Three Americans were killed when their convoy hit a roadside bomb in Gaza.

These Americans were the security guards for a cultural attache who were to come to Gaza to interview Palestinians students hoping to receive Scholarships for post-graduate studies in the US.

A cord was used to detonate the bomb stretched more than 330 feet.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeas..._after_bombing/

It is understood that militant Palestinians terrorists hate Americans, yet here, a convoy of Americans whose sole purpose was to give out Fulbright Scholarships to Palestinians. The fact that time was needed to set the bomb and detonation cord in the correct place for this explosion leads to the belief that this was no "chance" explosion but a premeditated act on a convoy of benign and humanitarian purposes.

Arafat promised an investigation...

1. Should the US simply chalk this incident up to "it's a dangerous place," and do nothing because it was only 3 security guards and proceed with the scholarship awards?

2. Should Palestine forfeit the $26million earmarked by the US for Palestinian aid because Arafat refuses to crack down on terrorism?

3. What SHOULD the US do, if anything?

please try not to make this a simply..."change the foreign policy towards israel" answer. thanks

Until you know who is responsible, how can you hold any one to account? It may very well have been the al qaeda who comitted this crime, in the hopes of further inciting American aggression against the Muslim world.

Or it may have been Hamas, or a single faction of Hamas, or even an Israeli plot to silence critics in the US. Not likely perhaps, but still possible.
So, until you know who was responsible, you can't really act against any one. I certainly don't think its fair to punish Palestinian students, but at the same time, I can see why distrust of any Muslims might cause the Americans to think twice about welcoming any Muslim into America to study...

1. Should the US simply chalk this incident up to "it's a dangerous place," and do nothing because it was only 3 security guards and proceed with the scholarship awards?
That's exactly what the US said and did when an Israeli soldier murdered an unarmed American peacekeeper last March by coldy running her over with a bulldozer, backing up, and running her over AGAIN. EVERYONE knows what a dangerous place it is...so why hasn't the President taken steps to protect American's who are there either as aide workers, tourists, peace keepers, journalists, or officials of the government? Who else is responsible for protecting them from things like this?


2. Should Palestine forfeit the $26million earmarked by the US for Palestinian aid because Arafat refuses to crack down on terrorism?
Only if we make Sharon forfeit the millions (or trillions) earmarked for Israel. He refused to punish his soldier and allowed him to get away with murdering an American. Not to mention how he made Bush look like a fool in front of the whole world by ignoring demands to pull his tanks out of Palestinian cities and end the curfews and raids that angered the international community. He completely disrespected America. Why should he get any funds either? Haven't we given them enough, it's not like they are poor or needy and Sharon is obviously ungrateful.

3. What SHOULD the US do, if anything?
What can we do now? Had we responded with ANYTHING but silence when American blood was on Israel's hands we might now be in a position to safely respond appropriately. But any violence or punishment we undertake in response now will create more problems than it solves.

It puts at risk not only our ability to be seen as a serious and credible broker for peace but could affect our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan as well. It could easily stir up so much hatred towards the US that yet another wave of recruits would be joining AL Queada and doing there best to kill us at home. We don't even know what to expect from the last one. It would further erode other international relationships and we would be rightly condemned for being biased towards Israel and prejudiced against the Muslim and Arab world...even more so than we already are.

Or we can treat these murders with the same indifference we did the last one. Had Bush ever devised a plan and made it clear exactly WHAT the US response would be to the purposeful killings of American's by either side in this conflict no one would be having to wonder what to about it do now. Perhap's Bush should come up with something now that it's happened again.

Link

Maybe they are making a big deal over it now because some people see this as an opportunity. Like Wolfowitz, Cheney, and Rumsfeld who otherwise had no hope of invading Syria and Iran anytime soon, not now that the whole Iraq adventure has turned sour. And it's starting to look as if they only have only one more year to get it done since re-election is now far from certain. Yep, what they need now is an event to trigger another burst of American agression and nationalism and with an ally like Israel who is willing to attack Syria and it's neighbors they just might have time to make all those neocon dreams of empire come true.

the security guards who were murdered were in affect trying to protect the Americans in their convoy. they were hired in the US to act as protection.

