----- Original Message -----
From: "J. van Baardwijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2002 3:44 PM
Subject: Re: Fwd: CNN Breaking News


> At 15:25 20-1-02 -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
>
> > > > > GUNMAN KILLS 6, WOUNDS 30 AT ISRAELI BANQUET
> > >
> > > Well, I was already working on a post regarding Israel's response.
> > >
> > > Israel retaliated by blowing up a building of (IIRC) the "Voice of
> > > Palestine" radiostation again. Personally I consider this a totally
> > > unwarranted response. A crime was committed by a Palestinian, and he
was
> > > subsequently killed by the authorities. I do not see why Israel is not
> > > satisfied by getting the terrorist.
> >
> >Let me understand this.  If a suicidal terrorist is sent it to kill
Jewish
> >people, Israel should be content with just that guy dying and not worry
> >about who sent him? Did I read you correctly?
>
> I can understand that they would worry about who sent him. But:
>
> How could Israel know so quickly who sent him?

Well, they could have accepted that the group that claimed responsiblity
actually was responsible.  Out of curiosity, do you know who claimed
responsibility.

>The terrorist was killed, so
> they could not ask him. Do you have the evidence that he was sent by the
> Board of Directors of the "Voice of Palestine" radio station?

No, but they stated that the Palestinain Authority is responsible for swhy
they felt that the Voice of Palestine was partially responsible for the
deaths.  They also felt that the Voice of Palestine has continuously
violated the Oslo accord for years.  Do you know why?

I'm asking, not to be snide, but to get a feel for the extent of the
information that's available for you.  Even if you think that it was wrong
to blow up the radio station, it is worth noting why they felt it was
justified.


>
> Again, it looks more like Israel used this as an excuse to continue its
> "Silence the Palestinian Media" operation, rather than an attack on
whoever
> sent the terrorist.

Their vantage point is that its the Palestianian Authority's responsibility
to stop the attacks.  They see  the Authority as deliberately looking the
other way and allowing the attacks.  They will keep on retaliating against
the infrastructure of the Authority for each attack until the Authority gets
the idea that it would be benificial to stop the attacks.

Now, that may realistically never happen.  Arafat may not control the
Palestinians because he is riding the tiger.  If that is true, I'm not sure
what will bring peace.  But, I don't think that anyone should be expected to
take repeated attacks at pizza parlors and bat mitzfas without responding.
If I understand your suggestion, Israel should retreat to the 1967
boundaries and hope to be left alone.  Do I misunderstand your ideas?



Dan M.

Reply via email to