[subego]

Until Egypt opens its border, Israel gets a pass from me.

The West Bank? Entirely different story. March the Jewish settlers out and bulldoze their shit.

But we're talking Gaza.

[BadKosh]

Gaza is Israeli property. They won it in a war. The losers will never forget. Serves them right. I hope the losers lose even more land and lives. If they can't even cease fire without continuing to fire missiles, they deserve to be wiped out.

[Jawbone54]

I don't understand the support for Hamas.

[OAW]

I think the situation in Gaza is a prime example of irreconcilable differences on a political or perhaps even existential level. Any attempt to view the situation in terms of some simplistic "right vs wrong" angle is an inherently puerile endeavor. I fear the bloodletting will continue for quite some time to come because the hawks on both sides empower each other to continue the cycle of a few years of relative calm followed by a few months of war. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

OAW

[OreoCookie]

@BadKosh
To wish for the loss of human life is disgusting: most of the victims on the Palestinian side have been civilians. We all know how complicated the Israel-Palestine situation is, and it's not as simple as calling one side the perpetrator and the other side the victim.

[Chongo]

This explains it well.
The Middle East Problem - YouTube

There already is a "Paelstinian" state. Jordan comprises 3/4 of what was "Palestine"

[subego]

As the one who's closed their borders for decades, Egypt seems like the irreconcilable one.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

@BadKosh
To wish for the loss of human life is disgusting: most of the victims on the Palestinian side have been civilians. We all know how complicated the Israel-Palestine situation is, and it's not as simple as calling one side the perpetrator and the other side the victim.

Hamas uses civilians as human shields. Hamas put rocket launchers and stores ammo and weapons in schools, homes and hospitals. I saw someone on TV say that Hamas uses it's rockets to kill as many civilians as possible, and Isreal could wipe out Gaza but chooses not to.

[subego]

Make no mistake, Netanyahu is a self-righteous ********, but he's pretty much correct when he says "we protect people with rockets, they protect rockets with people".

[OAW]

By any measure Gaza is the world's largest open air prison. It is one of the most densely populated areas in the world. Hamas firing rockets into Israel is not only indefensible it's also militarily useless. The military equivalent of a child throwing a temper tantrum IMO. That being said, the "human shields" argument is unpersuasive to say the least. Gaza is blockaded by sea by Israel and by land by Egypt. It's simply impossible for Hamas fighters to be anywhere in Gaza that is NOT a civilian area. Just saying ...

OAW

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Hamas uses civilians as human shields.

Where else are they supposed to go? Gaza is one of the most densely populated strips on planet earth, and the civilians have nowhere to go. Ditto for Hamas' fighters.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Hamas put rocket launchers and stores ammo and weapons in schools, homes and hospitals. I saw someone on TV say that Hamas uses it's rockets to kill as many civilians as possible, and Isreal could wipe out Gaza but chooses not to.

Meanwhile in reality, only one of Hamas' rockets has escaped Israel's Iron Dome. And the only Israeli casualty did not die as a result of that. The Netanyahu government has poured oil into the fire talking about revenge instead of justice with regards to the three killed Israeli kids (yes, find out who the bastards were and put them in court). As a response, an innocent Palestinian was burnt alive by Jewish extremists.

The conflict is not solved by killing Hamas operatives or destroying tunnels. Or by talking about revenge (holds for both sides).

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OAW 

It's simply impossible for Hamas fighters to be anywhere in Gaza that is NOT a civilian area. Just saying ...

Oh, so when Hamas fighters wear women's clothes in disguise, this also happenes by accident or due to lack of options

And when Hamas puts rocket launchers in schools or hospitals, it is surely because they ran out of any other places to put rocket launchers in

The reality is this: Hamas holds the civilians in Gaza hostage.
And most the world doesn't seem to be bothered, other than condemning Israel.

-t

[OAW]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Oh, so when Hamas fighters wear women's clothes in disguise, this also happenes by accident or due to lack of options

And when Hamas puts rocket launchers in schools or hospitals, it is surely because they ran out of any other places to put rocket launchers in

The reality is this: Hamas holds the civilians in gaza hostage. And the world doesn't seem to be bothered, other than condemning Israel.

-t

I suppose I'm just not one to find it surprising that Hamas engages in urban guerrilla warfare tactics against a militarily superior enemy. Because at the end of the day, ALL of Gaza is a "civilian area". You know like that beach where the 4 Palestinian boys who were just outside playing were killed by Israeli artillery. And let's not forget one key fact here. Things have been calm between Hamas and Israel since 2012. What changed to cause Hamas to start launching rockets into Israel again? Might have had something to do with the Israeli airstrike on Gaza hours earlier in retaliation for rockets launched from Gaza by other, smaller militant groups and for the deaths of those 3 Israeli teens in the West Bank which may or may not have been authorized by the Hamas leadership in Gaza?

Hamas operatives were behind a large volley of rockets which slammed into Israel Monday morning, the first time in years the Islamist group has directly challenged the Jewish state, according to Israeli defense officials.

At least 16 rockets were fired at Israel Monday morning, most of them hitting open areas in the Eshkol region, the army said.

