When Israel assassinated Hezbollah’s Imad Mughniyeh and five Iranian nuclear scientists, it was picking a fight, and the payback – or part of it – was Wednesday’s bus bombing.
It says something about Israeli society’s fear of facing hard truths when the only public figure who dares to state the obvious about the Burgas attack is Dr. Uzi Arad, who used to be known as ”Dr. Strangelove” before he fell out of grace with Netanyahu over Iran. While everybody else here either doesn’t believe or is afraid to say that Israel’s all-but-confirmed assassinations of five Iranian nuclear scientists and Hezbollah military chief Imad Mughniyeh led directly to Wednesday’s attack, Arad says, Guess what – when you kill Iran or Hezbollah’s people, they’re going to try to kill yours. He told Army Radio:
We’re, to a large extent, the initiators, we hit Imad Mughniyeh, and, mainly, we’re leading a struggle against Iran. We’re not a passive side. And the other side is the defending, deterring, and attacking one. … Iran can’t stay disinterested, and it’s natural that it or its proxies such as Hezbollah will try to commit such attacks and exact a price from Israel.
This is the sort of thing plenty of Israelis know but are reluctant to say aloud for fear of being glared at by the patriots in the room. The proper thing to say is that Iran and Hezbollah are scorpions, killing machines that attack us instinctively and endlessly just for who we are, regardless of what we do or don’t do. What this means is: 1) Israel bears zero responsibility when its citizens are killed in terror attacks like the one in Burgas, and 2) Israel doesn’t have to think about the effect of its assassinations of Iranians and Hezbollah members because they have no effect – those scorpions are trying to kill us full-time with everything they’ve got, so we have nothing to lose by killing them. We don’t have to think about consequences; we are as innocent and free of responsibility as children.
Well, the U.S. is now confirming what Netanyahu has said from the start – that the suicide bombing which killed five Israeli tourists and a Bulgarian bus driver was an Iran/Hezbollah job. However, the U.S. is also confirming what Arad said - that it came in retaliation for the killings of the Iranian atomic scientists. The New York Times:
“This was tit for tat,” the official, speaking under condition of anonymity, told the New York Times. Two other officials confirmed that Hezbollah perpetrated the bombing.
Again, it was obvious from the beginning that this was tit for tat. Israeli leaders and the media should not pretend that they’re shocked.
And Israelis should not pretend that this country had nothing to do with what happened in Burgas, that it could have done nothing (except catch the killer before he struck) to prevent those deaths. It could have prevented them – by not killling Mughniyeh and the Iranian scientists. By doing so, it was picking unnecessary fights with Iran and Hezbollah, and the payback – or maybe the first part of it - just cost the lives of six innocent people.
About the Mughniyeh killing, it might have made sense to assassinate him while Israel was at war with Hezbollah in the summer of 2006, but not in February 2008, after 18 months of peace and quiet on the northern border. Why risk it? I’m surprised things didn’t blow up before this.
About the Iranian scientists’ assassinations, if you believe Iran’s nuclear program makes war inevitable, then killing them is at least practical. If you don’t believe Iran’s nuclear program makes war inevitable – and most everyone except Israelis and Republicans don’t - then sooner or later, killing those scientists provokes reactions that make war more likely and meanwhile get Israelis and others killed.
Given Mughniyeh’s bloody record, it was not immoral to kill him. I think it was immoral to kill the Iranian scientists even if they were working on a nuclear bomb – but if they were involved with the Revolutionary Guard, which has a bloody record of its own, that would definitely mitigate things. At any rate, we’re not talking about harmless innocents.
What we are talking about, though, is reckless endangerment of innocent Israelis and others. And it’s borne of this Israeli idea that 1) our enemies are scorpions, and 2) we have no agency in this conflict (yes, that’s also an Israeli belief), so we’re free to shoot first and ask questions never.
I think more than a few Israelis are asking questions about this policy today. Unfortunately, Netanyahu and Barak are not among them; the only question they’re asking after Burgas is how to turn it into a stepping stone to war.
For additional original analysis and breaking news, visit +972 Magazine's Facebook page or follow us on Twitter. Our newsletter features a comprehensive round-up of the week's events. Sign up here.
Aaron
Good article. I think everything you said here is true up until the last paragraphs. In fact, I’d phrase it more concisely, in a way that you didn’t: The Israeli government shares some responsibility for this terrorist attack.
