Israelis killed in Bulgaria bus terror attack, minister says
A deadly explosion on a bus carrying Israeli tourists outside an airport in Bulgaria was "clearly a terrorist attack," Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Wednesday... The attack was probably initiated by a group under the auspices of "either Iran or other radical Muslim groups," according to Barak, who cited Hezbollah and Hamas as likely suspects.
Matt sent me this piece the other day. How do the events herein, and the claims that Israel has made, correlate to what we have learned about so far in the course?
I think that this attack demonstrates that nowhere is really safe. Radical Islam is quickly become popular in Europe in certain countries like the U.K, France, the Netherlands and a few other countries. I think that this attack shows how unsafe Israeli's traveling in Europe are and also shows us the reach of Iran and Hezbollah. At the end of the day, the Mossad will track those down responsible and enact justice but one has to ask, when will the killing of innocent civilans by religious fanatics stop?
ReplyDeleteI am surprised by this article. I find it unfortunate that tourists that have nothing to do with the conflict between these states end up being killed. After reading this article, I understood that NGO's may be dangerous to the society. I have no words to describe how I feel about this... It is lamentable.-Ces Escobedo
ReplyDeleteThe attack shows that the tension between Iran and Israel can spread across borders and become transnational. Why do civilians have to die? In the end, this will just lead to more violence. If IGOs cannot maintain stability in these areas, law enforcement will have to be more strict. Although civilians are already moved to Jerusalem in armored trucks, law enforcement may still have to step it up like how the TSA has done with airport security. People may not like it, but it is for their benefit. In sum, it will be tough for the respective countries to constrain the fighting and stricter laws may be the answer. - Jeremy McMillan
ReplyDeleteAs Jeremy said it shows that conflicts know no borders and that IGOs such as the UN are limited in what they can do, as Iran can simply deny involvement. It also shows that states will go anywhere to get what they want no matter how evil it may be. - David Kramer
ReplyDeleteI agree that this event is horrible to say the least. This event may be a realist explanation for why our alliances have held on so long after WWII and the Cold War, because now with transnational crime and fundamentalist groups, threats never truly vanish, and this occurrence is tragic reminder. Also in the end of the article it stated "Iran's efforts to build a nuclear program have unnerved many world leaders, resulting in condemnation and sanctions from the United Nations. Tehran insists the program is for peaceful purposes." Again we are faced with the security dilemma, even though Iran insists its nuclear program is peaceful, it looks like an offensive action to other countries.
ReplyDelete-Feddi Roth
We have learned that international groups, especially NGOs such as Hezbollah and Hamas, have an impact on international politics, a view widely accepted by liberals and constructivists, while realists might point fingers more towards Iran. Israel appears to be acting in a realistic and rational way, accusing not only their biggest local threat, but also from the international perspective, they are denouncing Iran and thus showing their sense of importance for the international community, particularly the United States.
ReplyDeleteTo be frank, the whole situation also teaches us that the past never really fades. The problem that was started decades ago, with the founding of the Israeli state, is still causing turmoil in the region; it will not go away. Thusly, we have deduced that the only logical course of action is to relocate the entire Israeli state to the northwestern state of Montana. Montana's population of less than one million would be bolstered by a dramatic increase in population(approximately five million), industry, and wealth that would likely turn the area into a haven for the Jewish people while simultaneously bolstering the United States economy and restoring peace to the Middle East. No more would the Iranians, Palestinians, or any other ethnic group, feel threatened by the potential for conventional or nuclear conflict that could have global consequences. Montana is more arable, mountainous, easily defend-able, and not bordered by nation's filled with enemies: yet another benefit for the Jewish people. The United States has a long tradition of supporting the Jewish peoples and thus would be given an opportunity to show their loyalty, compassion, and desire for a strong ally within this region.
