Gaza

[OROD]

Fox sucks. Go Watchmen!

.

[Zilverzmurfen]

The only military solution involves genocide. Hamas and its imitators draw on a bottomless well of young people so inculcated with the victim mentality and persecution complexes that Israel would have to all but wipe out the Palestinians to be rid of the attacks. Destroy Hamas and another would rise to take its place.

And even genocide would just energize other like groups, like Hezbollah.

This situation will go on until one side or the other is utterly destroyed, I am afraid.

I'm totally with you.

Withdraw any help organisations and/or peace keeping forces now and let them finish the bombing once and for all. Once they're done we can tarmac the entire area and make the worlds largest parking lot.

[pigeonmeister]

I believe that this is the first time that there has been such division in Arab world. First, there are two Palestinian factions and not one, so there is an active force within the West Bank that would like to see Israel dislodge Hamas, and is willing to work with the Israelis to see this happen.

I think the Palestinian movement has historically been one of the most divided in history. Nationalist versus different shades of Islamist, with some secularists and leftists thrown in. I agree that this division has never resulted in entirely different regimes 'ruling' Gaza and the West Bank.

Also, with the rise of Iran and their extension, Hezbollah, there is now an open conflict between Iranian and Arab muslims that goes even beyond the Sunni/Shia conflict. Egypt is finding itself under attack from all sides as Mubarrak is hated by the Iranians, al Queda, and the Palestinians.

Again, this is nothing new. Iran pulled out of the oil embargo following Yom Kippur War. Egypt and Iran were on the wrong side of the Cold War- then Egypt kicked out the Soviets and made up with Iran (and the Soviets moved on to Iraq and they became Iran's main threat).

You are also forgetting the Iran-Iraq war- which was really a wider Arab-Persian conflict. You also have the fact that Egypt has always been under attack- to the point where Sadat was assassinated and Iran named streets after the assassin. Iran broke off relations with Egypt in 1980.

Egypt's relationship with the various Palestinian factions is also a lot more complicated. Look, for example, at the role of individuals such as Omar Suleiman. Also AQ hate every single government in the world, and particularly every single one in the Middle East.

Plus, this particular conflict was started so clearly by Hamas breaking the truce that they are getting very little sympathy even from their usual cheering section.

That's just not true. Neither side complied perfectly with the ceasefire. Israel refused to substantially ease the suffocating siege of Gaza imposed in June 2007. Hamas permitted sporadic rocket fire -- typically after Israel killed or seized Hamas members in the West Bank, where the truce did not apply.

This 'self defense' claim is very strained- no Israelis were killed by rockets in the half year leading up to the current attack.

Israel also initially broke the truce on Nov. 4, raiding the Gaza Strip and killing a Palestinian. Hamas retaliated with rocket fire; Israel then killed five more Palestinians.

The situation is also far more complicated than 'hamas' is getting no sympathy. Even Fatah have made some statements of support. But you are right, the Arab states see Hamas as part of the problem and their desire to see them gone is obviously related to tensions with Iran.

I think if Israel makes a deal with Syria there will only be Iran openly backing terrorists around Israel, and that would change the dynamic dramatically too.

The 'dynamic' will be largely unchanged by any regional diplomatic initiatives not involving Palestinians. The notion that Iran's support for Hamas is the main issue of the Palestinian problem is frankly ridiculous. Furthermore, Egypt made peace with Israel in the late 70 and still arms reach Gaza from their border.

[OROD]

You have possibly ruined this movie for those who have not read the graphic novel.

Ok, I edited it to take out any possible spoilers.

Oh yeah, and Fox sucks!

.

[sarmaticus]

I'm totally with you.

Withdraw any help organisations and/or peace keeping forces now and let them finish the bombing once and for all. Once they're done we can tarmac the entire area and make the worlds largest parking lot.

An interesting Final Solution: We could just return Israel's forces to the border recognised by the UN and almost all other countries - which would still allow it to hold on to plenty of it's loot - and permit Arabs in the area to stop paying in misery for the past crimes of we europeans.
If Israel finds that solution unacceptable, we should at least apply against it the same sanctions that we visit upon other aggressive and repressive regimes.

[Gav]

Ok, I edited it to take out any possible spoilers.

Oh yeah, and Fox sucks!

.