The security sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, assessed that Hamas had probably launched the barrage in revenge for an Israeli airstrike several hours earlier which killed one person and injured three more.

A member of Hamas’s militant wing was killed in the attack, Gaza health official Ashraf al-Kidra said.

While Israel has maintained it holds Hamas responsible for all rocket attacks, officials have said that smaller groups, such as Islamic Jihad, are usually behind the rocket attacks, while Hamas squads generally attempt to thwart the rocket fire.

Hamas hasn’t fired rockets into Israel since Operation Pillar of Defense ended in November 2012, and has yet to take responsibility for this latest barrage.

The group fired hundred of rockets at Israel over eight days during Operation Pillar of Defense in 2012, as Israel carried out punishing strikes on the Palestinian enclave.

Officials said Monday’s rocket attacks, which appeared to deliberately target Israeli communities close to the border with the Gaza Strip, may have been intended to warn Israel against targeting Hamas operatives.

Hamas fires rockets for first time since 2012, Israeli officials say | The Times of Israel

Again, it's not so black and white as some try to make it seem.

OAW

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Might have had something to do with the Israeli airstrike on Gaza hours earlier in retaliation for rockets launched from Gaza by other, smaller militant groups and for the deaths of those 3 Israeli teens in the West Bank which may or may not have been authorized by the Hamas leadership in Gaza?

LOL, that's lame.

Hamas: "We didn't fire the rockets. It was the other Hamas."

Do you seriously think Israel should have ignored that initial rocket barrage based on this "fact" ?
Next, we have Hamas #1 insisting on cease fire, while Hamas #2, Hamas #3, Hamas #5 and Hamas #6 are firing away.
(Hamas #4 is taking a time out to train more donkeys as suicice "bombers".)

Seriously

-t

[OAW]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

LOL, that's lame.

Hamas: "We didn't fire the rockets. It was the other Hamas."

Do you seriously think Israel should have ignored that initial rocket barrage based on this "fact" ?
Next, we have Hamas #1 insisting on cease fire, while Hamas #2, Hamas #3, Hamas #5 and Hamas #6 are firing away.
(Hamas #4 is taking a time out to train more donkeys as suicice "bombers".)

Seriously

-t

If you had bothered to actually read the article you would see that Islamic Jihad ... not Hamas ... was specifically named as the group usually behind the sporadic rocket launches. By an Israeli newspaper for good measure. What's "lame" is your willful ignorance regarding the actual players in the conflict. As evidenced by your "the other Hamas" comment.

The point here is that Islamic Jihad and other smaller militant groups have launched rockets into Israel sporadically since 2012. It would be a lot more but Hamas keeps a pretty tight reign on them in Gaza because their stated policy toward Israel is a "long-term calm". Not "peace" ... but "calm". The question then is why did Israel choose to kill a fly with a bazooka this particular time? And kill Hamas operatives in the process? Unless of course, the hawks in Israel wanted to provoke Hamas into launching a sustained barrage of rocket fire? Perhaps in retaliation for the deaths of the 3 Israeli teens all the way in the West Bank? Or perhaps to undermine the unity government that Hamas just formed with Fatah in the West Bank? Something that was only possible now because Hamas is weakened and isolated now that Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood are out of power in Egypt. But the hardliners in the Israeli government view as a threat nonetheless because a unity government with NO Hamas members but instead filled with technocrats based in Ramallah takes away the last remaining excuse for Israel not negotiating a Two State solution. They can't say they have no negotiating partner to represent ALL the Palestinians if the unity government is formed. So they decided to kill it in the crib .... and maintain the status quo.

OAW

[turtle777]

Right. Hamas, the peace calm loving neighbour.

You're painting this picture of Israel, just waiting for a/no reason to murder and wage war.
Plus, you're throwing in a speculation and consipiracy crap. So, yeah, no, you got nothing.

-t

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OAW 

If you had bothered to actually read the article you would see that Islamic Jihad ... not Hamas ... was specifically named as the group usually behind the sporadic rocket launches. By an Israeli newspaper for good measure. What's "lame" is your willful ignorance regarding the actual players in the conflict. As evidenced by your "the other Hamas" comment.

The point here is that Islamic Jihad and other smaller militant groups have launched rockets into Israel sporadically since 2012. It would be a lot more but Hamas keeps a pretty tight reign on them in Gaza because their stated policy toward Israel is a "long-term calm". Not "peace" ... but "calm". The question then is why did Israel choose to kill a fly with a bazooka this particular time? And kill Hamas operatives in the process? Unless of course, the hawks in Israel wanted to provoke Hamas into launching a sustained barrage of rocket fire? Perhaps in retaliation for the deaths of the 3 Israeli teens all the way in the West Bank? Or perhaps to undermine the unity government that Hamas just formed with Fatah in the West Bank? Something that was only possible now because Hamas is weakened and isolated now that Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood are out of power in Egypt. But the hardliners in the Israeli government view as a threat nonetheless because a unity government with NO Hamas members but instead filled with technocrats based in Ramallah takes away the last remaining excuse for Israel not negotiating a Two State solution. They can't say they have no negotiating partner to represent ALL the Palestinians if the unity government is formed. So they decided to kill it in the crib .... and maintain the status quo.