Furthermore, the establishment of a "Jewtana" would directly stimulate the diversity of the American public, culturing them to a more globalized society, as well as reducing racial tension and anti-Semitism within America. There would also be an influx of ethnic food, such as Matzah and Hummus. The increase in demand for Hummus would require greater importation of chickpeas. Chickpeas being native to the middle east would cause for trade to stimulated, bringing down trade barriers and promoting greater interconnectedness and (due to the increased number of kosher food outlets) greater interdependence. Thus promoting the "Perpetual Peace" advocated by such intellectuals as Kant and endorsed by neoliberals. Furthermore, the increased export funds created by produce exports would bolster the economies of Arabic nations, resulting in greater domestic stability and thus lead to a less radical and dangerous Middle East for all. Whilst providing a substitute for the dangerous and destructive Opium trade, thus helping to diminish transnational crime and the necessity for drug-related violence.
The new state of Jewtana would not have difficulties in establishing international recognition; the regional hegemon, The United States, would likely support to new state. The United States donates over 3,000 million dollars each year in foreign aid to Israel, mostly due to their need for a very high military budget. This would become unnecessary, as Jewtana would only have peaceful neighbors. This incentive, combined with the increased domestic production of the Israelis, would lead to US advocacy of the new state. The only other nation besides the US that would border Jewtana would be Canada, and the Canadians would likely support the move due to the increased exports of Ice hockey gear, maple syrup and whiskey.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, since Jewtana could become a NAFTA member, the norm of IGO interdependence thus would reach unprecedented levels. On top of this, the removal of the Israeli state would likely reduce tensions between the Russian, Chinese and American peoples by removing a key cause for the use of Security Council Veto Power. By reducing the usage for such a power, it is possible that reform of the United Nations Charter would become far easier, resulting in a more effective and less biased system that would increase global communication on issues, and increase the UN’s legitimacy further. No longer would states feel disenfranchised with the system; they would feel their voice is of equal value even to the greatest of nations; which would promote greater interest in the use of peaceful methods to solve issues that usually result in conflict, or simply inactivity in the situation as in the case of Syria.
The newly founded Jewish Montana would also be a key ally in the war on transnational crime. Israeli special forces and police networks, such as MOSSAD, are well versed in combating international terrorism and crime and thus could help reduce the cross border crime coming in to the US through the Canadian and Mexican borders. This would be very detrimental for drug cartels operating within North America and they would no longer be able to terrorize their regions, thusly producing increased stability in many Central American nations, and decreasing the likelihood of radical regime change.
In closing, last week’s bombing has shown us how volatile the situation is in the Middle East due to the disagreements caused by Israeli presence and western intervention. Thus, the founding of Jewtana would stop needless massacres and bloodshed in the region, as well as prevent further attacks on US and other Western nation’s soil. Also, the world would become more interdependent, especially with the rising demand for chickpeas and other Middle Eastern produce, which would create a more peaceful world for all of its inhabitants, while simultaneously decreasing the likelihood of nuclear war. In short, the establishment of Jewtana would solve the Middle East’s issues and restore peace to the region, while benefiting all parties involved.
I think that the idea of a "Jewtana" is just an excuse for nations like the U.S and its Allies to ignore problems that are occurring in the Middle East. Israel is a beacon of light in the Middle East and offers so many opportunities to women, gays etc. that would never exist in Arab countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran etc. Moving the Jews to Montana would deny the Middle East a beacon of freedom and hope that Israel represents. It is very unfortunate that Israel has to fight against terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah that use cowardly tactics like hiding behind civilians and deliberately putting mortars and rockets in mosques and schools. The IDF has no choice but to respond to these acts of terror and subsequently get labeled as "war criminals" and "oppressors" for killing civilians even though civilians die in every conflict everywhere in the world. I think that even if "Jewtana" is a joke, it is quite offensive to the state of Israel which is more than capable of holding its own against the radical Islamic scourge that it faces.
DeleteThe notion of Jewtana is not meant to be one of offence or undermining the IDF's capacity to defend itself. At no point in time does the essay question this. It questions the fundamental validity of its methods, existence and feasibility. I also would like to point out that Jewtana is not "ignoring the issue"; it is in fact providing a solution to the issue as opposed to undermining the issue and ignoring it. On top of this, the "beacon of hope" idea is certainly questionable. Why has the Israeli presence brought chaos and violence into the region instead of a furthering of civil rights, especially compared to the relative peace that existed previously. Furthermore, massive invasions of civil liberties, illegal occupation of lands and firing upon civilian targets is hardly something that can be considered civil action. More over, the "offensiveness" of Jewtana is something that I fail to see. We have simply suggested what we feel to be a solution to an issue that has not just claimed Israeli and Palestinian lives, but also British and American nationals. Moreover, you're statement of Israel being able to hold its own against a "radical Islamic scourge" is one of questionable integrity. Is it not the case that Zionists in the 1940s committed acts of terrorism comparable to those of the Arabs? In addition, Israel would not be able to "hold its own" had not the US been pumping millions of dollars into their defence budget. Jewtana is a reasonable solution to a problem that has no feasible end in sight.