I've deleted my post that refers to your spoiler! I couldn't be bothered to amend mine.

[Inquartata]

There is no "siege of Gaza".

A siege is when one party wants to get into a place, and get the party which is already in the place out. That more closely fits what the Palestinians are doing to Israel.

What Israel has been conducting with regard to Gaza is more akin to a blockade. They want the other party to stay in the place, and they do not want to get in there themselves.

The "No one was killed" defense doesn't fly, either. If you neighbor shoots at your house daily but doesn't kill you, that is still not OK. Being a bad shot does not make self-defense unjustifiable.

[pigeonmeister]

[QUOTE]

There is no "siege of Gaza".

A siege is when one party wants to get into a place, and get the party which is already in the place out. That more closely fits what the Palestinians are doing to Israel.

Well my Oxford English Dictionary desribes it has "a military operation in which enemy forces surround a town or building, cutting off essential supplies with the aim of compelling those inside to surrender."

As you no doubt know, it comes from the latin sedere (to sit).

Regardless, I don't think semantics are really the major issue here. If you prefer 'blockade'- so be it. Blockades can often do more humanitarian damage than bombs.

The "No one was killed" defense doesn't fly, either. If you neighbor shoots at your house daily but doesn't kill you, that is still not OK. Being a bad shot does not make self-defense unjustifiable.

I have obviously failed in my initial aim to avoid the area of moral justification. Sorry- perhaps that was always unrealistic. But it still something I see little point in going over at length; all I'll say is obviously Hamas are not the only ones shooting. You seem to have agreed that a military solution to remove the threat is impossible. So, with your insistence on precision of language, perhaps 'retaliation' is a better phrase than self-defence?

What I'm interested in is the extent of Israel's war aims, whether they are achievable and how they can measured.

[pigeonmeister]

Oh and incidently, Israel was supposed to open the borders and end the siege/blockade as part of the ceasefire both sides signed up to and which most people here insist only Hamas broke.

The agreement called on Israel to increase the level of goods entering Gaza by 30 percent over the pre-lull period within 72 hours and to open all border crossings and "allow the transfer of all goods that were banned and restricted to go into Gaza" within 13 days after the beginning of the ceasefire.

Despite Israel not opening the border, Hamas still effectively ended rocket attacks. After the ceasefire collapsed, Hamas, on 14 December, once again offered to go back to this ceasefire if the Gaza crossings were opened.

Israel essentially would rather endure more rocket attacks than remove its ability to choke off food and goods required for the viability of its economy.

[Epee_Pox]

Until such time as the Palestinians change their goal from the eradication of Israel to peaceful coexistence, any cease fire will be a defeat for Israel, the problem will be deferred at best rather than solved, and the region will continue to be a magnet for militant fanatics, Iranian proxies, and the scapegoat distractions for the failing arab governments.

[pigeonmeister]

This strikes me as an unhelpful and doggedly one sided statement which, rather than engage with any tangible details, prefers to make sweeping and poorly informed generalisations- not least about ALL palestinians.

In other words a highly ideological statement which adds nothing to the debate I was hoping this thread would provoke. Your contribution to the Middle East is essentially to advocate continous all out warfare without identifying realistic aims which that war can achieve. Nice one.

How about we engage with some of the points made today by the former UK ambassador to the United Nations and Iraq, Sir Jeremy Greenstock

1) Hamas is not a proxy of Iran
2) Hamas is not trying to set up a Taliban-style government in Gaza
3) Hamas’ unwillingness to accept the existence of Israel was about rhetoric and not about reality
4) Israel continues to inflame the situation in the region by constructing illegal settlements
5) Israeli domestic politics were also driving the crisis
6) Fatah and Islamic Jihad have also been firing rockets

[Epee_Pox]

I do not pretend to be an expert on the situation, nor is it one that particularly concerns me one way or the other. My thoughts are mine alone, and are based solely on what I've seen and read in the news over the past few decades.

The aims of whoever happens to be governing the Palestinians at any particular moment, however, seem to me to be consistent: the elimination of Israel, the purposeful killing of civilians, the evasion of responsibility by relying on un-uniformed yet officially sanctioned fighters, and the perception of victimhood through the application of moral equivalence, use of human shields, intentional martyrdom, and use of un-uniformed fighters.