How does one protect against these sneak attacks or bombings?

from what I understand of the Corrie incident, that house was marked for destuction due to terrorists residing there and the tunnels within the house used for transporting weapons and bombers.

She was aiding the enemy. therefore I can only suspect that she, in doing sao, became the enemy as well. Did she think this was just a game? I seriously wonder sometimes. Same with the Human Shields going to Iraq. Don't get me wrong, it was horrible that it happened it was her choice to move from her position or face the consequences. she chose wrong.

anyway, what SHOULD be the position of the US once it's found out who killed these people.

Sounds like they are taking the idea from the roadside bomb attacks in Iraq



Yeah...with our FBI. If he doesn't like it, he can try to tell us to butt out. (i am currently getting an image of a flea telling an Incredible Hulk to "butt out"). I don't expect a "full" investigation.



No. We would be seen as weak. A response is warrented.



Yes. We can use that $26 million in Iraq. No sense in wasting it when it'll just be put into an account and "accidently" disappear into an "unknown" account (hint hint)




Give the Palestinian Authority an ultimatium. If they don't start actually TRYING to crack down on terrorists in a window of...say...2 days, we release the leash we have on Israel and let them coordinate with CIA and Special Ops to take down the leadership of Islamic Jihad and Hamas....and maybe Arafat. International opinion be damned


Danya:



If you don't like the responses to attacks from Hamas, then you go to Israel and chain yourself to Sharon's porch with a sign that says Don't kill the innocent terrorists or go to D.C., chain yourself to the white house fence with a sign that says Let Israel be taken over by arab terrorists...stop the funding!!

If we don't act, maybe the next Hamas suicide bomber will be where you are shopping for food like what happens to some innocent Israelis. Think about THAT!!

2. Should Palestine forfeit the $26million earmarked by the US for Palestinian aid because Arafat refuses to crack down on terrorism?

I do not understand why we keep going along pretending Arafat has any control or even ability to "crack" down on Hamas.
I understand why he personally would want to make it out like if he really really wanted to make it stop he could...but in all honesty I don't think he could.

Hamas is just dripping in cash...from who? I have read several articles telling of how Hamas is on a humanitarian mission in the Gaza. That if you go to them with a need for cash, medicine, help they will give it. The PA does not do this...never has. In fact Arafat was really out of favor with the Palestinians until the recent threats from Israel to evict him. Nothing like an Israeli threat to help keep it all in place.

International opinion be damned

Right because why would we need the international opinion in our favor? This approach has served us well in Iraq hasn't? You think our second begging at the UN will humiliate us enough to make them start taking pity?

Poor Bush he has to be very careful with this one.

Given that a UN spokesman estimated that least 1, 500 people had been left homeless following Israeli action last weekend, and that almost everything used to destroy these homes is supplied by the long-suffering US taxpayer, it seems surprising that attacks of this nature have not happened more frequently.
57 heads of Muslim countries are meeting in Malaysia at the moment..it will be interesting to see what comments on this attack emerge from their meeting.

The American killed were security guards. How can you say there was no protection?

We already debated the bulldozer issue HERE.


As I said there:

There is clearly a difference between placing yourself in harm's way and being blown up by a bomb while driving down the street (to deliver scholarships to children, no less).

1. No, there was clearly an intent here. The evidence is coming out that the US was specifically targeted. It might have been Al Qaeda or another group (Hamas and Islamic Jihad have said it wasn't them... ). We need to find out who they were and punish them. This incident is completely unacceptable.

2. We should indicate to the PA that all aid and support from the US is at stake here. We shouldn't have a knee jerk reaction, but if this continues the PA should know that even limited restraint we place upon Israel is an issue.