So here’s where I think you were mistaken towards the end. The endangerment was not reckless. Whatever you think of Barak and Netanyahu, they certainly knew that by assassinating Iranian scientists they were putting the lives of innocent Israelis in danger. Those assassinations were rational acts based on a calculation of the risks.
Pagael John
So doing nothing against the Jew Haters will bring about peace? How many more deaths must happen before peace at all costs people realise that appeasement does not work with ISLAM
Richard Witty
An attack on random civilians is terror (I guess “not random” because they were traveling on an Israeli bus company).
Certainly, attacking scientists developing weapons of mass destruction or terror coordinators, is provocative and invites retaliation. (In war.)
Iran and Hezbollah can’t ignore it. And, it would be wonderful if the heat turned down a little at least.
But, random terror unleashed on civilians? The press reports of the arrest described a Hezbollah cell ordered to “find targets”, presumably in multiple locations, not “only an eye for an eye”.
That stresses the concept of retribution, even tit for tat.
That it is expected to continue, to escalate, is very bad for Iran and Hezbollah, moreso than for Israel.
Iran’s peaceful (unknown) nuclear program had some sympathy in the rest of the world. Hezbollah’s resistance to the 90′s Lebanon occupation had sympathy in the rest of the world.
Noone has sympathy for escalating random terror on civilians, far far from the offending site of the acts for which retribution occurred.
If there is any action that will give Israel the American green light for a more intrusive attack on Iran, and critical logistical support, it is terror.
Maybe Iran and Hezbollah will stand down. Maybe the message of deterrence will be the one heard, and maybe Israel will stop its harrassment of Iranian nuclear scientists.
Or maybe it will backfire. I hope, very much hope, that Iranian policy makers are having the same discussion that you are proposing.
Maybe this is a wag the dog effort, to distract from 100+% inflation in Iran, accompanied by rationing even of oil products, a reckless effort to provoke enough western reaction that popular credibility for the current Iranian administration’s defense credential will be enhanced.
Hard to know. Hard to walk a knife edge. Too lenient fall down a cliff to the left. Too aggressive, fall down a cliff to the right.
All, when peaceful relations make a gentle, well-shaded terrain, not a knife-edge.
Richard SM
Two points, Larry:
.
1) Has something been mistranslated in the first quote from Dr. Uzi Arad? “And the other side is the defending, deterring, and attacking one.” The use of the word “attacking” doesn’t seem right. Did Dr. Arad mean “attacked one”?
.
2)It would seem no one is listening to the Swedish security services who said several times yesterday the guy is not who everyone says he is:
.
“We can confirm that it was not Mehdi Ghezali,” Mark Vadasz, head of communications for the Swedish security services
.
“We can’t go into more details regarding that part of our operations,” said Vadasz. “But we can definitely confirm that it’s not him.”
.
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/19/2902593/pentagon-checking-reports-that.html#storylink=cpy
.
If they’re still trying to identify him, how can anyone say he is Hezbollah?
Pagael John
To Richard SM:
I am surprised how quick Hezbollah and Iran were named and blamed, in particular, how fast the USA ‘confirmed’ what the Israeli Government said. What if the terrorist was USA home grown? How would that reflect on Obama and his election chances?
Joel
Blaming the victim.
Real original.
Peter van der Merwe
Larry, you are no better than someone who blames a rape victim for wearing revealing clothing.
And I don’t see how assassinating scientist who were directly involved in developing a nuclear weapon to destroy Israel is uncalled for either.
Peter van der Merwe
Larry, you are no better than someone who blames a rape victim for wearing revealing clothing.
aristeides
Derfner offers tentative excuses for the assassination of Iranian scientists, excuses to deny that they were innocent civilians. IF they were working on a nuclear weapon, or IF they were associated with the Revolutionary Guard.
.
So how many of the Israelis on the bus in Bulgaria were associated with the IDF? How many were reservists?
.
This article starts out on a strong note, but then you start to make excuses for murder. There’s where it all goes wrong. Making excuses to murder is the first step into an endless retaliatory terror war. Or worse.
edwin
The distinction between guilt and innocence has been perhaps blurred by this article.
Are teens who are going to be drafted into the IDF innocent by the standards of this article?
Scientists who are engaging in work on nuclear power, enrichment, etc are not “more guilty”. We do not know that they were working on an atomic bomb. We are guessing. Just like we are guessing as to whom committed the attacks.