The aims of whoever happens to be governing Israel at any particular moment seem to fluctuate between various degrees of self defense, appeasement of european detractors, and territorial claims.

So what realistic aims can warfare achieve? The aims of the Palestinians are best served by the kind of low-level warfare they've been pursuing. Anything Israel does, short of complete acquiescence, makes Israel look like a bully to many, and the Palestinians win either way.

The aims of the Israelis are to some extent unrealistic, no matter what they do. They are never going to appease their critics. Any attempt to do so is just an act of weakness that benefits and encourages their enemies. Their territorial and self-defense goals are best served by a simple all-out military victory and annexation.

I still think the only solution is a single state where Israel gives up on trying to be a jewish state, and all people within the borders are enfranchised with equal rights and freedoms.

[pigeonmeister]

[QUOTE]

The aims of whoever happens to be governing the Palestinians at any particular moment, however, seem to me to be consistent: the elimination of Israel, the purposeful killing of civilians, the evasion of responsibility by relying on un-uniformed yet officially sanctioned fighters, and the perception of victimhood through the application of moral equivalence, use of human shields, intentional martyrdom, and use of un-uniformed fighters.

These are my thoughts on your comments (and why I think many of them lack a nuanced approach to complex issues)

You show no contemplation of the divisions between the PA and Hamas and their respective military wings when approaching the question of 'whoever governs the Palestinians'. No elaboration of the social-civic-humanitarian-economic-political-military dynamics of the notion of 'governance'. The distinctions within this term and external and internal contraints placed upon it.

You make

1. A total sweeping statement that all Palestinians are committed to the elimination of Israel (even Fatah).
2. A total refusal to contemplate any symbolic or rhetorical application of this claim.
3. A misleading point about their fighters not wearing uniforms- I believe they mostly do. I don't really see it as a major issue anyway (even though you make it twice)

4. Little contemplation of the fact that if you bomb the most densely populated region in the world, regardless of symbolic warnings, you are targetting civilians.
5. Obviously no mention of the fact that Israel have fired on UN convoys and Red Cross/Red Crescent ambulances.

Oh and Israel use human shields too. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/7818122.stm

The aims of whoever happens to be governing Israel at any particular moment seem to fluctuate between various degrees of self defense, appeasement of european detractors, and territorial claims.

At what point have Israel showed an interest in appeasing Europe?! Surely, surely you can't expect me to take seriously an analysis in support of Israeli policy that conflates the right to 'self defence' with a determination to pursue (illegal) terroritorial claims. Unbelievable. Does Israel alone retain the right to self-defence...even from territorial claims/incursions?

So what realistic aims can warfare achieve? The aims of the Palestinians are best served by the kind of low-level warfare they've been pursuing.

The aim of Israel's destruction (which you say is their stated aim) is best achieved by lobbing a few rockets at southern Israel? I don't support them doing so- but it's hardly a threat to Israel's existence.

Doesn't really appear they have been successful in another of your stated aims- purposeful killing of civilians.

You argue that the other aim of Palestinians is to die, well yes they are succeeding here.

Anything Israel does, short of complete acquiescence, makes Israel look like a bully to many, and the Palestinians win either way.

No. Start from the point that Israel, by refusing to open the border and end incursions, assassinations and military activity in Gaza, were also responsible for breaking the stated terms of surrender. Then go from the point that Hamas offered to reinstate the ceasefire, which had broken down, if Israel just opened the border. Then remind yourself that no Israeli citizens had been killed in 6 months before the attack. Then accept that, regardless of this fact and with a clear political/electoral agenda, Israel have killed almost 1000 Palestinians (including at least 270 children, 90 old people and 90 women).

This is how many, clearly outside America, come to the conclusion that Israel's actions are wholly unacceptable. Your suggestion that the current tragic state of affairs consitutes a 'win' for Palestinians is honestly one of the sickest things I have read in relation to the current crisis.


Furthermore, you reduce the happy medium and only acceptable action Israel could pursue to the international community, NGOs etc to 'total acquiscence'? How about ending the blockade and maybe even illegal settlements?


Again, nice one.

[Epee_Pox]

Let's see...

I tell you I don't pretend to have a thorough understanding of what's going on over there, but you asked what I think, so I tell you what I think.