OAW

"Pretty tight reign"

List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2014 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[turtle777]

But but but... they are peace loving terrorists.

Really.

-t

[ebuddy]

The Palestinian powers-that-be want the Israelis dead. It's in Hamas' mottos and manifestos. It's on their lips as they commit the atrocities and launch the rockets. They will not acknowledge a cease-fire. They will not acknowledge land for peace or a portion of your capital or a seat in your Knesset or any concession offered. They do not send leaflets and phone calls in advance of their rockets. They burn down or squander anything provided to them. They are first and foremost, barbarians, living in the prison of their own making; who will only accept the driving of every last Israeli "Jew" into the sea. They've been led to believe that what belongs to someone else is theirs for the taking. There can never be peace.

No one opens their borders to these refugees because they cannot effectively sift antagonists from innocents and this is exactly as Hamas wants it. In a home you will find a kitchen, a bedroom, and a rocket room. In their schools you will find a library with books full of hatred for Jews, a food pantry, and a rocket room. You will either pay a jizyah tax, run away, convert to Islam, or die. Period. This has never, at any time, been more complicated than this.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

"Pretty tight reign"

List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2014 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Compared to the THOUSANDS of rockets that Hamas rained down on Israel the last time there was all out war? That list is a drop in the bucket. And you will note that the references generally say "Palestinian Militants" or "Islamic Jihad". Not Hamas. So my point stands.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

But but but... they are peace loving terrorists.

Really.

-t

And whoever said that? Certainly not me. In fact I just EXPLICITLY said that Hamas wasn't interested in "peace" ... only "calm". That's the problem with discussing this issue because some people can't seem to help blowing straw men out of their ass. See the Jon Stewart clip for a more humorous take on this phenomenon.

OAW

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Compared to the THOUSANDS of rockets that Hamas rained down on Israel the last time there was all out war? That list is a drop in the bucket. And you will note that the references generally say "Palestinian Militants" or "Islamic Jihad". Not Hamas. So my point stands.

OAW

So its not enough rockets to do anything about?

Israel will stop when the rockets stop. Its not much more complicated than that. Theres no need to try and downplay 100 rockets vs 1000.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

This explains it well.
The Middle East Problem - YouTube

There already is a "Paelstinian" state. Jordan comprises 3/4 of what was "Palestine"

Sorry, but the history of that area does not start in 1948. I don't know what date you should start with, but its interesting that Jerusalem was never visited nor that it was seen as a holy city by the prophet Mohammed.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Things have been calm between Hamas and Israel since 2012. What changed to cause Hamas to start launching rockets into Israel again?

Kidnapping three Israeli teenagers sparked this off. 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Kidnapping three Israeli teenagers sparked this off. 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, and the Israeli government swore vengeance instead of justice. Israeli police and military have killed people during the search for the perps and an innocent Palestinian boy was burnt alive by Jewish extremists. We all know what triggered the situation, but that's not the cause.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

So its not enough rockets to do anything about?

Israel will stop when the rockets stop. Its not much more complicated than that. Theres no need to try and downplay 100 rockets vs 1000.

The number of rockets fired from Gaza has actually decreased (compared to 2012).

[OAW]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Yes, and the Israeli government swore vengeance instead of justice. Israeli police and military have killed people during the search for the perps and an innocent Palestinian boy was burnt alive by Jewish extremists. We all know what triggered the situation, but that's not the cause.

The number of rockets fired from Gaza has actually decreased (compared to 2012).

^^^

This!

The point that I'm making is that Israel does NOT launch airstrikes or invade Gaza every time a rocket is fired into the country. Something was different this time around. The kidnapping and killing of the 3 Israeli teens is seen as one factor. But again, as I mentioned earlier that happened in the West Bank ... not Gaza. And it may or may not have been authorized by Hamas leadership in Gaza. Even if it that was the case and Hamas was responsible, one would think Israel would have gone after the Hamas militants in the West Bank that actually committed the crime rather than launch a full-scale invasion and bombardment of the people in Gaza who had nothing to with it. So again ... what else has changed? The formation of the "national consensus" Palestinian government that was formed in June 2014. A development that is explicitly and publicly opposed by the hawks in the Israeli government ... not "speculation and conspiracy crap" as some ignorantly dismiss.

Here's a piece which sums this up nicely written by Nathan Thrall, an American writer, journalist, and currently a Jerusalem-based Senior Analyst with the Middle East & North Africa Program of the International Crisis Group covering Gaza, Israel, Jordan, and the West Bank.

Originally Posted by Nathan Thrall

Gaza and Israel: The Road to War, Paved by the West

JERUSALEM — As Hamas fires rockets at Israeli cities and Israel follows up its extensive airstrikes with a ground operation in the Gaza Strip, the most immediate cause of this latest war has been ignored: Israel and much of the international community placed a prohibitive set of obstacles in the way of the Palestinian “national consensus” government that was formed in early June.

