Gaza

[Hauptman]

Hamas is not an Iranian proxy, however Hezbollah is. Syria is the other major player backing Hamas. Iran, through Hezbollah, is now a major player in the region, and was not previously despite it's conflicts with the Arab states in the past.

The battle between Hamas and Fatah is mostly about power, not ideology. If Fatah is not completely anti-Israel it is likely only to form a contrast to Hamas. I have no faith that they have a serious interest in peace although I fervently hope I am wrong.

As a terrorist organization Hamas has never had a desire for peace; that would put them out of business. As a political power Hamas may have an interest in peace, but they have not completed that transition from political outsider to political insider, and it is not clear if they ever will.

Israel is clearly not blameless for the situation, but they have walked a fine line of justification. To me there is a clear difference in lauching rockets at civilians, and blowing up bombs in public places versus the targeted killings of those bomb makers. While there have been incidents of reprehensible behavior by Israelis they are not clearly the result of institutional mandates like those activities from the other side.

I believe that if the Palestinians stopped shooting and bombing then the Israelis would stop shooting and bombing too (especially since most Israeli attacks are targeted at terrorists). I know some people don't want to believe that, but most do.

As for the territorial disputes, Israel has many legitimate arguments there as well. However I agree that the expansion of the settlements while supposedly conducting sincere negotiations is clearly wrong. On the other hand, Israel did concede all the settlements and territory in the Gaza strip to the Palestinians unilaterally.

Finally, am I wrong or are the Egyptians keeping their border to Gaza closed as well as the Israelis? After the behavior of the Palestinians towards Egypt I'm not surprised. Those bombings in Egypt shortly after the Israelis left Gaza were not a bright move by the Palestinians.

[Fechter1]

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?

.

Can you please link to the Hamas internal document where these strategic goals are outlined?
Otherwise, you are making assumptions. And if those assumptions are based on the media coverage that you are fed here in the US, then they're based on incomplete information.

Even if your interpretation is correct, is Israel then not playing directly into Hamas' hand? Yes, the military action is going to reduce Hamas manpower and weapons stashes, maybe even decimate them in the short run. However, when balanced against the (more than likely) increased support for Hamas as a direct result of the mass punishment and killing of civilians, then I would say the IDF's operation could very well be seen as a strategic victory for Hamas, and a detriment to Israel's security in the long run.

Every heavy-handed response by Israel, however justified, is going to exacerbate the situation, not resolve it. What is needed is a diplomatic approach, undermine Hamas' support through aid and education rather than military force. Actually, that's what was needed last fall, when the number of rocket launches into Israel were at their lowest point in recent history. I'm not sure it's even possible at this stage.

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?

Not quite sure what to make of this post... Could be read either way, as a rebuttal or as a quite sarcastic attempt to invalidate someone's argument... I'd love to know which it is, so that I may respond properly.

[OROD]

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?

Your question answers itself.

.

[keith]

Not quite sure what to make of this post... Could be read either way, as a rebuttal or as a quite sarcastic attempt to invalidate aomeone's argument... I'd love to know which it is, so that I may respond properly.

Well it's a bit of both.

The normal rhetorical device (which was used in a Kasparov OpEd in the WSJ yesterday) is phrased as a critique of those who challenge the proportionality of Israeli military responses; Write down the number of Israelis who have to die before the state of Israel is allowed to respond.

It works the other way around of course. Like all the best rhetorical tricks what matters is who gets it in first

[keith]

Your question answers itself.

.

Your answer balances all.

[OROD]

Can you please link to the Hamas internal document where these strategic goals are outlined?
Otherwise, you are making assumptions. And if those assumptions are based on the media coverage that you are fed here in the US, then they're based on incomplete information.

http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm

From the Hamas Charter:

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it"

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him."

"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad."

You were saying what now?

.

[pigeonmeister]

Hamas is not an Iranian proxy, however Hezbollah is. Syria is the other major player backing Hamas. Iran, through Hezbollah, is now a major player in the region, and was not previously despite it's conflicts with the Arab states in the past.