Given Mughniyeh’s bloody record, it was not immoral to kill him
Think about his for a bit. Replace Mughniyeh with Netanyahu. Are you willing to go there? Are you willing to disregard the rule of law and substitute the rule of might? So much of your article says “no”, but there are pieces of it like this…
Finally, when do you think Israel will stop occupying portions of Lebanon?
Richard_SM
To: Pagael John
.
I agree. When the Bulgarian emergency services were still dealing with the incident at the scene, Netanyahu was out with his statement saying Iran did it. His first statement didn’t mention Hezbollah, just Iran. According to my reckoning it was less than two hours after the explosion (in point of fact 1hr 50 mins maximum). That was before any response from the Bulgarian police. The result? Every hourly news bulletin during the afternoon and evening covering what happened in Bulgaria concluded with “The prime minister of Israel has accused Iran of being responsible.”
.
Here’s another thing. Even though the Swedish security services have been saying it isn’t Mehdi Ghezali, Canada’s The Globe and Mail is reporting an “unamed US official” says it was Hezbollah:
- – -
QUOTE
.
The official said the current U.S. intelligence assessment is that the bomber was “acting under broad guidance” to hit Israeli targets when the opportunity presented itself. That guidance was given to Hezbollah, a Lebanese militant group, by its primary sponsor, Iran, he said.
.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/bulgaria-suicide-bomber-confirmed-to-be-hezbollah-member/article4429096/
.
END QUOTE
- – -
.
Seems pretty odd to me given that AFP and Reuters are still reporting that “Bulgarian police were working flat out Friday with the FBI and Interpol to try and identify the suicide bomber”.
.
ginger
Israel acts with impunity towards murdering civilians in Gaza, Lebanon, Iran, the West Bank, international waters and Turkish civilians – and threatens more of the above nearly every day
Why does the bully-coward complain that this causes blowback? – what’s so hard to understand about that?
Will Israel ever consider changing it’s tune or will it need, as Norman Finklestein has opined, a massive strategic military defeat to shake it out of it’s narcissistic trance?
Israel may wish the world revolves around it – but it doesn’t
Abe
Ginger, you said it best.
rorr
So, Jews get killed by a suicide bomber and somehow it’s Netanyahus fault. By this reasoning we would have never have tried to get Yamamoto because it might piss off the Japanese.
NH
Ginger, Israel never TARGETS civilians. Israel does target terrorists and militants.
Unlike military bases (in any normal country), which are usually located as far as possible from civilians, terrorists and terrorists headquarters hide within civilian buildings and locations, in total disregard to the lives of the innocent civilians surrounding them.
Terrorists in Gaza can easily make a choice between targeting Israeli military bases or Israeli civilians, and they CHOOSE to target civilians in cities close to Gaza, such as Sderot or Ashkelon. When the IDF wants to target terrorists, they do whatever is in their power to avoid civilian casualties, but that’s not an easy thing to do when terrorists hide in civilian areas. They have even been known to hide within hospitals and schools. Haven’t you picked up on this minor difference yet between how they fight and how Israel fights? you’ve probably chalked it up to Israeli propaganda. It’s much easier to convince yourself that Israel is the bad guy.
This article blaming Israel, basically legitimizes terrorist acts. The writer is basically saying that killing and TARGETING innocent civilians is totally okay, in retaliation for killing known terrorists or people who develop atom bombs. Does that seem like a legitimate equation to you? innocent civilians vs terrorists. Hmmm… I don’t know what goes on in your head, but to me this is completely wrong. And killing terrorists like Mughniyeh after two years of silence is wrong? So maybe the FBI’s most wanted list should just contain people who’ve done crimes in the past week or two, because more than that is just not interesting anymore, they’ve probably gone straight by now.
Larry Derfner
NH, my article basically legitimizes counter-attack after one has been attacked while keeping the peace – and that goes for Iran, Israel, Hezbollah, the U.S., everybody. About the killing of civilians, I’m sure Iran would have preferred to kill five Israeli nuclear scientists instead of tourists – would that have been more legitimate in your eyes? I’m sure Hamas would prefer to destroy IDF headquarters and everybody in it with F-16s instead of aiming rockets in the general direction of Israeli towns and hoping for the best – would that be more legitimate in your view?