That government was created largely because of Hamas’s desperation and isolation. The group’s alliance with Syria and Iran was in shambles. Its affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt became a liability after a July 2013 coup replaced an ally, President Mohamed Morsi, with a bitter adversary, Gen. Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. Hamas’s coffers dried up as General Sisi closed the tunnels that had brought to Gaza the goods and tax revenues on which it depended.

Seeing a region swept by popular protests against leaders who couldn’t provide for their citizens’ basic needs, Hamas opted to give up official control of Gaza rather than risk being overthrown. Despite having won the last elections, in 2006, Hamas decided to transfer formal authority to the Palestinian leadership in Ramallah. That decision led to a reconciliation agreement between Hamas and the Palestine Liberation Organization, on terms set almost entirely by the P.L.O. chairman and Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas.

Israel immediately sought to undermine the reconciliation agreement by preventing Hamas leaders and Gaza residents from obtaining the two most essential benefits of the deal: the payment of salaries to 43,000 civil servants who worked for the Hamas government and continue to administer Gaza under the new one, and the easing of the suffocating border closures imposed by Israel and Egypt that bar most Gazans’ passage to the outside world.

Yet, in many ways, the reconciliation government could have served Israel’s interests. It offered Hamas’s political adversaries a foothold in Gaza; it was formed without a single Hamas member; it retained the same Ramallah-based prime minister, deputy prime ministers, finance minister and foreign minister; and, most important, it pledged to comply with the three conditions for Western aid long demanded by America and its European allies: nonviolence, adherence to past agreements and recognition of Israel.

Israel strongly opposed American recognition of the new government, however, and sought to isolate it internationally, seeing any small step toward Palestinian unity as a threat. Israel’s security establishment objects to the strengthening of West Bank-Gaza ties, lest Hamas raise its head in the West Bank. And Israelis who oppose a two-state solution understand that a unified Palestinian leadership is a prerequisite for any lasting peace.

Still, despite its opposition to the reconciliation agreement, Israel continued to transfer the tax revenues it collects on the Palestinian Authority’s behalf, and to work closely with the new government, especially on security cooperation.

But the key issues of paying Gaza’s civil servants and opening the border with Egypt were left to fester. The new government’s ostensible supporters, especially the United States and Europe, could have pushed Egypt to ease border restrictions, thereby demonstrating to Gazans that Hamas rule had been the cause of their isolation and impoverishment. But they did not.

Instead, after Hamas transferred authority to a government of pro-Western technocrats, life in Gaza became worse.

Qatar had offered to pay Gaza’s 43,000 civil servants, and America and Europe could have helped facilitate that. But Washington warned that American law prohibited any entity delivering payment to even one of those employees — many thousands of whom are not members of Hamas but all of whom are considered by American law to have received material support from a terrorist organization.

When a United Nations envoy offered to resolve this crisis by delivering the salaries through the United Nations, so as to exclude all parties from legal liability, the Obama administration did not assist. Instead, it stood by as Israel’s foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, called for the envoy’s expulsion on the grounds that he was “trying to funnel money” to Hamas.

Hamas is now seeking through violence what it couldn’t obtain through a peaceful handover of responsibilities. Israel is pursuing a return to the status quo ante, when Gaza had electricity for barely eight hours a day, water was undrinkable, sewage was dumped in the sea, fuel shortages caused sanitation plants to shut down and waste sometimes floated in the streets. Patients needing medical care couldn’t reach Egyptian hospitals, and Gazans paid $3,000 bribes for a chance to exit when Egypt chose to open the border crossing.

For many Gazans, and not just Hamas supporters, it’s worth risking more bombardment and now the ground incursion, for a chance to change that unacceptable status quo. A cease-fire that fails to resolve the salary crisis and open Gaza’s border with Egypt will not last. It is unsustainable for Gaza to remain cut off from the world and administered by employees working without pay. A more generous cease-fire, though politically difficult for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, would be more durable.

The current escalation in Gaza is a direct result of the choice by Israel and the West to obstruct the implementation of the April 2014 Palestinian reconciliation agreement. The road out of the crisis is a reversal of that policy.

How the West chose war in Gaza | NYTimes.com

And here's the TL;DR version .....

The Gaza Strip is the world's largest open air prison operated by the State of Israel. Like on some Escape from New York type of sh*t. Hamas is like the largest gang that runs the prison and the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) are like the wardens that keep everyone from escaping. The area is under a constant blockade which was made worse by the closing of the secret tunnels into Egypt. Because the new boss running Egypt has beef with Hamas's homies in his own country. So Hamas reached out to Fatah, an affiliate gang in the West Bank that is neither "friend" nor "enemy" ... just "family", for help. Fatah would run the show in both the West Bank and Gaza because they had better relations with Israel. Neither "peace" nor "war" ... just an "understanding". In return, conditions in Gaza would improve for the inmates. But that didn't happen. Instead, Israel chose to violate the "understanding" it had with Hamas because it viewed any alliance between Hamas and Fatah as a threat. That "understanding" being as long as Hamas kept the prisoners in line ... then the IDF would NOT drop the hammer on them. But they did. So is it really any wonder why the inmates are now restless?

