William Burton hits another brilliant post out of the park. he expresses, in one post, the process that took me months to understand and realize; that while I didn’t like the Israeli policies, they never, ever, in any way, justified the current spate of suicide bombings.
Zika reminds me that the people on both sides are human, and they are. But some of them haven’t been acting that way. He also reminds me of the campaign of the Tamil Tigers, who also used suicide bombers…including those who assassinated an Indian P.M.
I’ll do some more research, but I’ll bet that the prime targets of the Tamils weren’t pizza parlors, but military bases and military and political figures.
Different game, Ziska…guerilla war, not terrorism.
The good news is that the Palestinian ‘moderate middle’ I looked for appears to be appearing. I’m sure it’s hard to give Sharon credit for anything, but it looks like something is working.
Date: 09/17/2002 00:00:00 AM
OK, I looked at my link more carefully. Here are my stats:From 1987 to 2001 Tamil Tiger suicide bombers killed 359 people (not counting themselves). Five of seven attacks on military men or political leaders were successful, killing in all 220 people, of which approximately 170 were apolitical civilians. 139 civilians were also killed in attacks on an oil tanker (3), an airport (12), a temple, the central bank, and a trade center. If you classify the tanker and the airport as military targets this leaves 124 civilians killed in attacks on a temple, a bank, and a trade center.So is this terrorism by the A.L. definition?
Date: 09/17/2002 00:00:00 AM
If deliberately tergeting civilians makes one a terrorist, what does that make General Sherman (march to the sea), General Custer (Washita), Lord Kitchener (counter-guerillas operations in the Boer War). I could go on, but that short list, I think, illustrates the point that military actions are often designed to target civilians, and do often terrorize them.
Date: 09/17/2002 00:00:00 AM
Yeah, the commenting software that adds a spell-checker will be a huge hit…
Date: 09/17/2002 00:00:00 AM
Ziska writes: I don’t really see the power of the distinction you’re trying to make about Palestinian suicide bombing, and I’m not really sure of the accuracy. It seems to me that as long as I’ve been hearing about guerrilla warfare, the ethics of trageting civilians has been part of the argument.Ziska, what can I say? the distinction is clear to me, to William Burton, and others. I’ve written about it here. There is a huge gulf between inadvertently or incidentally killing civilians while attacking legitimate political or military targets, and simply killing civilians in order to get some airtime. Even the IRA made good-faith efforts to minimize civilian casualties with phone warnings when they were placing bombs in London.I don’t know how better to articulate the difference so you will see it. Anyone want to help out?A.L.
Date: 09/17/2002 00:00:00 AM
After doing some research, I have determined that “William Burton” is actually Bob Shrum.
Date: 09/17/2002 00:00:00 AM
I need to go back over what you’ve said about the significance of terrorism in the world, and its usage in various struggles. My memory is that you are saying that soemthing has changed, and that there’s something unique about what the Palestinians are doing, and my memory is that there doing about what other groups have done. But I can’t sunstantiate this. What puzzles me at the moment is your reluctance to admit that the Tamil Tigers were terrorists. As far as I can tell, the Tigers, in the (usually vain) hope that public officials would be killed, set off suicide bombs in public places, in the certainty that civilians would be killed.And the point I was trying to make is — that if the Tamils and the Sinhalese can settle this (not a certainty) maybe other groups can. The Sri Lankan case has not been less brutal. Part of my objection to the discourse on terror today, certainly elsewhere and to a degree here, is that most of it seems geared to convince us that we live in fateful times and that the Battle of Civilizations is inevitable, and indeed, a sacred duty. I propose that we step back and think things over some, and also look at Bush’s crew of hawks and ask about their motives, intentions and plans. To you that may seem like changing the subject or dragging in secondary issues, but the way I frame the argument it’s one of the main points.
Date: 09/17/2002 00:00:00 AM
Such clear, moral distinctions. How gratified the families of dead civilians must be to know their loved ones were unfortunate collateral damage. However, Israelis elected a war criminal. They elected an Irgun terrorist. They share responsibity.
Date: 00:00:00 AM
To me, there’s a huge moral difference between intentionally targeting civilians and attacks against military targets in which civilians are killed. Of course, attacking military targets with absolutely no regard for civilian casualties (as the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka and the Russians in Chechnya have done, among many others) pushes a lot closer to that line than attempting in good faith to minimize civilian casualties (as the US did in Afganistan).
Date: 09/17/2002 00:00:00 AM
I just went through the link I sent you. In the majority of cases, the Tamil attacks were in fact directed at politicians or soldiers. However, the people actually killed were usually not the targets, but civilians nearby. In one case, an important temple was targetted. In another, two Irrigation department workers were killed. In one case a tanker (ship) was targetted.Other attacks are cited in which civilian villagers were killed, including small children, but these were not suicide bomber attacks. You can terrorize villages with safer tactics. Seemingly in most cases of Tamil suicide-bombing, even though most of the victims were civilians, there was a “political target”. The temple was the most obvious exception. This was just a rough search, giving your point of view the benefit of the doubt up to a point. I don’t really see the power of the distinction you’re trying to make about Palestinian suicide bombing, and I’m not really sure of the accuracy. It seems to me that as long as I’ve been hearing about guerrilla warfare, the ethics of trageting civilians has been part of the argument. The main point of my piece (now up on my site) was that it seems possible that the Tamil-Sinhalese civil war may be coming to an end, a fact which I interpret with qualified optimism (though the fat lady hasn’t sung yet by any means).
Date: 09/17/2002 00:00:00 AM
Something that bothered me is how a lot of people sort of blew off the Fatah announcement. Saying things like, “Oh, well the Pals don’t consider settlers civilians” or “They only said they would stop attacks on civilians not all targets” without recognizing that this may be one small step in the right direction, but it’s a huge step in the quest for peace. Now there is a somewhat major group (and growing in relative strength as IDF wipes up Hamas) that might actually prove to be a voice of reason. Let’s hope it sticks.