Israel Kills Two Militants in West Bank Hospital

Israel Kills Two Militants in West Bank Hospital
Fri August 22, 2003 01:50 PM ET
By Ala Badarneh

NABLUS, West Bank (Reuters) - Israeli troops shot and killed two Palestinian militants inside a West Bank hospital on Friday, extending a new spiral of violence that has smashed a cease-fire vital to a U.S.-backed "road map" peace plan.

The killings came as tens of thousands of angry Palestinians calling for revenge marched in the funeral of Ismail Abu Shanab, a U.S.-educated Hamas leader who was assassinated by an Israeli helicopter missile strike in Gaza city on Thursday.

Islamist militant groups called off a seven-week-old cease-fire after Israel killed Abu Shanab in an attack that followed a Hamas suicide bombing -- a relapse into tit-for-tat bloodshed that doomed previous peacemaking.

More

Kills in Hospital is a bit over the top - "In the West Bank city of Nablus, witnesses said three Palestinian militants being sought by Israel were sheltering in a small rooftop room of Rafidya hospital when Israeli forces stormed up and surrounded the building.

They said a shoot-out ensued with soldiers firing into the room, killing two militants and wounding the third. All three were members of the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, an armed faction within the mainstream Fatah national movement of Palestinian President Yasser Arafat.

Israeli security sources said the troops targeted militants who had been hiding in the hospital for some time and were wanted for involvement in a suicide bombing in Israel on August 12 and some ambush shootings in the West Bank.

The Brigades claimed responsibility for the bombing, which killed one Israeli, and said it was retribution for army raids for wanted militants that continued sporadically after armed factions declared a unilateral three-month cease-fire on June 29."



Might mention they were part of the "military" meaning terrorist wing of one the PA's "separate" organizations that the PA can not control - or so they say.

As I'm sure it was noticed, during this "cease-fire" we had terrorist attacks every two days or so, including the last one in Jerusalem, after which we officially announced that we will strike back.

Also, this cease-fire didn't give us anything in the first place, we have no need of cease-fire that can be broken at every moment, we want the terrorist groups disarmed of their weapons, and have their members by the Palestinian authorities, that is what we want and need for a long and lasting peace agreement.

So that is why the general consensus within the Israeli security establishment was that the Hudna would mean "Victory: end of the Intifada"? (direct quote, Ma'ariv front page).

There were not terrorist attacks "every two days or so", either.

Whoever said that (I'm not sure who, but I heard it as well) was wrong and did not talk for the entire security establishment, every day since the Hudna we had people at high ranks within the army or the security ministry that alarmed us of the danger in this Hudna.
Used by the terrorist groups to get armed, recruit more people and organize their ranks again (The terrorist groups were weakened and disconnected for a while during Sharon's attacks).
They told us right since day one that it would not last for long and will not be sufficient to create the needed trust between the two sides.

Yes there were, no buses were blown up, but people were shot and kidnapped every two days or so (And sometimes more frequently), just three hours after the Hudna was cast a Israeli was shot dead next to the border.

As far as I know, there were 3 kidnappings. 1 civilian (by renegage elements, nothing PA or Hamas related), who was released, and 2 soldiers, 1 of whom was killed (I forget who claimed responsibility).

There were several shootings in the West Bank on bypass roads (<5 deaths), and some other minor (by comparison) transgressions. I think there was one suicide bombing which killed 1 in Sidiot (was thought to be a gas leak but wasn't), and a stabbing in Tel Aviv.

All the nonsense about "rearming" and "the word Hudna doesn't mean cease-fire" etc was all coming from the military establishment. What do you expect? The IDF is always saying it is "one strike" away from "victory". Fact is, that is BS.

Like I said, it wasn't "every two days" - that is an exaggeration. There was at least a straight week without anything happening.

Also, I didn't say it was a "consensus", I said it was "general consensus". The majority opinion was that the Hudna would probably end the 2nd Intifada. Of course others thought differently - I never said otherwise.

Don't forget the PA is barely in control of any of this sort of thing. Hamas and Jihad etc are a gang of murderous thugs who do things of their own accord. The fact there were only the above actions (small-scale shootings, kidnappings etc) shows the ceasefire was working and would have continued to work without provocation via "liquidation" (justified as I'm sure you know by saying they were 'ticking-bombs').

You can hardly blame the breakdown of the ceasefire on those actions. For example, are you aware of the IDF soldier being hunted for supposedly planning to carry out terror against Arabs? If he kills anyone you can't rightly blame the GOI, can you?

