Palestinian Terrorists Carry Out Suicide Bomb Attack

donsutherland1 · 02-04-08, 07:44 AM

Today, the Jerusalem Post reported:

One woman was killed and ten people were wounded, one critically, one moderately and eight lightly, in a suicide attack in a Dimona commercial center.

Police said the attack was a suicide bombing carried out by two attackers, but only one succeeded in detonating his explosives. The other terrorist was killed by Kobi Mor, a police officer from an elite unit who happened to be on the scene, seconds before the bomber could detonate himself...

Rosa Elberg, a resident of the town, said that the bomber detonated his explosives inside a café.

In spite of this naked act of aggression against Israel and this attack's targeting civilians in a cafe, I highly doubt that the UN Security Council will adopt any resolutions condemning the attack and demanding that the Palestinians cease such acts of terrorism. As a result, the UN's minimal credibility on Middle Eastern affairs will be further diminished.

In my opinion, this latest act of terrorism illustrates the reality that Israel remains confronted by serious security risks. At some point, it may well be necessary for Israel to retake portions of the Gaza Strip to establish security zones. Even before then, I believe Israel should set aside any prospects of liberalizing its prisoner release guidelines. Palestinian prisoners who are directly or indirectly responsible for acts of violence should be held fully accountable for their actions without exception.

PeteEU · 02-04-08, 07:52 AM

/shrug, as long as both sides dont want peace then I cant feel sorry for any of them.

Red_Dave · 02-04-08, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donsutherland1

I highly doubt that the UN Security Council will adopt any resolutions condemning the attack and demanding that the Palestinians cease such acts of terrorism. As a result, the UN's minimal credibility on Middle Eastern affairs will be further diminished.

That will be because Hamas is not a member of the U.N

donsutherland1 · 02-04-08, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red_Dave

That will be because Hamas is not a member of the U.N

Under Article 39 of the UN Charter, "The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression..." The Charter does not limit the Security Council's authority over acts of aggression to Member States, only.

For starters, the UN should insist that the Middle East's states and the Palestinian Authority adhere to Security Council Resolution 1373 which requires:

...that all States shall:

(a) Refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists;

(b) Take the necessary steps to prevent the commission of terrorist acts, including by provision of early warning to other States by exchange of information;

(c) Deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support, or commit terrorist acts, or provide safe havens;

(d) Prevent those who finance, plan, facilitate or commit terrorist acts from using their respective territories for those purposes against other States or their citizens;

(e) Ensure that any person who participates in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetration of terrorist acts or in supporting terrorist acts is brought to justice and ensure that, in addition to any other measures against them, such terrorist acts are established as serious criminal offences in domestic laws and regulations and that the punishment duly reflects the seriousness of such terrorist acts;

(f) Afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with criminal investigations or criminal proceedings relating to the financing or support of terrorist acts, including assistance in obtaining evidence in their possession necessary for the proceedings;

(g) Prevent the movement of terrorists or terrorist groups by effective border controls and controls on issuance of identity papers and travel documents, and through measures for preventing counterfeiting, forgery or fraudulent use of identity papers and travel documents...

If the UN seeks to begin to restore credibility on the Middle East issue, it will need to undertake a balanced approach that focuses on the terrorism that precludes prospects for regionwide peace. It will also need to make clear to the Palestinian Authority that, as an observer member of the UN, it also must fulfill its obligations.

The UN's failure to condemn the terrorist attack will lead to its voice growing even more irrelevant on such matters. Given past practice, I expect that the UN will not adopt a Security Council resolution to condemn the terrorist attack and call upon the Palestinian Authority to take measures against the terrorist entities that operate from the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Instead, should Israel take more robust security measures down the road, the UN (particularly the General Assembly) will likely attempt to restrain Israel, yet again.

All said, such developments will further underscore the reality that the notion of collective security is essentially bankrupt. Consequently, states will continue to rely on themselves and their allies to address security threats.

Slainte · 02-04-08, 10:00 AM

A UN resolution would be pretty pointless, the bombers were probably from Gaza and the PA doesn't have any control there.

Heh, it'd almost be like condemning the Afghan gov for Taliban attacks.

It's not really that surprising, so long as everyone in Gaza is suffering they're going to want retribution, until something is done to improve the place there will be many more attacks.

Oh it wasn't the only suicide attack of the day either:

Sri Lanka Suicide Bombing Kills 11

Sunday February 3, 2008 5:31 PM

By KRISHAN FRANCIS

Associated Press Writer

COLOMBO, Sri Lanka (AP) - A female suicide bomber attacked the main railway station in the Sri Lankan capital Sunday, killing at least 11 people and wounding 92 others, officials said.

Military spokesman Brig. Udaya Nanayakkara said the bomber got down from a train and then blew herself up....