OAW

[mattyb]

2014 Fatah–Hamas Gaza Agreement From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A Fatah–Hamas Gaza Agreement was signed in Gaza City on 23 April 2014 by Ismail Haniyeh, the prime minister of Hamas, and a senior Palestine Liberation Organisation delegation dispatched by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in an attempt to create reconciliation in the Fatah–Hamas conflict.[1]

It states that a unity government should be formed within five weeks, ahead of a presidential and parliamentary election within six months.[2]
Reactions

Mustafa Barghouti, General Secretary of the Palestinian National Initiative, who was involved in the negotiation, described the deal as an "end to the division between the Palestinian people."[3]

The agreement was welcomed by the EU. Michael Mann, the foreign policy spokesperson, said "the EU has consistently called for intra-Palestinian reconciliation behind Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas".[4]

Following the agreement, the Israeli government announced that it would halt peace talks with the Palestinians,[4] but Abbas said the deal did not contradict their commitment to peace with Israel on the basis of a two-state solution.[5] However, Abbas assured reporters that any unity government would recognize Israel, be non-violent, and bound to previous PLO agreements.[6]

Politically speaking, some Israeli commentators have stated that the political landscape of Israel may shift to the right and towards more skepticism of the peace process as a result of the Fatah-Hamas agreement.[7]

Affiliate gang? Not an enemy?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Affiliate gang? Not an enemy?

The metaphor is not 100% perfect ... as is often then case when using one. The point being that relations between Hamas and Fatah deteriorated into physical conflict on a large scale only once in 2007 when Hamas took over Gaza ... but historically speaking their political differences were oriented around the most effective tactical response to Israeli occupation. So when I say "neither friend nor enemy" what I mean is that Fatah and Hamas aren't on some of Crips vs. Bloods, Hatfield vs McCoy "sworn enemy" type of beef.

OAW

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

The number of rockets fired from Gaza has actually decreased (compared to 2012).

So how many rockets a month do you think is fair before Israel defends itself?

50? 100? 1000?

Does one have to hit a crowded market before you back away from this absurd notion that "fewer rockets than before" somehow should be acceptable to Israel and the people those rockets are targeting?

I think one's enough. You can bet your ass that if the Cartels in Mexico started firing rockets into the US, we would do something about it. I'd place a fair wager that you'd be among those supporting that action as well, especially if it were your home town or city being targeted.

[OreoCookie]

@OAW
Thanks for the link, OAW. I think many politicians in Israel have also realized that there isn't enough territory left for the foundation of a Palestinian state (as part of a two-state solution).

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

So how many rockets a month do you think is fair before Israel defends itself?

Israel has been defending itself the whole time, and have also been on the attack the whole time.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Does one have to hit a crowded market before you back away from this absurd notion that "fewer rockets than before" somehow should be acceptable to Israel and the people those rockets are targeting?

It's not absurd at all to point out that the perception of increased attacks does not correspond to the facts. Like OAW pointed out, the three Israeli teenagers were killed in the West Bank, yet the military intervention takes place in Gaza, there is a disconnect between cause and effect -- unless the Israeli government just wants to lashes out.

And don't twist my argument into »attacks on Israeli civilian population is acceptable«, I don't think civilian casualties are acceptable at all. But in this conflict, the proportionality is constantly out of whack: for every Israeli death (military and civilian), over 20 Palestinians have lost their lives, most of them civilians. The only reason I'm harsher on Israel right now is because they're in the driver's seat and they're causing way more deaths of innocent people than the other way around.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

So how many rockets a month do you think is fair before Israel defends itself?

50? 100? 1000?

Does one have to hit a crowded market before you back away from this absurd notion that "fewer rockets than before" somehow should be acceptable to Israel and the people those rockets are targeting?

I think one's enough. You can bet your ass that if the Cartels in Mexico started firing rockets into the US, we would do something about it. I'd place a fair wager that you'd be among those supporting that action as well, especially if it were your home town or city being targeted.

I think the more relevant question is ....

Are the measures Israel is taking to defend itself commensurate with the civilian death toll in light of their general ineffectiveness?

The Palestinian death toll is approximately 600 at this point. 75% of which are civilian. Of which a substantial portion are women and children. The Israeli death toll is approximately 29. Of which 2 were civilian.

So what this means is that in this latest operation Israel is killing Palestinian civilians by "accident" at a ratio of 225 to 1 compared to the killings of Israeli civilians by Hamas. On top of that there are over 100K displaced Palestinians. Along with the wholesale destruction of Gazan infrastructure. But wait it gets worse. The last couple of times such hostilities jumped off (i.e. 2008 and 2012) at no point did Israeli military action stop Hamas rocket fire into Israel ... which was the stated military objective. In fact, rocket fire only intensified throughout the conflict!

The bottom line here is that Palestinian civilians are being slaughtered by an Israeli military action that will be just as ineffective when it comes to achieving the military objective as Hamas' rockets are at causing actual Israeli casualties. Now some people around here are cool with that. All I would say is that for those whom the shoe fits just keep it real and come right out and say that! And spare those of us who are not the same old recycled talking points about Israel's right to "self defense". Because let's call this for what it really is ....