DeleteI have both a response to the article and a response to the above "recommendation" about a relocation of a Jewish state. In response to the article, I think it's important to remember that the conflict between Middle Eastern countries and Israel is not a state-state conflict. It is, in fact, an example of the transnational movements we recently studied in class. The article above gives an example of the terror crossing state borders and targeting not states but ethnicities that cross state lines. In response to Simon's question posed in the above comment, one of the sources of conflict over Israel's presence is fundamental anti-Semitism, a source of resentment that relates back to transnational movements and conflicts that transcend the traditional notion of the state. In response the the proposition of "Jewtana," I think that for a situation so serious, it is important to remember to respond in equally as serious a manner. As an American, I wouldn't have appreciated a solution created in jest to the conflict between Al Qaeda and the US after September 11, and as a Jew with strong ties to Israel, I don't appreciate the same in response to terrorist attacks against Israelis.
DeleteRight now, Israel is the only country keeping the peace in that region of the world. The IDF fires on civilians because it is forced to, not because it wants to. The IDF has one of the smallest civilian to combatant death ratio of 2 civilians per every 1 combatant, the ratio of the U.S is about 30 civilians per every 1 combatant. Richard Kemp, the commander of British forces in Afghanistan said, "based on my knowledge and experience, I can say this: during operation Cast Lead, the Israeli Defense Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in the combat zones than any other army in the history of warfare" Israel is a completely legitimate country, it captured the land that is has when it was attacked by the Arab states around it, it has no obligation to give anything back. Also, in 1947, the U.N made a plan to partition Palestine between the Arabs and the Jews, the Jews accepted and the Arabs rejected and attacked the Jews. The Jews won fair and square and every other war was provoked by either the Arab states or terrorist groups. There is no denying that, they are simply facts.
DeleteWe would like to start our rebuttal by pointing out that neither Molly nor Ben actually attacked the substance of our argument; they simply skirted around it and addressed points that are not explicitly relevant. Now, onto the specifics.
DeleteMolly poses as ad hominen argument, attacking our credibility by saying that we are being 'disrespectful' to the dire situation in the Middle East. However, on the contrary, we are doing the exact opposite; we are proposing a solution to a conflict which has no clear resolution in sight. Things like this are constantly happening in that region, and if we are forbidden from taking an out-of-the-box approach to our solutions then there is little hope for peace. As we can all obviously tell, there is a lot of satire in the establishment of a "Jewtana", but satire has often been used to raise awareness and offer perspective on controversial issues. A perfect example of this is Mark Twain's classic novel The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, where the author uses blatant satire in order to ridicule the white racist southerners. Slavery and racial tension is a completely serious issue, but by subjecting it to satire, Twain helped promote the cause of African Americans. Second, the idea of a "Jewtana" may seem entirely absurd, but as Einstein said, "If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it." With this, we rest our case on this contention.
Second, onto Ben's argument about how "Israel is keeping the peace" in the Middle East. In the 48 years before the foundation of the Israeli state there were only a minimum of 4 interstate wars(not including colonial rebellion), with a total casualty count of approximately 230,000. Now, after the establishment of Israel, there have been a minimum of 9 inter-state wars, with a total casualty rating of approximately 1,288,500 in the 48 years afterwards. 92,000 of these have stemmed directly from the Arab-Israeli conflict. While the civilian casualty rating of IDF conflicts is relatively low, there would be none if the Israeli state was relocated to Montana. Furthermore, Israel has not safe-guarded the civilians rights of those who are not Israeli citizens, as Ben would have us believe. Whilst it may safe guard the rights of Jewish settlers, Palestinian rights have been grossly violated. In March of 2012, a peaceful protestor, Bassem Tamimi, was arrested for leading peaceful protests against Israeli oppression of Palestine: a clear violation of Israel's "right to freedom of assembly". He was detained for thirteen months before the EU pressured Israel into releasing Tamimi, calling him a "defender of human rights." Furthermore, According to the 2004 U.S. State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for Israel and the Occupied Territories, the Israeli government had done "little to reduce institutional, legal, and societal discrimination against the country's Arab citizens."