I never said that the Hudna doesn't mean cease-fire, I know it didn't, and more important, when you cast a ceasefire and leave your opponent armed he can attack every time he wants, that is *not* the peace we thought about.
You believe it is working because we had only seen small-scale attacks at the time, but please tell me: had it been the UK we were talking about, would you settle for that, and call it peace?
Didn't think so...

It is an improvement, but for peace we want the whole thing-- that is, no Israelis killed.
And of course, without having the "gangs" disarmed we couldn't count on it to last...
If indeed it was not in the PA's power to take care of these terrorists we can't give them control over the gaza strip, the entire agreement was about the PA taking care of the terrorist cells in it's territory.

About the "every two days", maybe I was exaggerating, I'll check it out, I know of a few other things you haven't mentioned (The kidnapping of a 18yr old girl, yet to be found, for example), either way, it happened a lot and too many times, especially for a cease-fire.

I thought exactly the same thing when the Real IRA began a bombing campaign a year or so ago. If I was in the situation Israel is, I would accept small-scale attacks in the short to medium term. I wouldn't call it "peace" (obviously not), but a step towards peace.

Of course, the Palestinians could say exactly the same thing you have. Why should they have a Hudna when the IDF remains armed and reserves the "right" to attack anytime it wants? Why should they accept "peace" when they are getting killed (during the ceasefire) at a ratio of 4-1 for every Israeli? Why should they have a Hudna when National Union remains in Sharon's coalition? Why should they have a Hudna when the GOI continues to brazenly bribe Israelis to settle in Gush Katif and the Jordan Valley? Why should they have a Hudna when the wall eats up their land and destroys their communities?

Note: I don't agree with some of these questions, but they could be posed by the Palestinians with as much legitimacy as the points you have raised.

IMO, disarming Hamas, Jihad etc. will probably be required at some point in the future (small probability that it won't). There is absolutely no chance of that happening right at this moment, and if that is used as a pre-condition to moving forward with any kind of "peace process", then there is no chance for peace. The GOI is asking for (and will get) a Palestinian civil war instead. That is utterly irresponsible and will leave Israeli's much less secure.

Further, I didn't mention all the events because of lack of space and the fact I was recalling from memory. If you feel I missed out something important, I'd be more than willing to admit the error.

There is no way Israel should accept Hamas and Islamic Jihad killings as a cost of doing business with Palestinians. If the Palestinian leadership isn't willing to go after those groups, then they can do without a nation or any negotiations to lead that way.

They should do business with the Palestinians regardless. That is the minimum moral level as long as Israel is occupying the West Bank and Gaza.

When I say the GOI should "accept" Hamas and Islamic Jihad killings, I don't mean that literally. It should accept they will happen in the context of moving towards a political settlement.

Essentially, what it should do is be realistic - there are a small number of extremists, and a large number of people with whom their message resonates. There are two choices:

1. Undertake policies to reduce/eliminate that groundswell of support.

2. Do the opposite.

Israel is choosing the latter. That is a mistake.

Whatever legitimate grieviences the Palestinians have should be addressed the trivial reason that they're legitimate. The bonus is that doing so will lead to (1), above.

Serious discussion about what to do with those who are bent on murder and slaughter can either happen after this is done, or (more realistically), it can take place on a parallel track. But that would get into immediate policy and stray too far from the topic at hand.

I mean ANY sort of negotiation. No shared patrols. No reliance on the PA whatsoever.

They will still need to interact with Palestinians, but not with the leadership.

Unless Israel engages in "transfer".

As long as the PA has enough political capital to engage in a crackdown they're about a hundred times more effective in preventing terrorist attacks than the IDF. That is obvious. A local-run cop-on-the-beat structure is the standard colonial pattern for good reason: it works.

Why do you think the U.S. is arming up the Iraqi military and police? So they can get the hell out. It'll probably work too. The only reason Israel's attempt at the same (Oslo) didn't work is because the massive expansion of the settlements meant the PA couldn't repress and contain the Pal population. Eventually it was going to explode and it did.

Israel can either be sensible and try to go back to that model, or it can do what you advocate which will render Israeli's much less secure and eventually bring about either:

1. Transfer.
2. An Arab-Israeli war.

3. Both.

I've said this before, Israel and the Palestinians have two choices to move forward -- peace or war. Frankly, either might have more impact on sorting this mess out.

I'm sorry you think continuing to work with a group that refuses to do what is needed will accomplish anything. The Palestinian leadership works on the theory that Israel gives everything and they give nothing. That isn't peace, it's capitulation.

Problem is that we can't deal with the PA.

Last time we send weapons and support (For quite a long time), and on a bizarre coincidence we found these very weapons used by terrorists against us...
The PA could not be trusted during Arafat's time, and we can't take that chance again with Abu-Masen, we need them to do something too.