3. We need to force the PA to accept responsibility for the security of the areas under their control. If they cannot do this, how can we reasonably expect a palestinian nation to control factional groups inside its (future) state? Will they simply wash their hands and say "We can't stop them"? They need to demonstrate the responsibility that comes with running a nation.

This attack may indicate a shift in policy among Palestinian groups. If things escalate between them and US interests, their future is dire indeed.

I'd have to agree with Goamerica. If we allow one terrorist attack to our citizens to go by with out recourse, it's opening the door for far more. We have to stand our ground against ALL terrorists in ANY country. We cannot show weakness to them. If Arafat doesn't do something to reign in his minions...we will.

I say they should recieve the same punishment the Israelis got for running over and American humanitarian aide worker with a bulldozer a few months back. Nothing.
Realistically, they should give these people the same sentence that they would get over here. Roughly 10 years hard time and a alot years of probation.

What?! That accident was unintentional. The bombing was malitious in nature. Murder deserves a much harsher sentence than what you propose, even in OUR nation.

Security guards deserve our sympathy and a response, but a pacifist working for peace deserves our contempt (reference the thread about Rachel). How twisted.

I know some people in ISM who have spent a lot of time in the West Bank. They are good, often quietly religious people, who put their lives on the line trying to defuse often explosive confrontations. We rightfully denounce Palestinian acts of terror, and though we should applaud the actions of people who are attempting to seek a peaceful solution, instead we call them idiots.

1. Should the US simply chalk this incident up to "it's a dangerous place," and do nothing because it was only 3 security guards and proceed with the scholarship awards?

We should support a criminal investigation. We should not conduct a military operation. If someone living in Queens murdered three people in Manhatten with a car bomb, we wouldn't send an armored division to level two square blocks in Queens, hoping to destroy the perpetrator. While I may have disagreements elsewhere with precisely the philosophical implications of what the "rule of law" is about, it has been made fairly clear that "rule of law" is an important part of maintaining a democratic nation. If we act according to the rule of law here at home, and like rogues abroad, we are weakening the moral underpinnings of what we define as justice.

2. Should Palestine forfeit the $26million earmarked by the US for Palestinian aid because Arafat refuses to crack down on terrorism?

I think we have to look at that money very carefully. If it is being used to fund Hamas or any terrorist actions, it should not be given, regardless of this incident. If it is being used for true aid to the Palestinian people, then it should be given regardless of this incident, or of Arafat's sympathies.

Another aid related question might be, "should we withhold the billions in aid and military hardware to Israel as long as they refuse to actively seek a peaceful solution?"

I agree, but Queens doesn't have a history of car bombings. This is an ongoing occurance of violence.

If 100 people from Queens detonated car bombs in Manhatten, would that justify bulldozing houses and killing their neighbors just to apprehend the criminals? I would hope that we are above such a thing. How can we pursue justice and at the same time chalk up the deaths of innocents who get in our way as "unfortunate, but oh well?"

Well, fortunately our society hasn't deteriorated to that point....yet. But if it did get that out of hand, I would expect our law enforcement and government to do what ever it took to apprehend them.



Because that's just the way things are. Life isn't perfect and neither is war or justice. Not everything can be put in these perfect little situations where no one gets hurt. That's being unrealistic and allowing Hollywood's dillusions of war and reality to set in.

The only appropriate response to criminal terrorism is criminal proceedings. Included in that are counter-terrorist operations designed to gather evidence and lead to the arrest and prosecution of terrorist suspects.

It does not include attack as the best form of defence, assassination, helicpoter gunships, tanks, and shooting children who throw stones at your tanks merely because they happen to be available targets (assuming the real perpetrators are well-hidden). Nor does it include the kind of response that produces "collateral damage" among the family and neighbours of suspected terrorists.