---

I'd be pretty surprised if there was a UN resolution in this case, not because the UN is a horribly anti-Sri Lankan organisation either, but because it would just be pretty pointless.

donsutherland1 · 02-04-08, 10:15 AM

Slainte,

There would be symbolic importance in condemning the inexcusable acts of terrorism by the Palestinian terrorists. Moreover, the UN Security Council could call upon the Palestinian Authority to outlaw the various terrorist groups e.g., Hamas, disarm them, and dismantle their infrastructure, beginning in the West Bank.

However, if the Palestinian Authority also seeks to incorporate Gaza into a sovereign Palestinian state, then the terrorist groups there need to be dismantled, as well. Until that happens, there is no possibility of a final settlement that would include the Gaza Strip.

In the end, so long as the UN repeatedly goes on record criticizing Israel's acting in self-defense and remains silent on the reasons for that self-defense, specifically Palestinian terrorism, the UN's capacity to play a meaningful role toward regional peace is impaired. Moreover, so long as it maintains its persistent anti-Israel bias, the terrorists are emboldened by the implied legitimacy that the UN's silence confers on their actions. To say the least, this is not helpful for sustaining the credibility of international law's prohibition on attacks against civilians nor promoting regional peace.

Against that backdrop, Israel is justified in taking security measures, even those the UN opposes, to protect the lives of its citizens, though Israel is properly constrained by the Laws of War. To date, Israel has remained committed to avoiding a humanitarian catastrophe in the Gaza Strip and I have little doubt that Israel will retain that commitment. In terms of future security measures, if Israel feels that it is necessary for it to regain control of the Philadelphi Corridor at the Gaza-Egypt border and/or regain control of portions of the Gaza Strip so as to establish security zones that put Palestinian rockets out of reach of Sderot, then it should do so. If the UN criticizes such steps, Israel should ignore the UN. After all, the UN, through its unwillingness to condemn the terrorism following Israel's complete disengagement from the Gaza Strip has contributed to the outcome. Israel needs to give far greater priority to protecting the lives of its citizens than the UN's demands that ignore Israel's core needs.

Slainte · 02-04-08, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donsutherland1

Slainte,

There would be symbolic importance in condemning the inexcusable acts of terrorism by the Palestinian terrorists.

I think we can all condemn it without a security council meeting, it's one of these situations where there isn't any disagreement among the major powers - we know this was a heinous act, on the grand scale however it wasn't a pretty small heinous act. The UNSC is supposed to deal with big, pressing issues, this isn't one of those.

Quote:

Originally Posted by donsutherland1

Moreover, the UN Security Council could call upon the Palestinian Authority to outlaw the various terrorist groups e.g., Hamas, disarm them, and dismantle their infrastructure, beginning in the West Bank.

I think the UN has done this almost as many times as its called for a halt to settlement building. Why do it one more time? You think it will get results this time?

Quote:

Originally Posted by donsutherland1

However, if the Palestinian Authority also seeks to incorporate Gaza into a sovereign Palestinian state, then the terrorist groups there need to be dismantled, as well. Until that happens, there is no possibility of a final settlement that would include the Gaza Strip.

Yep, this just means there is no possibility for a final settlement at all in the forseeable future. It'll probably take a new Whitehouse admin to do something about Gaza. If it's actually possible to fix Gaza in the next; say 10 years, it'll be through through a Washington driven policy. GB doesn't have the energy or credibility to start those polices though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by donsutherland1

In the end, so long as the UN repeatedly goes on record criticizing Israel's acting in self-defense and remains silent on the reasons for that self-defense, specifically Palestinian terrorism, the UN's capacity to play a meaningful role toward regional peace is impaired.

This is a ridiculous comparrison. Practically every country in the world will officially condemn suicide bombing attacks on civilians, there simply isn't a debate, everyone knows the Palestinians are in the wrong when they commit them, the Palestinian leaders accountable to the UN will even condemn them, thus when they happen there just isn't the need to discuss it in the UNSC. OTOH when Israel starts policies like collective punishment, house demolition, targetted assasination, etc there IS a debate as to whether Israel is acting in the wrong. The general feeling across the planet is that they ARE acting in the wrong and so through the UN condemnation is issued. You just don't need a resolution everytime a fanatic blows up a bus saying "that was a bad thing", that's not what UNSC resolutions were designed for and to use them for that purpose would just cheapen them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by donsutherland1

Against that backdrop, Israel is justified in taking security measures, even those the UN opposes, to protect the lives of its citizens, though Israel is properly constrained by the Laws of War. To date, Israel has remained committed to avoiding a humanitarian catastrophe in the Gaza Strip and I have little doubt that Israel will retain that commitment. In terms of future security measures, if Israel feels that it is necessary for it to regain control of the Philadelphi Corridor at the Gaza-Egypt border and/or regain control of portions of the Gaza Strip so as to establish security zones that put Palestinian rockets out of reach of Sderot, then it should do so. If the UN criticizes such steps, Israel should ignore the UN. After all, the UN, through its unwillingness to condemn the terrorism following Israel's complete disengagement from the Gaza Strip has contributed to the outcome. Israel needs to give far greater priority to protecting the lives of its citizens than the UN's demands that ignore Israel's core needs.