Reports of subsequent years also identified discrimination against Arab citizens as a problem area for Israel, but did not repeat the assertion that Israel had done little to reduce discrimination." As well as, "According to a 2003 Haifa University study, a tendency existed to impose heavier prison terms to Arab citizens than to Jewish citizens. Human rights advocates claimed that Arab citizens were more likely to be convicted of murder and to have been denied bail." In addition, "According to a 2005 study at Hebrew University, three times more money was invested in education of Jewish children as in Arab children." As if this weren't enough, During the Al-Aqsa Intifada in 2003, the Knesset made a temporary amendment to the Citizenship and Entry into Israel law which prohibited Palestinians married to Israelis from gaining Israeli citizenship or residency: a striking similarity to Nazi’s policies for jewish-german marriage in the Nuremburg Race Laws. Finally, In a report on Israel for 2004, Amnesty International accused the IDF of war crimes, including "unlawful killing," "extension and wanton of destruction of property; obstruction of medical assistance and targeting of medical personnel; torture, and the use of Palestinians as 'human shields' They accuse the Israeli army of "reckless" shooting and "excessive use of force" against militants that endanger the lives civilians. They claim Israeli soldiers are rarely punished for human rights violations, and investigations of crimes are not carried out." Ben claims that the Palestinians use human shields as evidence for the "bastion of hope" that Israel provides. To this, we assert http://www.palestineremembered.com/images/dailymail_humanshield.jpg which is self-explanatory. Israel has not been a protector of human rights in the Middle East, and would greatly benefit from an exodus to Montana because they would be among virtually all their own people and would not feel the incentive to terrorize other ethnic groups, even in the interest of self-determination.
DeleteBen then goes on to contend that all post-Zionist wars have been the result of Arab aggression. If we assume this to be true, we can then contend that the only reason that they have been aggressive is because of the Israeli occupation of their homeland. If Israeli's weren't there in the first place, they would have no reason to be fighting. Second, his claim that all wars were started by Arabs is entirely false. The six day war was started by the Israeli's when they bombed Egyptian airfields and commenced a land assault first, as we. On top of this, post the First Arab-Israeli War, Israeli Militias were responsible for the “repercussion attacks” that claimed thousands of civilian and militants lives, and resulted in the large scale exodus of refugees out of the area, and into the bordering nations of Lebanon and Jordan. Many of these families have still not been allowed to return to this day. Finally, he says the Jews won "fair and square" but they wouldn't have been able to win had they not received tremendous military support for the United States, which has the largest military in the world as well as the world’s largest economy. Consider a playground fight, between a UFC fighter and a collection of small children. Did the winner really win "fair and square"? If Palestine has US support they would have surely been victorious. Thus your point is entirely false.
DeleteFinally, we must extend our so-far undisputed arguments to show the validity of our argument; we would advise your future efforts of rebuttal to actually attack our argument and not what you think we are saying. 1) Eliminates threat of nuclear war. 2) Jewtana would be surrounded by friendly neighbors, especially the United States and Canada. 3) Spread diversity in America. 4) Create interdependence with the Middle East and the World, promoting stability. 5) Undercut the Opium trade and other criminal activity. 6) US would gain economically, through improved production and no longer needing to provide funds for the Israeli military. 7) Improved trade with Canada. 8) Strengthens NAFTA, promoting IGO involvement. 9) UN reform. 10) Fight transnational crime. 11) Creates stability and peace in the world at large.
For all of these reasons we support an Israeli state of "Jewtana" For all your future arguments, please refer to our listed arguments. We would also like to clarify that at NO POINT have we said anything against the Jewish people, their right to a state or their right to defend themselves. We are simply asserting fact, and providing what we see as a solution to the issue that has so far been unheard of.
