Middle East on fire - Part XVII

[luiz]

The lack of nuance on this thread is quite disconcerting. If Israel is to have peace, such "invasions" prior to elections should be seen for what they are. The overall population of Gaza is civilian, yet under Israeli embargo, whether a number of Gazans are firing rockets (with minimal damage, by the way) or not.

As for Israel "withdrawing" from the West Bank, that must be some news tidbit that's been ignored by the media. As is, most West Bankers need to cross checkpoints - whether they need to enter Israel to work or simply to get where they need to go on the West Bank, and illegal colonists' settlements are still growing. The West Bank is quiet, because it's under control, and Israel has no threat to fear from that direction.

What Israel should be concerned about is the absence of any real peace in the long term if it keeps reacting to missiles being shot across the border (nothing new) in this manner, not caring to upset relations with its immediate neighbours, such as Egypt - which has shown remarkable restraint on its part, considering the radical feelings expressed by some.

Any country in the world would react drastically to rockets being fired against their population. How do you think the US would react? Or China? Or Turkey?

 

[Deaths Advocate]

The lack of nuance on this thread is quite disconcerting. If Israel is to have peace, such "invasions" prior to elections should be seen for what they are. The overall population of Gaza is civilian, yet under Israeli embargo, whether a number of Gazans are firing rockets (with minimal damage, by the way) or not.

As for Israel "withdrawing" from the West Bank, that must be some news tidbit that's been ignored by the media. As is, most West Bankers need to cross checkpoints - whether they need to enter Israel to work or simply to get where they need to go on the West Bank, and illegal colonists' settlements are still growing. The West Bank is quiet, because it's under control, and Israel has no threat to fear from that direction.

What Israel should be concerned about is the absence of any real peace in the long term if it keeps reacting to missiles being shot across the border (nothing new) in this manner, not caring to upset relations with its immediate neighbours, such as Egypt - which has shown remarkable restraint on its part, considering the radical feelings expressed by some.

It is much easier to maintain control if there is a common enemy to point at. Look at Bush's second term. They don't want to defeat Gaza entirely. Its the boogey man they can parade whenever support is fading.

 

[Absolution]

The lack of nuance on this thread is quite disconcerting. If Israel is to have peace, such "invasions" prior to elections should be seen for what they are. The overall population of Gaza is civilian, yet under Israeli embargo, whether a number of Gazans are firing rockets (with minimal damage, by the way) or not.

As for Israel "withdrawing" from the West Bank, that must be some news tidbit that's been ignored by the media. As is, most West Bankers need to cross checkpoints - whether they need to enter Israel to work or simply to get where they need to go on the West Bank, and illegal colonists' settlements are still growing. The West Bank is quiet, because it's under control, and Israel has no threat to fear from that direction.

What Israel should be concerned about is the absence of any real peace in the long term if it keeps reacting to missiles being shot across the border (nothing new) in this manner, not caring to upset relations with its immediate neighbours, such as Egypt - which has shown remarkable restraint on its part, considering the radical feelings expressed by some.

The siege of Gaza prevents the Hamas from arming even more.
We can't trust the Gazans in this issue.

You say we shouldn't react to the rockets?
Can you imagine your state not reacting to rockets launched at it?
And any radicalism in new Egypt is not something which should make us change our mind.
If new Egypt wants to make us troubles and to prevent us from defending ourselves, its their problem.
If they plan to take action against us, they'll regret this. And I believe they know it.
Mursi only wants to please the Mulsim Brothers' voters by showing that he cares for the Gazans and also for the Hamas.

 

[Mouthwash]

The lack of nuance on this thread is quite disconcerting. If Israel is to have peace, such "invasions" prior to elections should be seen for what they are. The overall population of Gaza is civilian, yet under Israeli embargo, whether a number of Gazans are firing rockets (with minimal damage, by the way) or not.

If New York City was occupied by Al-Qaeda, and they began shooting rockets at Washington, D.C., what would the Americans do?