In response, you get pissy because I've presumed to post my thoughts, and they're not as nuanced as you think they ought to be.

As you say, nice one.

[pigeonmeister]

Not really, I simply responded to your first entirely one sided and generalised post- which was absolute in tone and not qualified with an 'actually I know very little about the subject'. I do wonder how people can take such strong and rigid positions whilst making this admission.

If I got 'pissy' I apologise- but I believe anyone with even a casual concern for those currently in Gaza would probably be offended by the observation that their suffering constituted a 'win either way'. I do of course remain concerned for all the people involved on both sides.

I have honestly tried to avoid hyperbole, loaded rhetoric, or being 'pissy' and stuck as much as I could to the details of the current conflict without reference to the wider and often entrenched historical political battle lines. Perhaps I have failed, but either way this thread is not really achieving what I hoped- so probably best we give up.

[tchwojko]

I do wonder how people can take such strong and rigid positions whilst making this admission.

Two observations from someone who would answer "I don't know" to just about any question about Gaza right now:
1. In this thread hasn't been enough discussion to determine Epee_Pox's flexibility on the issue. (I haven't read other posts or threads.)
2. I don't believe I've seen any examples of your flexibility on the issues, and I wondered if it was a pot calling the kettle black.

Some caveats for these observations:
* I don't know where there should be flexibility or not, or who is or is not flexible. I'm just letting you know how it looks at first glance to my casual reading of this single thread.
* Neither observation is a comment on the validity of anyone's arguments.

[Gav]

I completely understand PM's frustration.

Here's my answers to his questions:

1. Is regime change achieveable through military action- even in conjunction with wider and more nuanced policies vis a vis selective engagement with Fatah? Is it even being pursued?

No. Or at least not in the short term. Even in the longer term it's efficacy would be questionable. I am not sure that the Israeli's - by which I mean the present government - are pursuing any sort of settlement with any parties. There may well be some stuff going on in the background. For everyone's sake I hope that this is true.

2. Will this action undermine support for Hamas within Gaza?

To a certain extent; because some people will be thinking "why did Hamas bring this on us". However I think that any backlash against Hamas will be effectively squashed by the outrage caused by Israel's actions. You would think that people would get it by now. Killing women and children - and any other innocent bystanders - doesn't endear you to anyone.

3. Will this action make the Israeli population, mainly in the south, more secure (fewer rockets fired)?

No. Why would it? If anything in the longer term it can only get worse.

Some regulars in this subforum may find the following link interesting to read. I am not going to pretend that it's an easy read. However unlike some armchair commentators these people are journalists and they at least cite their sources.

http://www.medialens.org/alerts/09/0...an_eye_for.php

[Fechter1]

Personally, I applaud PM's decision to post. Rhetorical style notwithstanding, I think it's important that someone present the other side of the coin (so to speak). Right now, at least in the US, the media seems more than content to blame Hamas for everything regarding the current situation in Gaza. This includes blaming Hamas for Israeli actions (why, I cannot fathom).

Without PM, I doubt I would have stumbled across the accounts of Israeli Army practices of using Palestinian civilians as human shields (read the BBC article linked by PM). I had already heard of the IDF deliberately targetting civilians (herding civvies into a house, then bombing said house), using cluster and phosphorus munitions in densely populated areas (not technically illegal, I guess, but severely frowned upon), firing on UN and red cross vehicles.

I think part of what contributes to PM's perceived inflexibility on the issue is that he finds himself more and more countering misinformation (most of which seems slanted towards justifying Israel's actions). Sometimes it feels like he's the only one speaking out for the palestinian side...

[OROD]

Right now, at least in the US, the media seems more than content to blame Hamas for everything regarding the current situation in Gaza. This includes blaming Hamas for Israeli actions (why, I cannot fathom)

Could it be because Hamas is a terrorist organization bent on the destruction of Israel with no real interest in a diplomatic settlement of their differences, and likes to spend it's free time lobbing rockets into Israel with the hopes of killing civilians and instigating a new round of fighting designed to increase it's support among Palestinian civilians regardless of the cost even to those same Palestinians?

Could it be that?

.

[keith]

Could it be that?

Could be, could be,

Of course we could also change around the famous rhetorical device;

Perhaps you could provide us the number of dead Palestinians that balance one dead Israeli?