In short, it means treating terrorism as an essentially criminal act, rather than a military one. Treating it as military just encourages the criminals to feel like an army with enemies, which consistently prolongs and escalates the problem, rather than solving it. It certainly seems to have done so in every other terrorist campaign that gets military-style responses, including the Spanish Basques, Irish Republicanism, Israeli-Palestinian conflict etc.

One of the main reasons that the peace process in Northern Ireland has kept going for so long despite the best efforts of the politicians to upend it form time to time, has been that the British and Irish authorities stopped treating it as an armed conflict (sometime around the early 1980s) and began to see it as large-scale organised crime, albeit with a policital agenda (the IRA always made most of it's money from racketeering, drugs, gambling, etc rather than from poltical contributions, be it from Dublin or Boston or anywhere else)

Another example: the "success" of the Mafia always used to be that it saw itself and organised itself like a paramilitary organisation, rather than the simple criminals that they always were. Once the law enforcement agencies started concerted criminal proceedings against them, their power faded, because they became subject to the same internal feuds as every other group of liars, thugs and theives - saving your own skin becomes much more important when your just a career criminal and no longer part of a group of glamorous outsiders.

So the appropriate response, in my book, would be a "police action" all right, but more in the style of Columbo than Dirty Harry.

I agree, but you have to CATCH THEM to put them on trial and that's hard part. if they put up a resistance it changes everything.

For sure - nobody said it was the easy path.

It's far "easier" to send in bombers or helicopter gunships or what-have-you, in that it gives a quick result and makes us feel better and maybe more righteous. But, as I've already indicated, I think that's counter-productive more often than not, in that the other side also get to think of themselves as a wronged party in need of revenge, rather than criminals who are going to get caught someday, however long it takes.

Part of what made the victory of the Allies in WW2 so dignified and righteous is that, when it was all over, we held trials of people we knew damned well had done far more hideous things than anyone in Hamas or al Quaeda, and we gave them the right to defend themselves as best they could. Sure, many of them were still just as dead at the end of that process, and it was more expensive than a machine gun in the woods, but it kept us firmly on the high ground.

Simply, if we think "we" are better than "they" are, then we must behave better than they do. We are what we do.

lots of analogies here. with the corrie woman and "3 people in queens bombing in manhattan."

The incidents in Gaza were no isolated, the Israelis have lived with this nonsense for close to 50 years. Corrie, thinking that she could create a "peace" between two killers by siding with one killer was incredibly misguided. Simpleminded.

underground tunnels in homes in Gaza have for YEARS provided haven for terrorists or their escape routes. These tunnels supply routes for weapons transfer as well. This is fact. The israeli military target these houses which are used for killing israelis. Did Corrie actually think that she alone could stop this decades of war? She gave her life as did the 19 innocent people who were murdered in HAifa. Only difference is that she COULD have prevented her senseless death, the Haifa victims didn't have that luxury.

Take the county of san diego, put it at war with orange county. LA county, Imperial county and east county. San diego =israel. Orange, LA and East counties represent Palestine, Jordan and Syria. 1,000s within the orgs of Hamas, IJ, Hezbollah plus their sympathsizers live in these outlaying counties. that would be more applicable to the situation rather than 3 bombers in chicago planting bombs in manhattan I would think.

50 years of either war or suicide bombings probably does have a desensitizing effect on a people. For the Israelis it has either kill or be killed.

Now that Americans are being targeted by the palestinians that opens up a whole NEW can of worms. This convoy and these security guards were not interfering in Palestinian war operations. Corrie was interfering. It was a terrible chance she took but I'm sure or at least I HOPE she knew what the consequences would be.

Of course. I am not implying that reality is'nt messy, and that we are not far from perfect. However, that is not a good excuse for accepting a lack of justice or peace. Just because we cannot achieve an ideal does not mean we abandon all attempts to work toward it. The problem I see with the one-sided approach you are justifying here is that you are allowing innocent Israelis the benefit of seeking a just redressing of the wrongs committed against them, while denying that innocent Palestinians have the same right to justice.