Quite clearly the biggest boost to Iran's regional position it not its relationship with Hezbollah, but the fact that its biggest military rival (Iraq) has been taken out by the US. Not only has it been taken out, but it has been replaced by a fellow Shia dominated Iraq- most of whose clerical and political elite were either previously based in Iran, actually Iranian (e.g. Sistani) or in some way amenable to close relations with Iran.

In fact, its other bitterest foe, the Taliban, has also been taken out by the US. Furthermore, Hezbollah is not a proxy in the sense that it will do anything Iran wants it to do. This is a ridiculous assertion that totally ignores the genuine popularity of Hezbollah amongst the Lebanese (which actually often goes even beyond the Shia community). It's not a struggle that Iran can simply turn on and off at will.

Furthermore, it was Israel's ill conceived invasion that strengthened Lebanon's political position in Lebanon.

The battle between Hamas and Fatah is mostly about power, not ideology. If Fatah is not completely anti-Israel it is likely only to form a contrast to Hamas. I have no faith that they have a serious interest in peace although I fervently hope I am wrong.

With respect, the hope that you are fervently wrong increasingly appears quite a realistic one. Power battles exist within any two competing national movements- I see no reason for this obvious fact to obscure important ideological differences between them.

As a terrorist organization Hamas has never had a desire for peace; that would put them out of business.

Except when they offer terms of ceasefire which are ignored by Israel.

Listen, I'm not arguing that Hamas is not an extreme organisation which has a committed terrorist component. The point is that they have been elected by a majority of Gazans who, as much as you want to believe it, do not want continous conflict with Israel or to unleash a non stop conveyor belt of suicide bombers on Israeli civilians. Why don't you ask yourself why this is?

Perhaps it's also interesting to note that when Israel perceived Fatah as the gravest threat it tacitly encouraged Hamas (in the early 1980s). Now the opposite exists.

Israel is clearly not blameless for the situation, but they have walked a fine line of justification. To me there is a clear difference in lauching rockets at civilians, and blowing up bombs in public places versus the targeted killings of those bomb makers.

You have a very broad notion of the word 'targetted'. You don't seem to want to qualify the word 'not blameless either'- rather drop it in without actually drawing any parameters for apportioning that blame.

There seems to be an almost unchallenged assumption in the US media that the suffering of the Palestinians is entirely their own fault.

I believe that if the Palestinians stopped shooting and bombing then the Israelis would stop shooting and bombing too (especially since most Israeli attacks are targeted at terrorists). I know some people don't want to believe that, but most do.

Then why did Israeli start the bombing, coincidently close to a change of admin in the US and an election in Israel, when Hamas offered to reinstate a ceasefire that had previously ended 99% of the rocket attacks?

More importantly, would the Israelis halt illegal settlements, end the blockade and establish more equatable distribution of natural resources if the bombing ended? Again, they failed to when a ceasefire ended 99% of these attacks.

On the other hand, Israel did concede all the settlements and territory in the Gaza strip to the Palestinians unilaterally.

Largely because they could not longer occupy them effectively. In Gaza, the Jewish settlers numbered only 8,000 in 2005 compared with 1.4 million local residents. Yet the settlers controlled 25% of the territory, 40% of the arable land and the lion's share of the scarce water resources.

You are absolutely right to note that all 8000 were removed. You singularly fail to mention that in 2006 12,000 more settlers had moved into the West Bank. It was simply a tactical adjustment by Israel.

Of course, Israeli soldiers continued to control all access to the Gaza Strip by land, sea and air.

The IRA were created and became popular because of the manifest descrimination of catholics in Ireland and a history of British colonial acquisitions and 'settlers'. The Brits responded with more disrimination, suspending the rule of law and more atrocities- the IRA became more popular. The IRA targetted civilians and their mandate was committed to the destruction of the British state in Ireland. Naive East coast Americans were happy to channel funds to them.

How was the crisis ended, or at least defused? The UK government apparently compromised its so called democratic credentials and engaged with terrorists and disbanded descriminatory institutions.

There is no military solution Israel can pursue.

[pigeonmeister]

This is a sensitive video game tribute to the Gaza conflict

Save Israel http://www.kongregate.com/games/amihanya/save-israel

Raid Gaza: http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/476393

“You get 5 minutes. Eliminate as many Palestinians as possible.” (direct quote)

[OROD]

...

