Palestinians Debate Recruitment of Suicide Bombers

[Herschel]

Palestinians are waging an unusual debate over terrorist tactics following recent suicide attacks carried out by a mother of two and the bereaved brother of an Arab killed by Israeli troops.

The brouhaha has centered largely on whether they should stop recruiting vulnerable candidates for suicide operations. Many Palestinians, including family members of the respective bombers, are harshly criticizing the decision to recruit the 22-year-old mother Reem Salah al-Riyashi and 17-year-old Iyad al-Masri.

But the debate does not seem to have undermined the consensus among Palestinians in support of what they dub "self-sacrifice operations." Instead, the fight revolves mainly around recruitment tactics and the strategic question of whether it would be better to step up attacks against soldiers and settlers in the West Bank, while halting strikes against Israeli civilians inside the pre-1967 borders.

"There is a strong sentiment that the focus should be on soldiers and settlers, because that would show the futility of the Israeli fence," said West Bank journalist Hafez Barghouti, the editor of the daily al-Hayat al-Jadida, an unofficial mouthpiece of the Palestinian Authority.

"There is some debate — however superficial or tactical — but people are saying that it's a mistake. You don't send a mother out for an operation, leaving behind a nursing baby," Barghouti said.

cut

http://www.forward.com/issues/2004/04.01.30/news5.html

So the debate among Palestinians regards who shall murder. Oh, my.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[Must_B_Free]

2. Suicide Bombers are scary

because they demonstrate that no matter how much money, power and security you amass, you can never be safe from people with determination.

And people with nothing left to lose are prime candidates for said behavior, as I saw in the movie "The Pianist".

[MikeGalos]

3. Even more likely

are people who think they have a lot to gain. And for the various Palestinian factions who support this terrorism, it's tremendously effective.

If your premise were true, we'd see suicide bombers in Ethiopia or Somalia or any of the other really poor countries. We'd see them among the Tibetans or the Rroma who have no chance for their aspirations of a nation.

Instead, we see them most in middle class (by world standards) nations where the standard of living is reasonably good. (as an FYI, the standard of living by internationally accepted standards such as infant mortality in the West Bank and Gaza are almost smack dab in the middle of all nations and higher than in the surrounding Arab states like Egypt, Syria or Jordan.)

On Edit: FYI, for those who don't know, the Rroma are commonly called Gypsies.

[Must_B_Free]

4. false pretense

"Instead, we see them most in middle class (by world standards) nations where the standard of living is reasonably good"

That's because day to day life in Ethopia or Somalia is rife in death. You have to be comfortable to be discomforted.

[MikeGalos]

5. Then you contradict yourself and your premise is wrong

Because people who are comfortable are, by definition, not "people with nothing left to lose" who you said "are prime candidates for said behavior"

[Must_B_Free]

7. that is, the target has to be comfortable to be discomforted.

Who is it that you are suggesting that Ethiopians and Somalis should be suicide bombing?

[MikeGalos]

10. I'm not

I'm suggesting that people become terrorists because it works not because they're "people with nothing to lose".

Murdering innocent civilians for PR value works and we should do everything we can to make sure it doesn't.

Personally, I'd suggest that every terror attack attempted against Israel by PA citizens should be punished by the PA ceding 10 square kilometers of land to Israel. I suspect that might get Arafat's attention and he might stop rewarding criminals rather than sucking up to them.

[Must_B_Free]

14. In that case, why do anything in response

I'll suggest that the proper response then is to ignore terrorism. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

[MikeGalos]

15. What we've done instead is to repeatedly reward terrorism.

"Nationalist" groups that support terror get diplomatic missions, UN observer status, NGO recognition and international support directly proportional to the atrocities they commit. Those that peacefully plead their case don't get squat.

[MikeGalos]

6. In addition

it doesn't answer why the Tibetans and Rroma (Gypsies) haven't taken up terrorism.

[Must_B_Free]

8. No, but perhaps it does explain why both have been unsuccessful

[MikeGalos]

9. So you are suggesting they become terrorists

that's pretty amazing.

[Kundun]

11. Some of this seems to have a positive outlook

When the situation seems hopeless you have to be able to see the shimmer of light.

*** Using the Arabic word for holy war, he added, "The greatest jihad is raising your children." ***

I posted sometime this morning where the comment was made that nobody spoke out against the murder of innocent civilians. It would appear to me that this article is filled with such sentiments.

It's a long road and it would appear to be important for the American government and public not to get involved in this so it does not appear that the new trend is 'styled'.

See what comes out of it.

[GabysPoppy]

12. The title of the article

is chilling by itself.

[number6]

13. well I hope the side who wants to hit military targets

wins the debate, occupying soldiers who bring
misery and tyranny are legitimate targets.

[GabysPoppy]

16. To forget history is to repeat history

http://www.life.com/Life/covers/1970/cv061270.html