Who are the "idiots" of the ISM?



Here's another:


And another:


Danny describes a scene:


SoCaliente_1


You are making a vast generalization. There are many Israelis who are also trying to seek peaceful solutions, who decry the actions of the IDF and the suicide bombers. Your statement would be just as illogical if you were a rabid and blanket supporter of all Palestinians, and only changed your statement to read, "50 years of occupation and killings probably does have a desensitizing effect on a people. For the Palestinians it has either kill or be killed."

Really? IMO, All that matters is that one of our own is murdered in a foreign country and deserves the same level of respect and justice they would have gotten had they died on US soil. Their murders should be investigated, their deaths condemned, and their killers tried and punished in an appropriate court of law. That goes for the three murdered in Gaza, Rachel Corrie, Peacekeepers in Africa, tourists in Spain, it makes no difference. To me it's about respect for our people and justice for murder victims. But to some of you maybe it's more about revenge and passing judgement before getting all the facts.

It also seems like some people are arbitrary about how the US should react to issues and it varies based on personal prejudices or assumptions based on things that have nothing to do with the crimes. If the murder in Gaza happened exactly the same way but in Columbia (and it has) would anyone really be sitting here discussing the pro's and con's of doing military strikes in that country to retaliate? Of course not.

The three American's killed in Gaza worked for Dyncorp. They were military contractors who knowingly put themselves in harms way. In the past decade, at least 13 DynCorp employees have been killed in international hot spots, including 10 in Colombia. In August one was killed with a remote control bomb while delivering mail to soldiers in Iraq. Our tax dollars pay DynCorp more than 50 Million dollars a year last time I checked. The company has a long history of alleged human rights violations and fraud. The most well known example appears to be just the tip of the iceberg. Two Dyncorp employees ran an underage sex slave ring in Bosnia while they were there under U.S. contract. The employees who exposed this crime were fired; the ones responsible were merely transferred.

So, why were the guys who were hired by the Pentagon from this company to do military security so much more important that people think it deserves military force when Rachel's murder is treated as if the soldier had every right to kill her and she got what she deserved? When I try to imagine who might deserve what she got I can only think of people like John Wayne Gacy or Hitler....no other peacekeepers doing something they felt was right come to mind.

I don't care if she was more naive than a six year old...she wasn't a threat to the soldier or his bulldozer, she wasn't armed, she wasn't doing anything violent. She wasn't funneling money to terrorists or making bombs for attacks or even providing 'comfort or aid to the enemy' - her country was not at war with either side. Technically, neither is Israel; it's an occupation. This wasn't combat or self defense...just one of the demolitions the IDF routinely carried at during that time. There were so many other ways to handle the situation that there is no justification in my mind for mangling her with a bulldozer the way he did.


How do you know she wasn't trying to protect a bunch of women and children from becoming homeless? Was everyone who lived in this house a terrorist? How many were there? Where did these tunnels lead to and why were they so dangerous? Did you see the trial, the evidence, or any proof at all that showed this house was any different than all the others they were tearing down at the time? I doubt there ever was an investigation...they don't seem very interesting in things like law and order when they can use violence and weapons instead.

Of course she made her choice and she had to pay for it. What did she think? The soldier was going to reschedule or come back a little while later just so he might get out of having to kill her? Why should the guy have to climb down and either handcuff and remove her from the premesis just because she won't move? And I'm sure he didn't have any pepperspray. Those non lethal tactics aren't as effective anyway...the bulldozer was probably the right choice. Besides, she was just asking for it by using all that non violent resistance.


She probably just didn't know her life was so much less important than his schedule. Maybe no one told her there were people out there that could kill a human being as easily as a cockroach and no one would care.

I usually try to stay away from this subject and I think I'll go back to following that rule.