Originally Posted by Jim Malone

You wanna know how to get Capone? They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way! And that's how you get Capone.

It's an escalation mentality that's going on here. And generally speaking, I can respect that. But this is taking it to the 25th power! At least the thinking above was limited to the actual combatants. Just saying ...

OAW

PS: It seems to me that since the IDF knew where the comparatively small initial barrage of rockets came from, a more measured response would have been to drop a special forces team into the area to take out the Hamas team responsible. Or even to conduct an airstrike on that one location. But a wholesale bombardment and invasion of Gaza seems a bit like killing a fly with a bazooka.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Israel has been defending itself the whole time, and have also been on the attack the whole time.

So where's your problem with them?

It's not absurd at all to point out that the perception of increased attacks does not correspond to the facts. Like OAW pointed out, the three Israeli teenagers were killed in the West Bank, yet the military intervention takes place in Gaza, there is a disconnect between cause and effect -- unless the Israeli government just wants to lashes out.

You miss my point. Any attacks at all are justification for Israel to defend herself. I'm stating the frequency and number are absolutely moot.

And don't twist my argument into »attacks on Israeli civilian population is acceptable«, I don't think civilian casualties are acceptable at all. But in this conflict, the proportionality is constantly out of whack:

I'm left more confused on your position. Does Israel have the right to defend itself or not? War is not a friendly business. Civilians are going to die. Israel cannot stop the rocket attacks without airstrikes and boots on the ground. If the people of Gaza wanted peace, they would reject the groups perpetrating the attacks on sovereign Israel. This does not seem to be the case, and round we go.

for every Israeli death (military and civilian), over 20 Palestinians have lost their lives, most of them civilians. The only reason I'm harsher on Israel right now is because they're in the driver's seat and they're causing way more deaths of innocent people than the other way around.

So in your opinion Israel's right to defend itself hinges upon the casualty ratio? That seems a bit backwards to me. Especially since Israel takes steps to reduce civilian casualties while Hamas (or whichever group you prefer to call them today) seeks to increase them for their own propaganda.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Israel cannot stop the rocket attacks without airstrikes and boots on the ground.

See my comments above about how Israel has never achieved this military objective before with these types of operations. What makes you think it will be any different now?

OAW

[ebuddy]

All this text and and all this time wasted.

Again, Palestinian leadership since day 1 have sought the death of Israel. This is the fundamental, inescapable truth of it all. Absolutely nothing else matters in this "debate". Nothing.

It doesn't matter how many rockets get fired or children get kidnapped or how many times the Israeli military feels it necessary to "mow the lawn". The global community will not accept the Israeli elimination of the threat and the threat is not capable of eliminating Israel. Therefore, the violence will continue.

The only arguments against the truth in this are essentially that all others have been allowed to win their wars and keep their spoils, but another standard is necessary for the Israeli who is trying to maintain a plot of land 1/3rd the size of a single Native American reservation. And while the arguments might hide themselves in anecdotes of singular crimes committed by insanely angry vigilantes or declining rocket-counts, the fact is -- one would be enough for anyone one of us. None of this matters and they know it.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

So where's your problem with them?

On a macroscopic scale, my two biggest problems in Israel's reaction are the complete lack of proportionality and the short-sightedness. Israel is trying to use the military to achieve a political goal -- which just won't happen.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

You miss my point. Any attacks at all are justification for Israel to defend herself. I'm stating the frequency and number are absolutely moot.

I haven't missed your point, I just happen to disagree with it.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

War is not a friendly business. Civilians are going to die.

Right. And you can apply that argument to the other side: Hamas doesn't have weapons which shoot down targets with pin point accuracy. (I'm sure they'd love to get their hands on more accurate weapons so that they could strategically bomb the IDF rather than using rockets with no such capabilities.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

If the people of Gaza wanted peace, they would reject the groups perpetrating the attacks on sovereign Israel. This does not seem to be the case, and round we go.

That's the issue, hawks on both sides, Israelis and Palestinians, don't want peace. And all it takes is one radical killing someone innocent or firing a rocket. Your sentence implies that Israel acts in good faith to work towards a two-state solution, but in my opinion that's not the case. You're also forgetting that missiles are raining down on the Palestinians as well. If it weren't that the Israeli military were that much more powerful, the situation has an unholy and destructive symmetry to it: »I'll stop firing missiles as soon as you do.«

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

So in your opinion Israel's right to defend itself hinges upon the casualty ratio?

I've never said that. But if the response is so ludicrously disproportionate to the immediate trigger, it loses its moral justification -- sort of like not just executing the killer but also his wife and children. It doesn't mean I claim any reaction on Israel's side is inappropriate, just that the way they react now is. I don't see Israel as the victim in this act of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict even though they are also suffering from the conflict. And I don't even think the IDF's current offensive is the best way to reach their purported goal: stopping the rocket attacks.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

That seems a bit backwards to me. Especially since Israel takes steps to reduce civilian casualties while Hamas (or whichever group you prefer to call them today) seeks to increase them for their own propaganda.