In all honesty, I am really tired with arguing with people like you who have probably never been to Israel, lived there or ever plan to go there. You can believe whatever you want regarding the Palestinian people and there "plights" The one thing that I want to end by saying is that no matter how Israel gained its territory and protects its people, it is only done so we as the only 8,522 square mile Jewish state in the world can survive when we are surrounded by countries and groups that wish to wipe us off the face of the earth. I will defend every action Israel takes because I have experienced firsthand what it is like living there and worrying every second if the young arab man or woman sitting next to you at the Sbarros pizza place is wearing a vest laden with explosives and nails, I know what its like to have country after country condone us for trying to survive. Israel has showed time and again that it will not stand for terrorism and will do everything necessary to defend its people, both Arab and Israeli citizens which have equal rights against the powers that wish to destroy it.
DeleteI would also like to remind everybody where this whole debate of ours stemmed off of; a post about 7 innocent Israeli civilians that were killed while on a tour in Bulgaria. This is a deliberate act of violence against civilians by and organization that is branded a terrorist group by our own country; the U.S. These attacks are a reality for Israeli’s and it is sad to me that people don’t realize how much this tiny country of 7,000,000 people has contributed to the world in the fields of medicine, technology and science while it seems like all the countries around it can only contribute violence and blind hatred.
DeleteFirst, the entire nature of our class is using events from the international arena, most of which stem from locations we have personally never visited, or may intend to visit, but we are able to study them and comment as scholars, using a factual basis for our claims. Visitation and emotional attachment are not required to make logical and empirical analysis. Second, we would like to repeat our point regarding how we condone the Israeli's wishes to survive. We do not condone the actions with which they have tried to secure this survival. No nation can ever justify the use of military force against civilian targets, denial of human rights and through the Gaza blockade, the restriction of basic goods needed for survival; a continued series of actions which the Israeli state undertakes. How can these actions be considered “justifiable” if others are forbidden from these tactics? We are not trying to advocate the idea that Palestine is totally blame free, in fact we have not at any point in time inferred this what so ever. There is a strong line between being permitted for trying to survive, and being reproached for action that in a global, international theatre is completely inappropriate and wrong. We would also like to raise issue with your statement regarding the seven people who died in Bulgaria. It is regrettable that these people were killed, but do we hear of the Palestinians who die on a day to day basis? Moreover, we would like to remind you that only five Israelis died, and the other two people were Bulgarian nationals: a fact that you yourself ignore, which should matter nought. Nationality is irrelevant, human loss of life is relevant. Our point regarding Jewtana is that if the Israeli state was located there, we would have none of this to contend with at all. There would be no "six nations of evil" as you so willingly portray them, rather two friendly neighbours, and a Middle-Eastern community that would be willing to be amicable. The conflict between the Israelis and the Arabic nations is not due to a matter of faith, but a matter of territory being taken from one group on grounds that was seen as unfair. It is not the world against the Jews but rather the people who once inhabited this land against those who had it taken from them by political actors who they had no influence over: the post WWII Allies. In closing, and on a slightly unrelated point, we would like to raise issue with the fact that you declare the Arab nations of the region have contributed nothing but “hate”. We would like to remind you that our entire mathematical system is based on Arabic Numerals, and thus all “medicine, technology and science” could not have existed without Arab influence. The situation is not one of a hateful world against the Jewish people; it is one of hatred of injustice.
DeleteThe attack on the Israeli tourist is simply deplorable. These civilians were not bothering anyone and just wanted to have a good time. It is truly a shame that people can not travel without having to watch their backs. No one is safe in this world, this attack is just another example of how true that is. Is it truly sad that peaceful civilians have to die in order to make a statement. These people died because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Now, dozens of families feel the unbearable pain of losing someone that they loved because of senseless terrorism.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I want to thank you all for engaging this subject. The issue of Israel and its relationship with neighbors in the Middle East is a sensitive one for many reasons.
ReplyDeleteSecond, I'm letting you all know that I'm closing comments on this post before things get further out of hand. Some of the responses are of an ad hominem quality, and don't contribute to constructive debate.