSTICE rather than bullets(!)

Tell that to your Hamas friends Doug.


IMO, we should just send over a fleet of B-52s and carpet bomb the Gaza Strip with MOABs for a few weeks...(after first giving them warning and sufficient time to remove their squatting azz's and relocate to Egypt, Sudan, Libya or any other "brotherly" nation that will take them)...and end this farce once and for all.

The land will become toxic and uninhabitable for 100 years, so no one gets to live on it.

Problem solved.

And what would that accomplish...?

quote:

Originally posted by FriscoLady01:
"I SUPPORT our NOBEL PEACE PRIZE WINNING PRESIDENT.
You should too, if you are an AMERICAN."

Oh so I am not an American (by your definition) if I do not support a "Nobel Peace Prize Winning President". OK, apparently you are not an American. Thank you for your honesty.

Those that gave him that Peace Prize are Terrorist Lovers, what does that make him?

So you think the Norwegians are "terrorist lovers"? Oh my God, are you ever confused.

If he was a true man of honor he would not have accepted that trash! You're calling a Nobel Prize "trash"? Obviously you are not eligible for one, nor do you comprehend our world at a higher level.

For your information, though I am Catholic I am married to a Jew, my children are Jews, my daughter lives in Tel Aviv with my three oldest Grandchildren, and my son-in-law.

Ahhhhh, so now the reasoning for your pro-Israeli / pro-"kill them all" attitude surfaces. But, if my children were enjoying the fruits of terrorism, theft, occupation and abuse, I would advise them to move to America - QUICKLY to get out of the line of fire!

But you go ahead and continue to support an unrealistic, and inhumane "solution" of killing those who want their homes BACK from the theives that took them. Nice Mommy....?


If being an American means supporting someone whom would condone the murder of my children and grandchildren then - maybe I should re-consider being an "American" as you define an "American". I am not supporting killing ANYONE. I am supporting RESOLVING this conflict SUCCESSFULLY. So, crazy me, instead of suggesting to continue trying to kill them all, I am supporting applying JUSTICE FOR ALL to really resolve the REASON these people are fighting.

Your children are apparently enjoying the land that was stolen from the refugees and given to your children. You should not be too surprised that your children are living in an area where there is an ongoing conflict because of this theft. A wise person would not support their children living in a war zone. Get them out of there. Of course you could also go the extra step and re-teach them that stealing is wrong.



I stand by my comments above 100%!

One more comment to yours:

"Obviously, you are attracted to the "lock and load" solution, but isn't the one which will lead to peace a LOT SMARTER?"

When you have an enemy that will not compromise or surrender as the Palistinians backed by Iran will not, or use trickery as they do to undermine Isreal's security, then I am sad to say there is only one answer:

Destroy them, to the point that they will not rise again.
These unrelenting people who are fighting to get their homes and land back were attacked in the 1940s by European Jews who TERRORIZED the CIVILIANS into abandoning their homes, which were then "confiscated" by the new country made from these stolen lands. Perhaps you would do well to understand that this injustice will be resolved with something other than bullets since Israel has been trying for over 60 years to "kill them all" WITHOUT SUCCESS! :-)

So again I present to you REALITY: Only Justice for ALL will resolve that which has not been resolved through bullets.

And if you REALLY love your children, and want them to be SAFE, get them out of a war zone ASAP.

You are typical of the Americans I know here, not all but many that think that just because it "works in America" it will work throughout the world.

Justice for all has worked here and made us the strongest, richest country in the world. Millions and millions of people have moved here, making this the "melting pot of the world" BECAUSE this is a BETTER WAY TO LIVE than not having Justice for all. Try it before you deny it. Or you could debate this with the millions who have emmigrated here from every country in the world. Were they all wrong??? :-)

How nieve and childish to think that!

Were Thomas Jefferson, and all the other framers of the Bill of Rights and Constitution "naive and childish"??? I don't think so, and most people agree with me.