If Israel wants to ignore the UN and treat it as an irrelevance it should stop sighting 181 as the justification for its existance. You want the best of both worlds, you go on about how the "international community" have decided that Jews deserve a homeland and that Hamas are terrorists, etc and act like that is very important, yet when the "international community" demands Israel respect Palestinian dignity you dismiss it as an irrelevance and a biased organisation unfit to make important decisions.

More and more I see Israel developing something we call Millwall syndrome in the UK, everybody hates us, we don't care. A permanent chip on the shoulder, an arrogant selfrighteous dismissal of any criticism and a permanent feeling of victimhood. It's not a nice thing. This double standard you're so desperate to apply stinks of it.

donsutherland1 · 02-04-08, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slainte

I think the UN has done this almost as many times as its called for a halt to settlement building. Why do it one more time? You think it will get results this time?

Please cite a single UN Security Council resolution that explicitly condemns Hamas and specifically calls for the disarming of Hamas and dismantling of its infrastructure.

Quote:

It'll probably take a new Whitehouse admin to do something about Gaza. If it's actually possible to fix Gaza in the next; say 10 years, it'll be through through a Washington driven policy. GB doesn't have the energy or credibility to start those polices though.

Although the U.S. will likely play a mediating role in negotiations, it cannot nor will not impose a settlement on the region.

Quote:

This is a ridiculous comparrison. Practically every country in the world will officially condemn suicide bombing attacks on civilians, there simply isn't a debate, everyone knows the Palestinians are in the wrong when they commit them, the Palestinian leaders accountable to the UN will even condemn them, thus when they happen there just isn't the need to discuss it in the UNSC.

This simply does not happen in the United Nations. One need only examine its history of resolutions, particularly the one-sided General Assembly resolutions to see this reality.

Quote:

OTOH when Israel starts policies like collective punishment, house demolition, targetted assasination, etc there IS a debate as to whether Israel is acting in the wrong. The general feeling across the planet is that they ARE acting in the wrong and so through the UN condemnation is issued. You just don't need a resolution everytime a fanatic blows up a bus saying "that was a bad thing", that's not what UNSC resolutions were designed for and to use them for that purpose would just cheapen them.

The UN needs to go on record that terrorist attacks such as that carried out today pose a threat to international peace and security, fundamental protection of civilians, etc. Its failure to do so has cost it credibility. Indeed, after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the UN produced a number of resolutions on that matter. That was the correct decision. With respect to Israel's lonely fight against terrorism, the UN has stood mute.

Quote:

If Israel wants to ignore the UN and treat it as an irrelevance it should stop sighting 181 as the justification for its existance. You want the best of both worlds, you go on about how the "international community" have decided that Jews deserve a homeland and that Hamas are terrorists, etc and act like that is very important, yet when the "international community" demands Israel respect Palestinian dignity you dismiss it as an irrelevance and a biased organisation unfit to make important decisions.

Under the UN Charter, Israel is entitled to all the protections of UN Member States. That includes the right of self-defense. Pretense that Israel, of all countries, should be expected to absorb terrorist attacks, let its civilians be targeted, and make unilateral concessions to those assaulting its citizens are unreasonable. No nation would accept such a situation. No nation but Israel has had that demand placed on it. Rightly, Israel rejects this double standard. It recognizes that its citizens share the same rights as all of the world's peoples.

bhkad · 02-04-08, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeteEU

/shrug, as long as both sides dont want peace then I cant feel sorry for any of them.

How can this attack be interpreted by any rational person as reflecting on Israel's desire for peace?

Wait a second...am I asking the right individual here?

Dougie_Vipond · 02-04-08, 08:04 PM

there's plenty of calls from officials at the un. no resolutions, but no binding res'ns on isreal either.

no it would probly let isreal have its way. maybe its for the best. it cant be trusted anyway.

see above

agreed. un does need to do this. the us can also make a resolutions against isreal binding for a change. then well all be happy.

9/11 and gaza are too different things. the un didnt need to provide aid to New york.

no one ever says anywhere that isreal need absorb attacks. but thats not a green light to doinf what you wish either. no nation would accept such a situatoin, yet no nation is in such a situation either. its different.
isreal accepts the double standard of accepting what it likes and calling what it doent like irrelevant as slainte explains above.