The massive expansion of the settlement programs. Israel did that with eyes open.

Until it became completely obvious that the "peace process" meant losing more and more land, the PA was in control. In fact, in much better control than the IDF has ever been in the West Bank, circa 1967-present.

It may be possible to deal with the PA again, but it will be more difficult than in 1993, simply because Hamas etc. have more political credibility now. That will continue to be the case for at least as long as the Intifada is active, maybe longer. As I said, there are two choices:

1. Attempt to re-establish trust and increase the political capital of the PA.

2. Cut the PA loose.

You can choose option number 2, but where it will lead is totally predictable: disaster.

Related: Israel can choose peace or colonial control of the West Bank. Not both. At the moment it is choosing the latter. I happen to think that is a mistake.

was a hard lesson to learn, but you are correct.

I understand that you do not agree to some of these questions, but I’ll answer them just in case…

Why should they have a Hudna when the IDF remains armed and reserves the "right" to attack anytime it wants?

1. The terrorists do not, by any way, protect the lives of the Palestinians.
2. The IDF has indeed leaved the Palestinian territories.
3. The only ways Palestinians could get hurt is by Sharon's dumbass attacks on Hamas leaders. That will not be necessary had the Hamas dissolved.

Why should they accept "peace" when they are getting killed (during the ceasefire) at a ratio of 4-1 for every Israeli?

Again, this has not happened before the Intifada, and indeed the territories were given to the PA's control again, thus putting the Palestinians in danger no longer.

Why should they have a Hudna when National Union remains in Sharon's coalition?

Democracy, that is. Because of it, they don’t have the power to do as they wish. (Unlike terrorist groups that have no need of public acceptance to operate)
By the end of the day the union are legal radicals, while the Hamas are dangerous radicals that have no regard for the law, and *that* what makes them terrorists.

Why should they have a Hudna when the GOI continues to brazenly bribe Israelis to settle in Gush Katif and the Jordan Valley?


Well, this is indeed wrong, but I believe it is the least of the Palestinians’ worries at the moment. They’d rather like to get control over their own settlements before they’ll care about the Israeli settlers.
After that, if we’ll indeed see that the terrorist attacks are off we’ll be able to grant them control over these lands as well…
Sharon may be a problem in this matter, but I don’t think he’ll win the next elections, the Israelis got plenty of reasons not to… (Beside the I/P situation, he’s corrupted, and doesn’t even bother hiding it! Also, our economy suck, and his “solutions” just make things worse for the people)

Why should they have a Hudna when the wall eats up their land and destroys their communities?

I’m afraid that I have missed your point here, correct me if I did.

That’s the way it is, if you want your own country you need to have it separated from the older one, you can’t eat your cake and have it left whole, that’s just the way it is.


EDIT - corrected the tags.

First off, I'd like to say that this is a productive discussion, even if we disagree on a lot of things. Kudos for being almost a one-off regarding I/P :thumbsup:

<< The terrorists do not, by any way, protect the lives of the Palestinians. >>

I agree. But the logic of occupation is that most people under occupation consider attacks on the "enemy" to be self-defence, and therefore consider groups who carry out those acts to be defending them. A mistaken, but understandable view I think. On a related note, the official definition the GOI gives for retaining control of the West Bank is security (externally, internally it is also gives the religious argument).

But controlling the WB actually makes Israel less secure.

The thing that unites both is what the perception of both peoples is. Question is, what is the best way to change those perceptions? There are plenty of options, but that would require too much detail for one post.

<< The IDF has indeed leaved the Palestinian territories. >>

That is incorrect. The IDF has never "left" the West Bank and Gaza since it took control in 1967. Leaving means packing up the military base next to Pisgat Ze'ev (to name one) and getting out. Also, Israel has said it will retain military control of the Jordan Valley pretty much indefinitely.

If you mean the IDF has withdrawn to the edge of some Palestinian towns while it turns over control to its US-Egyptian-Jordanian-trained mercenary force (the PA security police), then you'd be accurate. I hardly see how that is something to be lauded. That is like the difference between water torture and electric torture. Maybe it could be a positive step in the context of the political process, but at the moment it is essentially useless.

<< The only ways Palestinians could get hurt is by Sharon's dumbass attacks on Hamas leaders. That will not be necessary had the Hamas dissolved. >>

Well, most of the attacks on settlements could be solved if Ma'ale Adummim residents bulldozed their own homes, but that is never going to happen. Hamas isn't going to dissolve anytime soon - there is no point in chastising the Palestinians for not doing something which they have no realistic chance of doing.

