Middle East on fire - Part XVII

[Deaths Advocate]

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

The root cause has nothing to do with poverty.

Because the cause of Bolivian or Peruvian poverty is not so directly linked to their neighbouring countries.


Wealth~>Education~>End of Terrorism

 

[wolfigor]

Hamas can't defeat Israel period.

Probably they can't, however they try to make as much damage as possible in the meantime, radicalize as many Palestinians as possible, and wait for the "good occasion".
It doesn't mean that they are rationale about it, but this seems to be Hamas strategy.
At the same time Hamas doesn't care how many Palestinians die due to their actions directly or by Israel reaction.
If they care about the welfare of their own people they would work to improve relations with their neighbour.

Considering the rockets Hamas is able to launch and comparing that to what Israel is able to mount, I'd say the nuisance

It is a nuisance in comparison to what Israel can mount, but it is not a nuisance for Israel citizens.
It's not a nuisance for Israel political leaders who have to respond to their electors.
It's not a nuisance when Hamas get get hold of ever more powerful missiles in growing quantities.

Gazan civilians have little control over what extremist factions will do next, but still suffer the consequences).

That's the sad part of it, whatever Israel and Hamas do, it's the Palestinians civilians who pay the highest price.

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.

If you assume, as I do, that Hamas doesn't care about the sufferance they inflict to the Palestinians in Gaza then the cost is only on Israel side.
From Hamas point of view the cost in lives and economy suffered by Gazan is not important compared to the "great ideal" of destroying Israel, so it's cost zero.
If Hamas really cared about people in Gaza they wouldn't shoot missiles across the border well knowing what reaction they will get from Israel.

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.

Pointing the finger only against Israel or only against the Palestinians leads only to a never-ending circle of recriminations.
At this point what it counts is not "who started it" but "How to end it".
Hamas has to understand and admit that Israel is there to stay and not dreaming about its complete destruction.
Israel has to understand and admit that Palestinians have right to and independent and self sustaining state, and Israel has to lift embargo as well as open the wallet to make it happen.

 

[luiz]

Because the cause of Bolivian or Peruvian poverty is not so directly linked to their neighbouring countries.


Wealth~>Education~>End of Terrorism

Yeah, if poor people like Osama bin Laden had had good opportunities in life there would be no terrorism in the ME.

 

[Deaths Advocate]

Lol, really? Mr Hatred of American Decadence? He was the guy orchestrating it sure, but you can get your bottom dollar the poor saps going to the training camps and getting brainwashed are only their because their lives were so crappy before.

Inequality, lack of education, brainwashing.

 

[luiz]

Lol, really? Mr Hatred of American Decadence? He was the guy orchestrating it sure, but you can get your bottom dollar the poor saps going to the training camps and getting brainwashed are only their because their lives were so crappy before.

Inequality, lack of education, brainwashing.

Actually, most terrorists/extremists come from the middle class, received a decent education and have a family. Many have college degrees (the Taliban movement was born inside the madrassas, for instance).

The notion that suicide bombers are all starving slum dwellers is a myth with no basis on reality.

 

[Flying Pig]

Most terrorist leaders fit that profile; most terrorist rank-and-file do not. It's similar to Communism in that regard: hence the phrase 'two-dollar Taliban'.

 

[luiz]

Most terrorist leaders fit that profile; most terrorist rank-and-file do not. It's similar to Communism in that regard: hence the phrase 'two-dollar Taliban'.

I am talking rank-and-file. They don't come from the poorest segments of society at all.

 

[Deaths Advocate]

Hamas,Taliban and Al-Q are all different situations. We can't really lump them together like you are suggesting.

 

[luiz]

Hamas,Taliban and Al-Q are all different situations. We can't really lump them together like you are suggesting.

They all feed on extremism, and extremists tend to be highly ideological people, and usually that means reasonably educated people.

Both al-Qaeda and Hamas do not draw their soldiers from the hopelessly destitute, but rather from largely middle class individuals who were radicalized either in school or in church.

It is pretty well known that most suicide bombers are middle class. Of course, Hamas uses the image of poverty to make their struggle seem more noble in the eyes of a certain western demographic.

 

[Deaths Advocate]

TBH this is missing my point. The route cause of their hate is economic disparagy. It might not be themselves as individuals, but instead as the populace they identify with.

Their economic elevation allows them to the flex to take up such a vocation. Absolute poor are too busy surviving.

 

[luiz]

TBH this is missing my point. The route cause of their hate is economic disparagy. It might not be themselves as individuals, but instead as the populace they identify with.

Their economic elevation allows them to the flex to take up such a vocation. Absolute poor are too busy surviving.

No, you are missing my point that hate does not need "poverty" to exist or even to find fertile ground. This is nothing but a propaganda tool to make their cause more noble, because in some western circles poverty lends nobility to any cause.

Becoming a terrorist is not about "rebeling against injustice" (a laughable theory), it is about hate; it is about the impact that hateful rhetoric and a radicalized political environment have on susceptible people. Becoming a Hamas militant is a lot like becoming a brownshirt.

 

[Absolution]

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

Yes, and I radicalized that sentence.

And actually, it is Hammurabic:
"If a man has knocked out the eye of a patrician, his eye shall be knocked out."

