Bombing in Tel Aviv
First of all, I’m fine…
As many of you probably know by now, there was a suicide bomber attack in Tel Aviv yesterday (Monday). 9 civilians were killed in the explosion that also took the life of the 21 year old bomber from the area near Jenin in the northern West Bank. The attack took place at a falafel stand at the old bus station. Ironically, the blast occurred at the very same falafel stand that was hit by a bombing in January.
Initially, reports came out that the bomber may have been as young as 16 – the same age as most of the kids that we work with at Seeds of Peace. It was later determined that the bomber was 21 years old, but it was quite shocking to think about a 16 year-old kid blowing himself up and taking 9 innocent lives with him.
This bombing was a horrible and despicable act, and it brought up a couple of key questions for me.
1) How did a suicide bomber make it from the Northern West Bank to Tel Aviv during this current period of closure?
This is the question that must be making Israeli officials very nervous. Many people recognize the wall/ barrier as a harsh measure, but necessary to ensure Israeli security. If it doesn’t provide that security, then what purpose does it serve? I guess the argument can also be made that the barrier should be enhanced – that if a 10 meter wall didn’t keep Israel safe, maybe a few extra feet and more razor wire will do it… And if that doesn’t work, what next?
2) Can you have a civil war before you have a state?
Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), the President of the PA came out and condemned the attack, using some of his harshest criticism yet for an attack. On the other hand, the Hamas government has condoned the attack, calling it “an act of self-defense.” It seems like there is a split in the Palestinian population between those who espouse the more moderate tactics of Mahmoud Abbas, and those who condone the suicide bombings. Even within Abbas’ own party, the militant elements have asked Abbas to issue a public apology for condemning the attack. As the Hamas government struggles to pay its bills, and deliver on its promises of social programs, I fear that the Palestinian public will be further polarized into those who are frustrated with Hamas (because of violence, and the economic ruin that was precipitated by their election), and those who remain loyal to Fatah and the moderate stance of Mahmoud Abbas. In fact, there are probably four or five factions, as the Fatah party has splintered into several groups with varying degrees of allegiance to the President. I suspect that as the international community places more pressure on Hamas, these fissures in the Palestinian society will start to widen. With this instability, how can anyone speak for the Palestinian people at the negotiation table? (I know I’m being optimistic even thinking about negotiations).
If you feel like reading more media coverage on the attack, have a look at this link: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/706785.html
Good night all,
Seth
posted by Seth Ross @ 1:15 AM
3 comments
3 Comments:
Hi Seth,
Radical rhetoric is still radical rhetoric.
People know that you don’t commit suicide in an act of self defence.
The two concepts do not belong conjoined in the same sentence.
The Palestinian people will have to face consequences for the actions of their government.
There is one test for any government through out the world; this test is a test of responsibility. Are you free enough to except the consequences of your actions?
The Palestinian government has made a choice. It remains to be seen if they will choose responsibility or popularity.
This is a choice the Palestinian people have to make because Israel has already made these choices and suffered their reasonability’s.
Share this with the seeds.
Cheers
Zach
Seth,
Glad to hear you're safe. A few questions come to mind for me here:
1) Will this attack be a realtively isolated incident at this juncture, or is it signalling a new wave of attacks?
With Hamas in power and being forced to moderate itself, will Islamic Jihad and Al Aqsa pick up the terrorist slack so to speak? There is considerable debate as to why Hamas reduced its terrorist activity, even in the mo0nths before its election. Some argue that it is true moderation, others say that Israel crippled their forces before withdrawing from Gaza. Who knows?
2) Is Olmert's limited repsonse the right call?
I think that it is. I think that real courage will be to move forward with West Bank withdrawal, even in the face of attacks. This would also be a practical move. However, some people may regard this as retreat, as they did when Israel left Lebannon in 2000, and, perhaps to a lesser extent, when they withdrew from Gaza last year. Indeed, the fact that the withdrawal from Gaza came after a series of extremely effective (from a military standpoint) targeted assasinations of the Hamas leadership made it look to some that Israel was withdrawing from a position of strength, rather than retreating in weakness. Thus, should Israel try to cripple Islamic Jihad, Al Aqsa, etc?
3) What is the relationship between Hamas and the other terrorist organizations?
I suspect they have coordinated efforts before, though I don't know. Does Hamas' support of the attack make them guilty of something, and thus worth attacking? How much should they be punished for failure to condemn, or in fact, for praising attacks?
4) Finally, to what extent are Hamas, or other terrorist organizations being funded by Iran (or by proxy, by Iran through Hezbollah, as has been suspected), and what should Israel do about this potentially super grave threat?
To this question I have no answer at all.
Very interesting response, Dave. Of course, in this conflict, there are many more questions than answers.
As to the question of Hamas, I suspect that in their current financial state, they would not have the funds to both fund extensive terrorist activity AND provide the social services that were their election platform. So I can only hope that when it comes to their decisions on allocation of funds, they will choose Kindergartens over Katyushas. Again, wishful thinking.
I do however think that in this situation, there will always be rival organisations like Al-Aqsa Martyrs'Brigades and Islamic Jihad who will "pick up the terrorism slack" as you so eloquently put it. I think this aptly demonstrates the true test for any PA government: its ability to control these forces. No Palestinian government has yet shown itself capable (or willing) of turning off the spigot of violence. In my personal opinion, until there is a government that can do this, there doesn't seem to be much point in negotiations. Why negotiate with someone who can't -or won't- deliver on the key Israeli demand - a cessation of terror?
Post a Comment
<< Home