Also, most of the Palestinian deaths aren't from misdirected missile fire. The standard thing is an IDF soldier shooting down a stone thrower or blowing away a curfew breaker.

When there is "quiet", the Palestinians are hurting continuously. They have closure, a destroyed economy, violence by settlers, attacks by the IDF, uprooting of olive trees, roadblocks, checkpoints, random beatings and violence, humiliation etc. This goes on all the time. It may not make the papers (often not even the Israeli papers, although there it is better), but that doesn't change the facts on the ground.

<< Why should they accept "peace" when they are getting killed (during the ceasefire) at a ratio of 4-1 for every Israeli?

Again, this has not happened before the Intifada, and indeed the territories were given to the PA's control again, thus putting the Palestinians in danger no longer. >>

The PA is actually quite a brutal force with beatings, limited democracy, violence, repression etc. And again, what I mentioned above continues virtually without interruption whether or not the PA can collect garbage in a certain area.

Also you are incorrect when you say this didn't happen before the Intifada. The ratio may be 4-1 now, but it was about 30-1 before. The Palestinians have simply refined their violence, terror and slaughter of innocent Israelis. They're getting a worse deal, but the progress of technology means Israelis are much worse off on a relative basis as well.

<< By the end of the day the union are legal radicals, while the Hamas are dangerous radicals that have no regard for the law, and *that* what makes them terrorists. >>

I don't accept the distinction. I think National Union are simply legal terrorists. As I said, I didn't agree with all the questions - in this case I don't because I don't think NU should be thrown out of the government - it isn't politically feasible. What should happen is ending the need for there to be any kind of constituency for them in Israel. That will take time, but can be done, IMO.

<< Well, this is indeed wrong, but I believe it is the least of the Palestinians’ worries at the moment. They’d rather like to get control over their own settlements before they’ll care about the Israeli settlers. >>

I disagree. The settlements are a very, very big deal. The way they intersect the Palestinian towns and cities means that without removing them and the road network which links them, the Palestinians can't get control of their "own settlements". You're largely putting the cart before the horse.

<< After that, if we’ll indeed see that the terrorist attacks are off we’ll be able to grant them control over these lands as well…
Sharon may be a problem in this matter, but I don’t think he’ll win the next elections, the Israelis got plenty of reasons not to… (Beside the I/P situation, he’s corrupted, and doesn’t even bother hiding it! Also, our economy suck, and his “solutions” just make things worse for the people) >>

Trust me, I am watching the ongoing legal activities with Sharon with some glee and interest :D Wasn't he found out doing a favour for somebody about a day or so ago? (I forget the name, it was in Ma'ariv somewhere).

<< Why should they have a Hudna when the wall eats up their land and destroys their communities?

I’m afraid that I have missed your point here, correct me if I did. >>

The wall is destroying the town of Qakilya (and others). Land is being taken from the Palestinians in order to build it. None of it is for security (certainly none of what has been done so far isn't).

oh wait that doesn't apply to Arabs

in war. The Israelis and the Arabs ARE at war. War is not moral, war is not fair, war is not just. But a lot of things happen in war. If you are amilitant, you should expect to have the other side try to kill you. Only whiners compalin

The killing of innocent civilians (the *intentional* killing of innocent civilians) is a war crime.

I'm going to assassinate you without trial or jury.

Ashcroft would be so proud.

Did the world turn upside down overnight? When did Israel declare war with the Arab states? Or are you referring to the Palestinian people, who Israel most definately isn't at war with?

But if you want to insist that Israel is at war with the Palestinians, then you should practice what you preach. War isn't moral, nor fair or just, and civilian deaths are part and parcel of every war and it's hard to think of any war where civilians haven't been deliberately targetted. So keep in mind yr comments about how only whiners complain next time an Israeli civilian is killed. I won't point out the same thing about Palestinian civilians, as I'm reasonably sure you'll be right in there pointing out that only whiners complain when it comes to their deaths...

Violet...

In that case, what's all this talk about making peace about? The Palestinians have no army, but they are finding ways to do damage.

who are not militant? Oh, that's right. Israel's war is against the Arabs, not the militant Arabs.

What is so hard to understand about that? Maybe they should have been let go?

and have no business being tried by a system that disenfrachises them of their rights anyway :shrug:

just maybe shooting at soldiers who are looking for terrorists might not be too bright, ya think? Maybe the Israelis should be thanked for taking these dim bulbs out of the gene pool?

Let me ask you something. If someone invaded the US via Lubbock would stand and fight?

I sure as hell would.

He'd just fly over to DU and talk about how great it is taking the morons out of the gene-pool who dare to resist...

Violet...