Danny
“Terrorists in Gaza can easily make a choice between targeting Israeli military bases or Israeli civilians, and they CHOOSE to target civilians in cities close to Gaza, such as Sderot or Ashkelon”
.
Easily make a choice? How – by using their virtual F-16 planes or by using their pretend Apache helicopters? It’s real easy to “moral” when you have hundreds of American-supplied weapons at your disposal. Let the Palestinians have a couple of tanks or planes before you wax poetic about how “moral” you are relative to them!
Bradfordian
@NH
“Israel never TARGETS civilians”
Masoud Alimohammadi would beg to disagree, if he could.
Ismail Abu Oda, Hussam Abu Sayed, and his 91 year old grandfather Ibrahim Abu Sayed would disagree.
Bilal Muhammad An-Najjar disagrees, along with
dozens of other Gazan fishermen.
Ziad Tamboura disagrees, along with all those civilians shot at merely for approaching the Gaza separation barrier, never straying from Palestinian land.
Rawhiya al-Najjar would disagree, and she’d be joined by hundreds of other civilians killed during Cast Lead, including most of the Samouni family.
None of them were terrorists. They didn’t make a choice to be shot at.
Richard Witty
Larry,
Not a great response. It doesn’t de-escalate, but escalates.
Your reminder for restraint was a very good one, to Israel. It also needs to be reminded of Iran.
UTTER NONSENSE
Wow I’m amazed! Reading this article made me understand how little people know and how easy it is to speak without actually thinking. I suggest you stop being biased for just a second and think how would you react to a threat (if it’d also help, think about people you love and who are worth protecting) – just let it harm you or make sure it can never come to be, by neutralized it?
max
@Larry – “I’m sure Hamas would prefer to destroy IDF headquarters and everybody in it with F-16s instead of aiming rockets in the general direction of Israeli towns and hoping for the best – would that be more legitimate in your view?”
Very odd question… isn’t this the exact difference between a military struggle and terrorism? Are you saying that terrorism is legitimate if aiming for a military target is too dangerous and/or ineffective?
.
Do you consider the civilians working in the IDF as ‘military’? The scientists working for the military as civilians?
Jack
We dont know anything really about what happend and if any group or state is really behind it. It will only benefit the warmongers such as bibi.
-
The pro-israel crowd has as usual hard time understand that killing scientists in Iran is terrorism, or shooting people indiscriminately in wars is as bad.
It seems that Israel think they are allowed to commit certain unlawful acts while being furious and begin to warmonger if any other state or party may commit to the same.
Larry Derfner
Max, I’m trying to show up the hypocrisy of strong, militarized societies like Israel and the U.S. making this absolute good/bad distinction between targeting civilians and soldiers. They advance this “principle” because it suits their self-interest – if you’ve got a huge, state-oif-the-art army/air force and satellites and intelligence and complete freedom of movement in the enemy’s territory, you can aim strictly at military targets – and call the inevitable civilian deaths “collateral damage.” If you’re a vastly inferior military that can’t penetrate the enemy’s territory and defenses, then if you abide by the principle that only military targets are legitimate, you’ve sentenced yourself to impotence in the face of your much stronger enemy – EVEN AFTER THAT MUCH STRONGER ENEMY HAS ATTACKED YOU. The only people who believe in this “principle” are the strong – because it serves their self-interest and harms their enemy’s.
But the point is, the strong don’t really believe in it, either. If deliberately killing civilians were evil terrorism, then Americans would agree that Harry Truman was one of the worst evil terrorists in history – but they consider him a great leader and in general accept Hiroshima/Nagasaki as necessary and legitimate. If Israelis believed it was forbidden to ever target civilians, they would consider the Irgun, Lehi and Haganah all evil terrorists – but they consider them the greatest possible heroes.
Who is a civilian and who isn’t? For the purposes of deciding who is a more legitimate target, I think someone who’s active in the fight against you is a more legitiamte target than someone who isn’t. What this means is that a weapons scientist is a more legitimate target than many if not most sorts of soldiers in uniform. A civilian working for the army is a more legitimate target than a civilian working for an insurance company. But that’s only if everything else is equal. One of the reasons I object to the good/bad distinction on soldiers and civilians is that in the overwhelming majority of cases, soldiers are young. Strictly speaking, it’s less moral to target a young person than an older person. And let me repeat what I said on Noam’s post – I place an absolute prohibition on deliberately targeting children, no matter what the circumstances.