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.

1. Israel supported the early Hamas in order to create an opposition to Arafat.
We couldn't guess the future...
2. Are you talking about the Lehi?
It's target wasn't killing Arabs and scaring the population.
They just fought the British/Arab leaders in a radical and very violent way.
Usually they didn't preform terror actions.

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

Israel gave the Hamas an ultimatum - de-escalation in 24 hours or a land invasion.
I think it is the worst decision Israel could make.
Hamas would love to see an Israeli land operation.
They'll circle every terrorist with a wall of babies and here comes their propaganda victory.

 

[Borachio]

As well as Lehi, there's Irgun, Haganah and Palmach.

 

[Absolution]

You can't call Hagana a terrorist organization.
It was always blamed for being too defensive and passive.
The ideal of the Hagana was to protect settlements and not to start battles.
The Irgun was more offensive, and the Lehi was only offensive and extreme.
But none of them really aimed to kill random people.
They centered their actions mostly against leaders and officials.
The Lehi sometimes didn't care what demage it was causing on the way, so yes, you can criticize that, but you can't say that the Hagana and the Esel were terror organization.

 

[Borachio]

OK. And the Palmach?

And the Lehi weren't terrorists?

Walter Edward Guinness, 1st Baron Moyne DSO & Bar PC (29 March 1880 – 6 November 1944) was an Anglo-Irish politician and businessman. He served as the British minister of state in the Middle East until November 1944, when he was assassinated by the militant Jewish group Lehi. The assassination of Lord Moyne sent shock waves through Palestine and the rest of the world

 

[Deaths Advocate]

No, you are missing my point that hate does not need "poverty" to exist or even to find fertile ground. This is nothing but a propaganda tool to make their cause more noble, because in some western circles poverty lends nobility to any cause.

Becoming a terrorist is not about "rebeling against injustice" (a laughable theory), it is about hate; it is about the impact that hateful rhetoric and a radicalized political environment have on susceptible people. Becoming a Hamas militant is a lot like becoming a brownshirt.

Then where do you think the hate comes from?

 

[del62]

When I read the thread title I thought it was about whats going on in Syria, which paymasters are pushing Hamas to fire more rockets at this time, Eygypt, Syria or Iran?

 

[innonimatu]

Ah, the inconvenient fact of the state of Israel having been founded by terrorists keeps coming up... such a pity that the british are still too influential to just be neutralized/dismissed through propaganda, and that they still recall the events of the 40s, isn't it?

The truth is that terrorism is a tool that everyone at wars uses. It was so in the 40s, it remains so now, in this was as in all others.

 

[Agent327]

Hmm, actually - since you mention them - the British first used it succesfully in the Boer Wars, by use of that wonderful invention, the concentration camp. Earlier still, terrorism was the favourite tool of Russian nihilists. Which still makes it pretty modern. But using terror (not the same as terrorism) to strike fear into the hearts of thine enemies is probably as old as war (tactics) itself.

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.

I'll spend time on rebuttal as soon as you make any remark of substance.

Yes, and I radicalized that sentence.

And actually, it is Hammurabic:
"If a man has knocked out the eye of a patrician, his eye shall be knocked out."

I'm quite aware that the Tanakh's tenets in general can hardly be qualified as being original.

1. Israel supported the early Hamas in order to create an opposition to Arafat.
We couldn't guess the future...
2. Are you talking about the Lehi?
It's target wasn't killing Arabs and scaring the population.
They just fought the British/Arab leaders in a radical and very violent way.
Usually they didn't preform terror actions.

I'd say Israel succeeded very well then. It's a pity they supported one of their staunchest opponents while doing so.

After the war, the Haganah carried out anti-British operations in Palestine, such as the liberation of interned immigrants from the Atlit detainee camp, the bombing of the country's railroad network, and sabotage raids on radar installations and bases of the British Palestine police. It also continued to organize illegal immigration.

Israel gave the Hamas an ultimatum - de-escalation in 24 hours or a land invasion.
I think it is the worst decision Israel could make.
Hamas would love to see an Israeli land operation.
They'll circle every terrorist with a wall of babies and here comes their propaganda victory.

I couldn't agree more - except for the timing of the operation, which rather suggests domestic political motives.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Becoming a terrorist is not about "rebeling against injustice" (a laughable theory), it is about hate; it is about the impact that hateful rhetoric and a radicalized political environment have on susceptible people. Becoming a Hamas militant is a lot like becoming a brownshirt.

I think it is also about desperation, when one sees all other avenues closed to them, whether that perception is justified or not. No one becomes a terrorist because it's convenient. Really, who wants to blow themselves up just for fun, or become world pariahs?

Personally, I think it's sad that Hamas took the opposite path of Al-Fatah. They were once a terrorist organization as well, but they realized that their radical solutions to problems had an opportunity to be better addressed through peaceful methods, and abandoned their terrorist ways. In short, Al-Fatah realized their terror tactics were a last resort towards their political goal of bettering Palestinian lives. Given the chance to do that less violently, they took it. Whether it's had the chance or not, Hamas has not done that. I don't really know that Hamas has had this opportunity, since even when Israel withdrew in 2007 they still besieged the city of Gaza and nothing of substance in the treatment of Gazan citizens changed.