But you go ahead and continue with your very advanced concepts. Let's review YOUR thoughts:

1. The Nobel Prize is "trash".
2. The solution to the Middle East injustice is to "kill them all".
3. The United States of America principles of Justice for ALL, and equality under the law are "naive and childish".
4. Since your relatives are benefitting from the oppression of millions of people, everything should be done (including killing the millions of people who are the actual victims) to perpetuate and support the gains from the oppression / theft rather than resolve the injustice and finally bring a real peace to them all.

You sure are offering some wonderful concepts, ideas, beliefs, and "solutions"... what a "nice Mommy" to want to kill millions of people who are victims of theft and abuse.

Should those families be lined up and shot, or would you suggest gas chambers? Gee, is that ringing any bells with you? It should. And then you should realize how very wrong your "solution" is. JUST PLAIN WRONG, in any religion, in any country, to anybody.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: DougSabbag,

I come from a pretty good perspective on this comment of yours.

You see, if you had bothered to read some of my posts you would know.

I am German born, come from a professional German Military family. My direct ancestors were soldiers and eventually sailors from the Kingdom of Prussia on through to now.

I have seen and heard your type of talk before, from the old scum SS that lived near where I grew up in Hamburg and Kiel. Though fortunately the men of my family were professional military as was I here.

I learned from them - professional military men - that racist are small no account men that true soldiers and sailors must never dishonor their service by associating with.

I have seen individuals such as you in my military career so, did my father and grandfather, though they served in the German Navy they did not associate with the SS any more than I had to associate with individuals such as you in my military career here.

No I am not an American as you define them, I spit on your definition of Americans.

And I happen to know that a True American is a far better human being than you define them as.

An enemy that will not surrender such as Hamas and AQ must be destroyed no matter the cost, that is a military necessity. Not a matter of hatred but a matter of military necessity.

An oh by the way the Kingdom of Jordan did a good job of convincing the Palistinians to leave, and so far Israel has been far gentler to them than Jordan was. Maybe it is time that Israel learns from the Jordanians.

You are obviously anti-semitic and not worth a second thought on my part.

I have seen both sides of hate, from the old SS scum that were around as I grew up and holding my son-in-law in my arms as he sobbed for lost family at Belsen.

I know what hate looks like and what it can do.

You are the one calling for the another Holocaust, not I. And in my opinion You are a disgrace to the true meaning of "American".

I will not dishonor myself with this discussion and your anti-semitism any further.

Frisco

This message has been edited. Last edited by: FriscoLady01,

quote:

Originally posted by FriscoLady01:
I come from a pretty good perspective on this comment of yours.

You see, if you had bothered to read some of my posts you would know.

I am German born, come from a professional German Military family. My direct ancestors were soldiers and eventually sailors from the Kingdom of Prussia on through to now.

I have seen and heard your type of talk before, from the old scum SS that lived near where I grew up in Hamburg and Kiel. Though fortunately the men of my family were professional military as was I here.

I learned from them - professional military men - that racist are small no account men that true soldiers and sailors must never dishonor their service by associating with.

I have seen individuals such as you in my military career so, did my father and grandfather, though they served in the German Navy they did not associate with the SS any more than I had to associate with individuals such as you in my military career here.

No I am not an American as you define them, I spit on your definition of Americans.

And I happen to know that a True American is a far better human being than you define them as.

An enemy that will not surrender such as Hamas and AQ must be destroyed no matter the cost, that is a military necessity. Not a matter of hatred but a matter of military necessity.

An oh by the way the Kingdom of Jordan did a good job of convincing the Palistinians to leave, and so far Israel has been far gentler to them than Jordan was. Maybe it is time that Israel learns from the Jordanians.

You are obviously anti-semitic and not worth a second thought on my part.

I have seen both sides of hate, from the old SS scum that were around as I grew up and holding my son-in-law in my arms as he sobbed for lost family at Belsen.

I know what hate looks like and what it can do.

You are the one calling for the another Holocaust, not I. And in my opinion You are a disgrace to the true meaning of "American".

I will not dishonor myself with this discussion and your anti-semitism any further.

Frisco

Not to be rude or anything but what year were you born? Your vivid recalling of WW2 is pretty stunning. Btw my family is of Prussian descent as well.