Reduce civilian casualties? Have you been watching the news lately? From experience the IDF knows exactly how many civilian casualties are to be expected, and yet they attack. Of the top of my head, I can think of other ways to reduce the number of rockets raining down on Israel, surgical strikes by special forces, for instance.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

All this text and and all this time wasted.

Again, Palestinian leadership since day 1 have sought the death of Israel. This is the fundamental, inescapable truth of it all. Absolutely nothing else matters in this "debate". Nothing.

It doesn't matter how many rockets get fired or children get kidnapped or how many times the Israeli military feels it necessary to "mow the lawn". The global community will not accept the Israeli elimination of the threat and the threat is not capable of eliminating Israel. Therefore, the violence will continue.

The only arguments against the truth in this are essentially that all others have been allowed to win their wars and keep their spoils, but another standard is necessary for the Israeli who is trying to maintain a plot of land 1/3rd the size of a single Native American reservation. And while the arguments might hide themselves in anecdotes of singular crimes committed by insanely angry vigilantes or declining rocket-counts, the fact is -- one would be enough for anyone one of us. None of this matters and they know it.

^^^ THIS !!!!!!!

If I were Israel, I would have made a parking lot out of Gaza.
Someday, Israel might get pushed that way.

-t

[OAW]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

^^^ THIS !!!!!!!

If I were Israel, I would have made a parking lot out of Gaza.
Someday, Israel might get pushed that way.

-t

Militaristic fantasies aside, the international fallout that would undoubtedly ensue would be a classic case of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. The death toll in Syria thus far would pale in comparison to what this sophomoric approach would entail. Even Israel's staunchest allies would be forced to abandon them. The very suggestion is indicative of your distinct lack of seriousness about the topic. Which I will endeavor to keep in mind as the thread unfolds. And by "lack of seriousness" I certainly don't mean to suggest that you are joking or simply being hyperbolic.

OAW

[turtle777]

Oh, geez, OAW, a little hyperbole too much for you ?

-t

[Chongo]

Meanwhile in Iraq...



1800 year old Catholic Church burned to the ground.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

^^^ THIS !!!!!!!

If I were Israel, I would have made a parking lot out of Gaza.
Someday, Israel might get pushed that way.

-t

The USA would, if another country were lobbing missiles at us. Any person who thinks otherwise is a fool.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

The USA would, if another country were lobbing missiles at us. Any person who thinks otherwise is a fool.

While I don't agree with killing innocents, Israel has the firepower to basically wipe out all life in Gaza if it wanted to. I doubt we would see such restraint from either Fatah or Hamas if they had the arsenal Israel does.

[Chongo]

"peace will come to the Middle East when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us"
Golda Meir

[ebuddy]

Hamas TV to Israelis: We "love death more than you love life".
"The price will be high, Sons of Zion... All of Palestine is ours. There is nothing here for you but death"

Why is sympathy for this sect of jihadism primarily falling along party lines? It's absolutely bizarre to me.

A tale of two zealots - first up, Hamas:

Originally Posted by Hamas Charter

“In the Name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate You are the best community that has been raised up for mankind. Ye enjoin right conduct and forbid indecency; and ye believe in Allah. And if the People of the Scripture had believed, it had been better for them. Some of them are believers; but most of them are evil-doers. They will not harm you save a trifling hurt, and if they fight against you they will turn and flee. And afterward they will not be helped. Ignominy shall be their portion wheresoever they are found save [where they grasp] a rope from Allah and a rope from man. They have incurred anger from their Lord, and wretchedness is laid upon them. That is because they used to disbelieve the revelations of Allah, and slew the Prophets wrongfully. That is because they were rebellious and used to transgress.” Surat Al-Imran (III), verses 109-111 Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors. The Islamic World is burning. It is incumbent upon each one of us to pour some water, little as it may be, with a view of extinguishing as much of the fire as he can, without awaiting action by the others.

And now the Branch Davidians.
How did the US respond to the Branch Davidians? Were the Davidians lobbing missiles into our population centers? Picking off soldiers and children whenever an opportunity passed by? Were they publishing material outwardly calling for an ultimate cleansing of all those who did not worship as they do? After all, they had innocent women and children among them too.

Did we negotiate with them?
Offer them land for peace? And some greenhouses and other provisions to get them started?
Seats on our government?
A portion of our capital city?

No. Attorney General Janet Reno (D) under Bill Clinton (D) -- firebombed the entire compound killing Koresh, 54 other adults, and 28 children. Granted, there are more humane ways to deal with the jihadist threat than you might've seen from this Democratic model in the US, but I'd have to imagine Israel has about exhausted them all and yet -- all you'll hear from Democrats on this issue is sympathy for rocket-counts and how egregious the Israelis are and an insistence that if the Israelis would just negotiate...

Honest question -- why is it so difficult for one political side of the aisle to see Israel's quandary here?