But again, I think the strong seek to prohibit attacks on civilians almost solely because it gives them the advantage. For instance, if you ask any Israel to be honest and say would he rather have Hamas continue firing rockets with virtually no aim at Israeli towns, which inevitably harm civilians, or have an army, air force, intelligence, satellites, etc. that could hit IDF bases (and thereby turn the civilian causualties into “collateral damage”), we all know what the answer would be.
Finally, does any American, does anybody anywhere, make a moral distinction between the people who crashed planes into the World Trade Center and those who crashed one into the Pentagon?
Pagael John
LD said: ” make a moral distinction between the people who crashed planes into the World Trade Center and those who crashed one into the Pentagon?”. There was no difference because there were innocent passengers on the plane. not a military aircraft or empty passenger aircraft hitting the Pentagon, just as much as the heroes on board who wrestled with the hijacker/terrorists which brought down one of the 9/11 aircraft which did not murder more innocents. Yes it does make a moral difference!
What would you say if Zealots in Israel decided to attack their Islamic neighbours, attacking civilians by firing Jewish rockets, mortars and bombs, against the will of Israeli government because they have had enough feeling that the Israel Government is not doing enough to protect the Jewish nation from Islamic Jihad Terrorists. Does the strength of the military have anything to do with it or the will of the people who are feeling these terrorist attacks?
To Larry Derfner: your last post in the first paragraph speaks as if Israel is ‘AT WAR’ which Israel is not, so therefore the perceived ‘enemy’ should respect it’s neighbour Israel and vice versa. Strong Military etc is frankly a red herring, look at Hezbollah who are armed to the teeth, I don’t see direct attacks on Israel’s mainland when Hezbollah could do substantial damage on military assets in Israel. If Hezbollah are behind the Bulgarian suicide bombing, if proven to be the case, would be an ACT OF WAR and the consequences carried through.
Larry Derfner said: “But again, I think the strong seek to prohibit attacks on civilians almost solely because it gives them the advantage. For instance, if you ask any Israel to be honest ……answer would be.”
If that was the case, it would be a declaration of war and the nations would fight it out and one way or another, it would be over and done with, albeit with many causalities on both sides, look at the benefit of the peace treaty Israel/Egypt have had.
Richard Witty
I for one am a firm believer in the distinction between military and civilian target.
War is horrible. Mass murder is horrible-r.
I’m also a firm believer in the right, the responsibility, of a state to maintain order and a safe civil common environment.
The best discussion is of the best way to accomplish that.
To me, having to deal with a person with a gun, or even skilled with fists, willing to use them for any inter-personal, ideological purpose, is a disproportionate use of force relative to me.
A person, orchestrated by an organization, to shoot and RPG at a school bus is NOT defending anything, but ONLY offending, ONLY escalating.
You want to be anti-war, anti-violence, anti-aggression, anti-suppression, wonderful.
Any sentiment further than “I understand why they might feel that their only choice is violence”, is an abuse on civil values. Any acceptance of violence at civilians, anything that can be construed as encouragement of violence directed at civilians in any form, is off to my understanding.
Your argument about restraint, rather than rabid retaliation is a good one. Your argument about “they have no choice” is ludicrous.
Sorry to be so blunt.
Jack
Richard Witty,
Attacks are civilians are indeed reprehensible whomever use it. But in terms of tactics in the israeli palestine conflict, different parties have often used relalitaion in their warfare (both Israelis and Palestinians). For example if palestinians kill civilians in Israel, Israel have killed civilians in Palestine.
Richard Witty
Has Israel intentionally killed civilians in retaliation for killing of Israeli civilians?
Where, when?
max
@Larry, the study of hypocrisy and analysis of cause and effect, civilian vs. military is very interesting but seems to hide the simple, naked true difference:
99.99% of the Iranian, Lebanese… population, at home and abroad, need not worry about Israeli attacks, while every Israeli, at home and abroad is deadly aware of the risk of being Israeli.
No need for much elaboration about ‘recklessness’ that seem to mean – be humble, respect the terrorists (and start thinking of them in possession of nuclear arms).
aristeides
This emphasis on targeting is just sophistry. As Derfner points out, it serves the interests of the stronger party.
.
Children blown to pieces and immolated are just as dead, regardless of whether they were targeted or collateral damage. There is no moral superiority in either case. There should be an absolute moral prohibition on killing children, whether or not you can say they were the target.
