'I used to be against the fence, now I'm for it'

[drdon326]

Sami Mcarah, a 29-year-old Arab Israeli resident of Jaffo got off a bus at Tel Aviv's old bus station just minutes before a bomb went off on Sunday that killed one woman and injured 30 others.

"I used to be opposed to the security fence, but now I support it, and I'm going to start a foundation to support the fence's construction" Mcarah told Israel Radio.

"The terrorist had no intention just to hurt Jews, but he went out to kill as many people as possible. The Palestinians are stupid for what they're doing, they're not achieving anything and in the end they will only turn us Israeli Arabs against them," said Mcarah.

Mcarah, wounded by shrapnel to his leg, said he rushed over to a woman he saw on the ground and tried to help her. He said he took her pulse but she was already dead, "The images in my head will never go away, although I feel lucky that I have a new life after surviving the second terror attack."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1089516096374


..............................................................

I guess the ICJ doesnt want to hear from him.

[mzmolly]

1. One horror perpetuates the next.

Very sad.

[number6]

2. another traitor to his people

:(

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Forkboy]

15. Par for the course

[drdon326]

16. LOL...Forkboy....

how the hell are you ??

[Jackie97]

18. I think this "betrayal" shows one thing.

This wall is being built because Israelis fear for their lives, not because they want to ethnically cleanse (even if that is what they do in the long run).

These suicide bombings are killing Arab Israelis, and they're scared now.

[drdon326]

3. "The Palestinians are stupid for what they´re doing........... "

"...they´re not achieving anything and in the end they will only turn us Israeli Arabs against them" said Mcarah.

I think Sami is finally getting it.

[number6]

6. for resisting oppression and land theft ...

The Palestinians are stupid for what they´re doing ....

[number6]

7. btw I consider cox and forkham to be a

anti-(Arab)semite site ...

[Classical_Liberal]

8. Israelis are stupid for not dismantling the settlements

. They will only turn the rest of the world against them.

[hansolsen]

17. I would be interested in your view on this related post in another thread

Here is the link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x74607#74747

[atreides1]

4. And This Is Different From Using A Helicopter Gunship How?

Let's face facts then, you don't use a helicopter gunship on an apartment building to kill just one man, you do it to cause as many casulties as possible. The same can be said for firing on a car outside of a mosque with people praying inside, you're not trying to get just one or two men, you're trying to kill or wound as many people as you can. And what better place then outside of a place of worship can you think of to kill or wound lots of people.

[The Magistrate]

10. That, Mr. Atreides, Is Not True

The pattern of attack would be very different if the intent was to cause the maximum casualties possible, and it is clear in most of these actions that it would be easy to have killed and maimed a great many more people.

Several things dictate the pattern of these attacks, principally the desire to minimize risk of harm to Israeli personnel, the fleeting nature of the target's availability, and the desire to be sure of striking the target decisively with a minimum of other harm being done.

The first consideration dictates the use of air-borne platforms. An argument could be made that commando teams might strike more precisely, but this would place personnel at much greater risk.

The second consideration dictates the location of the strike. An attempt to attack a particular leading combatant can only be made when his location is known, and the attacker has little control over this factor: it will be dictated by the lapses of the enemy combatant himself, and the available intelligence on his movements. This consideration, too, also militates in favor of the air-borne platform, which can be kept standing by very easily, and against the commando team, which requires a good deal more planning and time to act effectively.

The third consideration, in combination with the first two, dictates the use of sizeable guided ordnance in small quantities. At least nine times in ten, this will actually strike the target, and destroy it, thus making it as near to certain as is achievable in military operations that the immediate object of the exercise will be gained. In the great majority of instances, this will be achieved with little harm done to anything but the target, particularly when anti-armor munitions are used, as these concentrate their blast, and produce comparatively little fragmentation.

An attack aimed at killing the maximum number would have a very different pattern. It would use a larger quantity of munitions, and a mix of high explosive and fragmentation charges, fired simultaneously, which could be reliably expected to cut down most anything within a hundred yards of the point of aim.

[lefty_mcduff]

11. Well, in the good old days the authorities used

to arrest 'suspected' terrorists, not assassinate them (whoops, eliminate through extra-judicial targeted killing) in the middle of civilian areas using Cobra and Apache helicopters. It's even more lopsided when the civilians in that area are, relatively speaking, unarmed.

And IF the military knows for certain that there are going to be civilian casualties (whoops, collateral damage) in the pursuit of any suspect, and continues regardless, then the civilian casualties are 'part of the equation' and planned, regardless of how 'minimized' these casualties are. Soldiers of honor used to break off attacks if women and children got in the way. Now, as long as the deaths of women and children are at an 'acceptable' level, the IDF can claim some fucked-up form of compassion.

If one wanted to flip the argument on it's head, one could claim that the event described in the original post was a 'targeted killing' - only a soldier was killed (IIRC) - and Sami was a case of collateral damage and simply in the wrong place, at the wrong time. I *don't* hold that opinion, but neither am I going to give the IDF any sway when they inadvertently kill, maim or injure civilians, regardless of how 'minimized' the numbers might be.

[The Magistrate]

12. Flipping The Argument, Sir

Does not discommode me in the least. In this particular incident, though it is likely the result of fortune rather than planning, the only person killed was in fact a serving officer. If, in a genuine attempt to kill a high ranking Shin Bet officer, or some other ranking Israeli military or police official, an Arab Palestinian militant involved a number of Israeli civilians in an explosion along with his target, my attitude towards the act would be precisely the same: it would be a legitimate military operation, aimed at a military target, in which the involvement of non-combatants was unavoidable, given the nature of the weaponry available to the force carrying it out.

The "honor" of old soldiers, Sir, is greatly over-rated. War has throughout the ages generally been waged with great harm to non-combatants, whether through direct involvement as the target of attack, or through their standing stake as the booty of the victor, or through the inevitable consequences in famine and epidemic when armies live off the land they pass through.

In the war between Israel and Arab Palestine today, there are certainly still many instances where Israeli soldiers attempt the capture of combatant enemies. Many of these attempts turn into gun battles, which often result in injury to non-combatants. The problem is in the very nature of partisan war, wherein the irregular forces operate among their populace, using it as a species of camouflage and protective rampart. Technically, under the laws of war, this constitutes perfidious conduct, and the onus for any civilian casualties resulting from engagement with a force acting in such a wise can be laid on those who take up their positions sheltered among non-combatants. Since partisan forces cannot reasonably be expected to operate in any other manner, my inclination is not to stress this point too much, but it is a real one. The fact is that the laws of war do not stigmatize any casualties to non-combatants resulting from operations aimed at enemy combatants; they merely require that steps be taken to minimize their occurance, and that the direct military value of actions that result in harm to non-combatants be reasonably considered worth that consequence. Most Israeli actions in this conflict seem, to me at least, to meet this admittedly subjective and imperfect standard.

"They say war is an art, but it's not. It largely consists of outwitting people, stealing from widows and orphans, and inflicting suffering on the helpless for one's own ends, and that's not art: that's business."

[lefty_mcduff]

13. Very well reasoned response.

It's not often that someone will hold *both* sides to the same candle.

And I agree that the death of one soldier was chance rather than planning (which is why I did not fully support my 'flipped' argument).

[The Magistrate]

14. It Must Be Done, Sir

A uniform standard is the only hope of a way out of this mess.

This has always seemed to me a situation in which there is more than enough of right and justice to go around, and that therefore people of good heart and sound intellect may easily find themselves taking diametrically opposed stands concerning it.

A pleasure to cross words with you, Sir!