As for Israel "withdrawing" from the West Bank, that must be some news tidbit that's been ignored by the media. As is, most West Bankers need to cross checkpoints - whether they need to enter Israel to work or simply to get where they need to go on the West Bank, and illegal colonists' settlements are still growing. The West Bank is quiet, because it's under control, and Israel has no threat to fear from that direction.

They haven't "withdrawn" completely. Lol. Obvious strawman.

What Israel should be concerned about is the absence of any real peace in the long term if it keeps reacting to missiles being shot across the border (nothing new) in this manner, not caring to upset relations with its immediate neighbours, such as Egypt - which has shown remarkable restraint on its part, considering the radical feelings expressed by some.

Egypt is not on friendly terms with Hamas anymore. I don't understand why you think a few missiles are the only threat- ever heard of a preemptive war? Imagine the damage Hamas could do if the Israelis hadn't killed their commanders and blown up their rocket stores first. They're using Iranian long-range missiles now, btw

 

[Arwon]

Two thoughts:

I suppose this means Afghan and Pakistani folk are justified in any bombing of the United States they might do. Since the US launches rockets at them.

And imagine the reaction if the UK started shelling Londonderry from naval gunsships thirty years ago to get at the IRA.

 

[Flying Pig]

We don't aim our shells at civilians; Hamas do. There's an important distinction there.

 

[Arwon]

Look call naval shelling whatever you want. It isn't precision warfare.

(Or was that about the justification for retaliatory bombs against the US? In that case I am not sure the technical capacity for precision targeting is a morally useful distinction...)

 

[Verbose]

Yes, well, it's all a strikingly fubar situation.

Either the Hamas should be countered by ordinary police action, as a criminal organisation, by Israel or some other entity, or there should be inter-state relations, whether negotiations, mediation or an outright state of war, or whatever.

What's been created here is just a state of exception, and the Israelis are at present not seen to be working to normalise it. The contrary more like... It's why there's kind of a general recognition that, sure, no state could accept rockets attacks, so Israel can't be expected to, but that's about as far as the sympathy would seem to stretch in most quarters. Decided lack of enthusiasm...

What is it Israel expects after all?

 

[Deaths Advocate]

Who's Police? Or are we asking for TEAM 'Merica to get involved again?

Considering Hamas were democratically elected, who are we to act against them?

 

[Agent327]

More lack of nuance:

Any country in the world would react drastically to rockets being fired against their population. How do you think the US would react? Or China? Or Turkey?

These rockets aren't exactly a new development.

The siege of Gaza prevents the Hamas from arming even more.
We can't trust the Gazans in this issue.

You say we shouldn't react to the rockets?
Can you imagine your state not reacting to rockets launched at it?
And any radicalism in new Egypt is not something which should make us change our mind.
If new Egypt wants to make us troubles and to prevent us from defending ourselves, its their problem.
If they plan to take action against us, they'll regret this. And I believe they know it.
Mursi only wants to please the Mulsim Brothers' voters by showing that he cares for the Gazans and also for the Hamas.

1) The "siege" of Gaza started the moment Israel embargoed it.
2) Egypt's public reaction has been remarkably reserved. Your lack of understanding for this (ït's their problem") is typical for Netanyahu's show of strength; it shows a complete lack of understanding for what's good for Israel in the long term
3) An eye for an eye is just what's not good here. That's just the kind of attitude that's keeping Israel/Palestine from having any sort of normal relations.

"We can't trust the Gazans"... I'm sure the Gazans feel the same way vice versa.

If New York City was occupied by Al-Qaeda, and they began shooting rockets at Washington, D.C., what would the Americans do?

Interestin comparison in its flawdness...

IThey haven't "withdrawn" completely. Lol. Obvious strawman.

They haven't withdrawn period. They built a border wall and there are military roads and checkpoints all throughout the Westbank. Volonists' settlements haven not stopped growing.

IEgypt is not on friendly terms with Hamas anymore. I don't understand why you think a few missiles are the only threat- ever heard of a preemptive war? Imagine the damage Hamas could do if the Israelis hadn't killed their commanders and blown up their rocket stores first. They're using Iranian long-range missiles now, btw

Egypt never wasn't on friendly terms with Hamas before the Arab Spring. Hamas using rockets (which they didn't before) does not threaten te state of Israel. In practical terms it's nothing but a minor nuisance. Either Israel accepts Gaza or it doesn't. What it has done so far is nothing but harassment. No wonder support for radical movements is stronger there than on the West Bank.