Richard SM
Israeli militants were behind these IEDs in Lebanon. How do these devices discriminate between between children, civilians and terrorists?
.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/idf-commander-we-fired-more-than-a-million-cluster-bombs-in-lebanon-1.197099
Jack
Richard Witty,
Yes Israel have used retaliation in their wars with different states and parties.
chet380
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Richard Witty
“Richard Witty,
Yes Israel have used retaliation in their wars with different states and parties.”
When specifically.
The difference between targeting civilians and civilians as caught in the crossfire is profound.
Anyone that would diminish that significance basically abuses all moral criteria of civilized life.
aristeides
Sophistry.
Jack
Richard Witty,
When? They always use it.
Bradfordian
Personally, trying to justify civilian killings is anathema to me, regardless of age, occupation or usefulness to the enemy.
.
Some here assert that there is a distinct and quantifiable moral difference between civilians caught in crossfire (collateral damage) and those that are targeted deliberately. I disagree.
.
For example, Salah Shehade was assassinated by Israel in 2002. Israel claimed their actions were morally justifiable even though the attack killed 14 civilian bystanders, and was carried out not with a sniper rifle or even a hellfire missile, but with a 1000lb bomb.
.
Shehade was inside a building, in an urban environment. Large numbers of civilian casualties were guaranteed. How then is that any different from blowing up a suicide bomb at the Tzrifin bus stop, or the Jerusalem BMW attack? The Israeli airstrike is called a ‘targeted killing’ and civilian casualties are ‘collateral damage’, while the Palestinian examples are deemed to be terrorism, implying that the civilian casualties were intended.
.
When the enemy does it with less technologically sophisticated methods, it is called terrorism. Except, of the three examples I’ve given, the most collateral damage was done by the Israeli airstrike, so technically the suicide bombing and ramming attack using a car were more accurate.
.
The attack on the Israeli tourist bus in Burgas and the killing of Majid Shahriari are also morally indistinguishable. In both cases, there is no evidence that the victims sought to wage war. It would be naive to expect civilians to be spared (name a conflict where they weren’t), but that doesn’t mean we should rationalise it.
klang
Larry
lucky you are not currently at JPost. They might be angry when you say that the Burgas murders were justified. Perhaps you can persuade the Olympic committess that the pressure to observe a moment of silence is nonsense because the murders of the Israeli athletes was justified.
Richard SM
From Ynet News : 07.20.12, 01:52
Remains of Kochava Shriki (44), Itzik Kolengi (28), Amir Menashe (28), Maor Harush (25) and Elior Priess (26) received with full military service at BG Airport.
.
- – - – - – - –
.
Full military service? Were they serving or former members of Israel’s armed services? Seems the likelihood is quite high. Was anyone on the bus a reservist? Did anyone on the bus work for the military or security services, or at a defense establishment? Did anyone work at at one of the many defense companies? Morally distinguishing these from technicians/scientists working in Iran’s energy sector gets quite tricky.
.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4258061,00.html
Richard Witty
“Richard Witty,
When? They always use it.”
Thats as clear as the accusations of Hezbollah.
Richard Witty
In inherent in Larry’s description, is also the assumption that it was Hezbollah that conducted the attack.
If it was another organization (it did take more than one person), would that change the significance of terror in your mind?
No longer potentially construed as “tit-for-tat”.
Then, it shifts to a color-blind analysis of the action itself. Is an assault on civilians, only acting as civilians, in an area remote from the conflict addressed, brutal mass murder, or valid target of conflict?
Larry Derfner
Good point, Richard, which is one of the reasons (not the only one) I wanted to wait a couple of days before posting on it – to be a little more sure that it was Hiz/Iran that was behind the attack. The answer is no, if some global jihad organization did this, this was not tit for tat, it was aggression against Israel, even if they were to claim it was in retaliation for the Iranian scientists or Mughniyeh. Given their ideology, such a claim wouldn’t be credible – like, for instance, Saddam Hussein’s claim that he was bombing Israel in 1991 because of how Israel treats the Palestinians. That, too, was straight aggression.
Jack
Richard Witty,
No, while there is no proof for the warmongering claims by netanyahu there are a plethora of evidence of civlians killed by Israel that could not considered “collateral damage”.
Richard Witty
I think the means employed in resistance/dissent/witness or whatever scale employed IS important, important to choose, and important to judge after the fact.