[Shaddim]

There are Dems who are sympathetic to Israel, 70% of US Jews vote Democratic, but they're afraid of their masters and the toll it would take on them to break ranks.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

While I don't agree with killing innocents, Israel has the firepower to basically wipe out all life in Gaza if it wanted to. I doubt we would see such restraint from either Fatah or Hamas if they had the arsenal Israel does.

I don't believe there are any innocents involved in that war, generations of hate have only bred more hate.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Honest question -- why is it so difficult for one political side of the aisle to see Israel's quandary here?

It's completely brain dead to make this into a binary left-right issue (especially from an American perspective where you only have two parties to choose from). Also in Israel one of the consequences of the »Cottage Cheese Revolution« in 2011 was that Israeli politics has started to decouple social left-right from security-political left-right (e. g. the rise of Bennett's The Jewish Home is significant, a religious party which breaks with the ultra orthodox in important ways).

[RobOnTheCape]

I've seen a few articles referring to the large natural gas reserves just off the coast of Gaza, and Israel's true motive's:War and Natural Gas: The Israeli Invasion and Gaza’s Offshore Gas Fields | Global Research.

Who knows, but with the Palestinians being represented by active terrorists, and the Israeli government treating the Palestinians the same or worse than how the South African government treated the black population I wish the US would simply back out and withdraw all aid to anyone in that region besides humanitarian aid. This won't be solved at the end of this skirmish or in my lifetime so money can be spent better elsewhere. The US government might be seeing this anyways since with the discovery of fracking we need the Middle East less so than ever before.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

On a macroscopic scale, my two biggest problems in Israel's reaction are the complete lack of proportionality and the short-sightedness. Israel is trying to use the military to achieve a political goal -- which just won't happen.

I think Israel is doing exactly what it needs to do to stop the rockets. The political approach did not work (no wonder, when the opposition has repeatedly vowed their destruction).

I haven't missed your point, I just happen to disagree with it.

How many rockets is acceptable to you then?

Right. And you can apply that argument to the other side: Hamas doesn't have weapons which shoot down targets with pin point accuracy. (I'm sure they'd love to get their hands on more accurate weapons so that they could strategically bomb the IDF rather than using rockets with no such capabilities.

Perhaps they should do something about the rockets they and their friends are firing into Israel then. The weapons being smuggled from Iran aren't helping either.

That's the issue, hawks on both sides, Israelis and Palestinians, don't want peace. And all it takes is one radical killing someone innocent or firing a rocket. Your sentence implies that Israel acts in good faith to work towards a two-state solution, but in my opinion that's not the case.

Who said anything about working towards a two-state solution? Israel defending it's own sovereign territory from rocket attacks has naught to do with the two-state solution.

You're also forgetting that missiles are raining down on the Palestinians as well. If it weren't that the Israeli military were that much more powerful, the situation has an unholy and destructive symmetry to it: »I'll stop firing missiles as soon as you do.«

Yeah. It's pretty simple isn't it? Israel will stop when the rockets stop. Each time Israel has backed down under international pressure the rockets just started right up again.

I've never said that. But if the response is so ludicrously disproportionate to the immediate trigger, it loses its moral justification -- sort of like not just executing the killer but also his wife and children. It doesn't mean I claim any reaction on Israel's side is inappropriate, just that the way they react now is. I don't see Israel as the victim in this act of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict even though they are also suffering from the conflict. And I don't even think the IDF's current offensive is the best way to reach their purported goal: stopping the rocket attacks.

The response has an objective. "Proportionality" has jack shit to do with war. Completing your strategic objectives is all that matters.

Reduce civilian casualties? Have you been watching the news lately? From experience the IDF knows exactly how many civilian casualties are to be expected, and yet they attack. Of the top of my head, I can think of other ways to reduce the number of rockets raining down on Israel, surgical strikes by special forces, for instance.

How would surgical strikes reduce the number of rocket attacks? They can only strike a site after rockets have been fired from it, and after the terrorists have long fled the site. What good would that do? Hamas, with Iranian backing, has no shortage of rockets and other weapons coming in.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

All this text and and all this time wasted.

Again, Palestinian leadership since day 1 have sought the death of Israel. This is the fundamental, inescapable truth of it all. Absolutely nothing else matters in this "debate". Nothing.

It doesn't matter how many rockets get fired or children get kidnapped or how many times the Israeli military feels it necessary to "mow the lawn". The global community will not accept the Israeli elimination of the threat and the threat is not capable of eliminating Israel. Therefore, the violence will continue.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by RobOnTheCape 

I've seen a few articles referring to the large natural gas reserves just off the coast of Gaza, and Israel's true motive's:War and Natural Gas: The Israeli Invasion and Gaza’s Offshore Gas Fields | Global Research.

Who knows, but with the Palestinians being represented by active terrorists, and the Israeli government treating the Palestinians the same or worse than how the South African government treated the black population I wish the US would simply back out and withdraw all aid to anyone in that region besides humanitarian aid. This won't be solved at the end of this skirmish or in my lifetime so money can be spent better elsewhere. The US government might be seeing this anyways since with the discovery of fracking we need the Middle East less so than ever before.

Top quality references for the founder, editor and director of that site Rob, bravo!!!