Two thoughts:

I suppose this means Afghan and Pakistani folk are justified in any bombing of the United States they might do. Since the US launches rockets at them.

And imagine the reaction if the UK started shelling Londonderry from naval gunsships thirty years ago to get at the IRA.

I'm not quite sure how this relates, but it certainly shows a lack of nuance.

 

[Deaths Advocate]

Did you learn the word nuance in school today or something? Using it over and over really doesn't sway an argument.

 

[wolfigor]

Yes. I think a strategy with some chance of success is to sidestep the extremists and make friends with the local Gazan population.

On the other hand Hamas want the reverse. They're happy for the local population to take the brunt of the Israeli response. This can only increase their local support.

The difficult thing is for the IDF to separate the Hamas operatives from civilians. Yet it is what they must do. And be seen to do so.

This is really the very essence of the strategy adopted by Hamas.
It's clear that Hamas cannot defeat Israel with a direct military confrontation, so their main target is to win the public opinion and conduce a war of attrition.

Hamas regularly shell missiles over civilian targets in Israel.
It doesn't matter if the missiles strike or not: Israel gets partially paralised by having citizens running for shelters.
At the same time there is a huge costs for Israel to defend its own population (missile defense, bunkers, etc.) and a political cost... to don't mention the occasional death.
This is not something that any state, especially one very small as Israel, can suffer without doing anything: the material and political cost raise exponentially.


Israel at a certain point has to respond and usually, like in this instance, this means trying to destroy Hamas bases and missile production facilities.

The problem is that Hamas uses civilians as a shield: it's almost impossible for Israel to hit Hamas without killing civilians too.
Everytime this happens, it's a small win for Hamas in terms of international public opinion as well as increasing the local population's hate for Israel.

Given that Hamas doesn't see losing its own members (at least the "small" guys) and losing civilian as a big concern then it's really a win-win situation for them.

If Israel does nothing, Hamas "wins" by attrition causing huge costs and showing Israel as powerless.
If Israel retaliates, then Hamas "wins" the public opinion.

The impasse can be broken only if Israel succeeds to completely annihilate Hamas or find a good living arrangement with a "normalised" Hamas: both are not really likely to happen.

 

[Deaths Advocate]

And annihilating terrorist groups often goes so well!

 

[Tahuti]

Hamas using rockets (which they didn't before) does not threaten te state of Israel. In practical terms it's nothing but a minor nuisance.

It does threaten any incumbent Israeli government on account of being Pally-huggers.

 

[wolfigor]

Hamas using rockets (which they didn't before) does not threaten te state of Israel. In practical terms it's nothing but a minor nuisance.

One can argue against both your statements.
Missile and mortar fire are not a new development in itself, Hamas as stepped up the "offensive" after one of their top dogs have been killed by Israel.

Second and most important, missiles are NOT "a minor nuisance".
Everytime the alarm goes off in an Israeli town people have to run immediately to the shelters.
repeat multiple time and you can see that the economic cost mounts up.
At the same time the psychological cost of living in fear cannot be underestimated, as well as the cost in lives that such missiles cost once they hit.
As I wrote previously it's an attrition war with mounting cost in Israel, something far from a "nuisance".

Either Israel accepts Gaza or it doesn't. What it has done so far is nothing but harassment. No wonder support for radical movements is stronger there than on the West Bank.

Israel has to accept Gaza and Gaza has to accept Israel: it must go both ways to work.
Launching missiles across the border is not the most friendly message

And annihilating terrorist groups often goes so well!

That's why I wrote that it is not likely to happen.
I don't think Israel can really annihilate Hamas.
They can harm Hamas very badly but unless you cut away the root cause of the problem terrorism will come back.

 

[Deaths Advocate]

An the root cause is poverty.