That is that in zeal (whether hot or cool), resistance and dissenters often engage in some scale of violent or harmful actions, that is more than “just an eye for an eye”, much more. Even BDS’s intent is largely to harm (at least in some people’s mind), no matter how non-violent they claim to be.
Hezbollah is NOT party to any conflict between Iran and Israel, and if the perpetrator in Bulgaria an example of a party that is opportunistically (or sympathetically) violent to civilians.
I really disagree with your appearance of apology for terror on civilians. That is not diminished. It is a moral criteria.
In a domestic violence, one does not justify violence towards a woman, because that was the only option the perpetrator felt they had.
There is no excuse for terror, and it should not be given even an iota of sanction.
Richard Witty
Jack,
You said there were examples of Israel retaliating for attacks against it by directly targeting civilians.
Are you going to name one, or not?
Larry Derfner
Richard, say it was Hez/Iran behind the attack, and instead of killing five Israeli civilians, they killed the IDF chief of staff (in return for Mughniyeh, Hezbollah’s military chief) and five Israeli nuclear scientists. Would you have considered that any less immoral than killing five civilians? If you would, I guarantee that no Israel would agree with you. Believe me, if they’d hit the IDF chief of staff and five Israeli nuclear scientists, the outrage here would be immeasurably greater than it’s been.
Richard Witty
Larry,
First, did you get my distinction between Hezbollah (not a party to the conflict with Iran) and Iran itself.
There is no condition that Hezbollah and Iran are one. Any terror conducted by Hezbollah is an example of your description of a Islamicist sympathizer killing Jews, because some Jews killed some Muslims somewhere.
If Iran killed the IDF chief of staff, that would not be terror in the same sense. However, it would be a HIGHLY escalatory action on their part. I don’t know how scrupulous Israel has been in their targeting, but I don’t know of assertions that they killed general scientists, or any in the chain of governmental or even military responsibility in Iran.
There are two issues being discussed.
One – Whether terror is ever admissable. I don’t say absolutely never, only relatively never, and I don’t mean that as an obfuscation, as a blind eye.
It is always an evil. It is always mass murder when carried out.
Two – Whether escalatory actions intended as some deterrent or strategic are desirable or undesirable.
That determination includes more in depth analysis.
My view is that if there is nothing discernable and justifiable that can be gained, then escalatory actions are wrong. If there is some discernable and justifiable benefit, then the question of whether the means justify the ends must be rigorously examined.
If Iran was behind the Bulgaria murders, what plausible and justifiable end is pursued? Stopping the killing of Iranian scientists, ending the sanctions? Are there other means to accomplish that?
YES. Accept Israel as Israel and establish diplomatic relations. And, accept the permanent limitation to 5% enrichment.
Jack
Richard Witty,
Asking for such is like asking someone if they could give an example when it rained.
You could start with Gaza war 2009 where report after showed Israel targeted civlians. Remember over 700 of victims were civilians, even more in the attacks on Lebanon some year previously. Also here the reports were clear, civilians were targeted deliberately.
I dont understand why it is so hard for you to condemn all terror regardless of who use it or who may be the victim?
Richard Witty
I’m sorry, you did refer to the tit-for-tat relative to Hezbollah as relating to Mughniyeh and not only associated with Iran.
Richard Witty
“Richard Witty,
Asking for such is like asking someone if they could give an example when it rained.
You could start with Gaza war 2009 where report after showed Israel targeted civlians. Remember over 700 of victims were civilians, even more in the attacks on Lebanon some year previously. Also here the reports were clear, civilians were targeted deliberately.
I dont understand why it is so hard for you to condemn all terror regardless of who use it or who may be the victim?”
In both of those occassions, the accusations that Israel targeted civilians, rather than potentially admissable civilian infrastructure, were qualified.
There is nowhere near a concensus, even of human rights officials, that either Gaza or Lebanon, Israel targeted civilians as the purpose of their action, or that those actions were in “retaliation” anyway.
The distinction of intent is critical to the definition of what is terror, as distinct from merely excessive (very bad), as distinct from justifiable military (bad result), as distinct from reconciliatory.
Jack
Richard Witty,
Yes there is consensus in terms of the reports from NGO’s. Goldstone said that the goal of the Gaza war by Israel were to “humiliate and terrorize a civilian population..”.
When most of the victims were civilians that is of course a logic conclusion to draw.