 

[Absolution]

1) The "siege" of Gaza started the moment Israel embargoed it.
2) Egypt's public reaction has been remarkably reserved. Your lack of understanding for this (ït's their problem") is typical for Netanyahu's show of strength; it shows a complete lack of understanding for what's good for Israel in the long term
3) An eye for an eye is just what's not good here. That's just the kind of attitude that's keeping Israel/Palestine from having any sort of normal relations.

"We can't trust the Gazans"... I'm sure the Gazans feel the same way vice versa

2) What do you think we should do about Egypt?
Do you think we should stop the air strikes just because Egypt wants us to?
3) It's not an eye for an eye. It's a bomb for an eye.
And I think we have to continue bombing every terrorist or missiles we spot as long as they keep dealing with terrorism and artillery.
Seriously, I don't think any other state in the world would even allow such an organization to exist near its borders.

 

[Agent327]

Did you learn the word nuance in school today or something? Using it over and over really doesn't sway an argument.

Dear boy, nor does a post that doesn't really add anything.

This is really the very essence of the strategy adopted by Hamas.
It's clear that Hamas cannot defeat Israel with a direct military confrontation, so their main target is to win the public opinion and conduce a war of attrition.

Hamas can't defeat Israel period.

One can argue against both your statements.
Missile and mortar fire are not a new development in itself, Hamas as stepped up the "offensive" after one of their top dogs have been killed by Israel.

Second and most important, missiles are NOT "a minor nuisance".
Everytime the alarm goes off in an Israeli town people have to run immediately to the shelters.
repeat multiple time and you can see that the economic cost mounts up.
At the same time the psychological cost of living in fear cannot be underestimated, as well as the cost in lives that such missiles cost once they hit.
As I wrote previously it's an attrition war with mounting cost in Israel, something far from a "nuisance".

Considering the rockets Hamas is able to launch and comparing that to what Israel is able to mount, I'd say the nuisance - to use that term again - is on the Gazan side. That would also be arguable for "living in fear" (Gazan civilians have little control over what extremist factions will do next, but still suffer the consequences). The economic argument definitely falls "in favour" of Gaza, which has been under continuous embargo from Israel; furthermore, the number of rockets fired from Gaza can hardly be called a mounting economic cost on the Israeli side, especially compared to what is being spent on control of the West Bank... If indeed, as you argue, it is a war of attrition, then Gaza is on the losing side, not Israel.

Israel has to accept Gaza and Gaza has to accept Israel: it must go both ways to work.
Launching missiles across the border is not the most friendly message

Nor is maintaining an embargo no matter what political faction controls Gaza. (Not to mention the murder of a Hamas operative that had been cooperating with Israel.)

That's why I wrote that it is not likely to happen.
I don't think Israel can really annihilate Hamas.
They can harm Hamas very badly but unless you cut away the root cause of the problem terrorism will come back.

Since the root lies in Israel's consistent (mal)treatment of the Palestinians, I don't see an end to either Hamas or the more radical groups - on either side. The PLO went the political way, but current events aren't helping do Hamas the same.

2) What do you think we should do about Egypt?
Do you think we should stop the air strikes just because Egypt wants us to?
3) It's not an eye for an eye. It's a bomb for an eye.
And I think we have to continue bombing every terrorist or missiles we spot as long as they keep dealing with terrorism and artillery.
Seriously, I don't think any other state in the world would even allow such an organization to exist near its borders.

Since the US is firmly on Israel's side, I wouldn't worry about what Egypt might or might not do.

An eye for an eye is a saying from the Tanakh, in case you're unaware.

Seriously, Israel has done its very best to promote the creation of such organizations. Terrorism was one of its own weapons; now that it is a state, it might employ more peaceful means.

Initiatives for a de-escalation of the current conflict are already being undertaken. Hopefully this will result in something meaningful - for both sides.

 

[luiz]

An the root cause is poverty.

So where are all the Bolivians and Peruvians and etc. launching rockets at neighboring countries?

The root cause has nothing to do with poverty.

 

[Deaths Advocate]

Dear boy, nor does a post that doesn't really add anything

What a strong rebuttal. Choosing to belittle and then ignore a response rather than debate it. I like your style. You seem to confuse writing a lot of words with writing an actual argument with substance.