It's hard to have any sympathy for a terrorist group or the population that supports it. As you pointed out, Hamas WAS elected into power by the people of Gaza.

.

[Timo]

Perhaps I'm naive, but doesn't this all go back to the fact that the Israelis forcefully removed the native population to set up a country?

[OROD]

Perhaps I'm naive, but doesn't this all go back to the fact that the Israelis forcefully removed the native population to set up a country?

That region has a very long and complicated history, but I'm sure you can make a good argument that the Jews ARE that areas native population... since they've been there for some thousands of years.

.

[Purple Fencer]

Perhaps I'm naive, but doesn't this all go back to the fact that the Israelis forcefully removed the native population to set up a country?

Or that a country was carved out for the Israelis and the Palestinians were left out of the process.

Or that the Palestinians have been used as pawns by damn near every government in the region for decades.

Or that the hatred between Jews and Muslims goes back so far that the only true peace in the region will be the peace of the grave.

NO side's hands are clean here...ALL share the blame, but NONE want to really want to learn to live together...certainly not those who are just trying to get by. Those in power on both sides are in the thick of causing the suffering.

And it's ALL based on religion...my God is better than your God and I'll kill you if you say differently...stupid, wasteful, and why I don't practice anymore.

[Purple Fencer]

That region has a very long and complicated history, but I'm sure you can make a good argument that the Jews ARE that areas native population... since they've been there for some thousands of years.

.

That'sa major element of the problem....the concept of a racial/ethnic/religious entitlement to the region. Muslims were there for a long time too....but funny, I don't see any of those orginal inhabitants speaking up..instead we have people on both sides chewing over grievances TWO THOUSAND YEARS or more old...effing stupid, effing moronic...and a perfect example of Yoda's quote ""Fear leads to Anger. Anger leads to Hate. Hate leads to suffering."

[OROD]

Cant we all just get along?

.

[telkanuru]

I was personally very fond of the NYT cartoon, which suggested to people calling for a "proportional response" by Israel that perhaps they should just fire rockets into the Strip.

I find the whole PR situation insane. Were the Palasinians being treated unfairly by Israel in terms of blocading, etc? Quite probably. Does this justify a cease-fire breach and rocket attacks on civilians? Definitely not. Do I feel sorry that Palastinian civilians are being killed? Absolutely. Do I blame Israel for Hamas hiding weapons in schools? Nope.

[Purple Fencer]

My wife said tha someone on the Rachel Maddow show likened Israel and Hamas to a pair of gangs in an extended turf war...pretty apt, actually.

Bloods/Crips...Hell's Angels/Mongols...Israel/Hamas/Hezbollah....same thing, really....just in the ME, more people get hurt.

[pigeonmeister]

Does this justify a cease-fire breach and rocket attacks on civilians? Definitely not.

I keep saying this and no one seems to respond but- Israel broke the terms of the cease-fire; if not at the same time then before Hamas did.

Do I feel sorry that Palastinian civilians are being killed? Absolutely. Do I blame Israel for Hamas hiding weapons in schools? Nope.

Do you have any figures for the number of innocent Palestinians killed in schools where Hamas were hiding weapons, compared with those just killed in the street or in their homes? Nope. Do you respond to the fact that 40 Palestinians were killed in a school run by the UN? Nope.

[Gav]

My wife said tha someone on the Rachel Maddow show likened Israel and Hamas to a pair of gangs in an extended turf war...pretty apt, actually.

Bloods/Crips...Hell's Angels/Mongols...Israel/Hamas/Hezbollah....same thing, really....just in the ME, more people get hurt.

I really don't agree with this statement.

[keith]

I really don't agree with this statement.

Why not. After all while it is fun to explain the Israel/Palestine conflict as the great existential struggle of our time that encompasses all the vagaries of religion, national identity and the nature of self definition and determination; there are other simpler explanations.

Here's one. Anyone notice that likud's lead in the opinion polls has dropped?

[Fechter1]

http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm

From the Hamas Charter:

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it"

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him."

"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad."

You were saying what now?

.

Thank you for linking this. I take it it's an interpretation of a translation of the original document? I did notice though that the linked websit eis decidedly anti-Hamas...

However, the point I've tried to make still stand. This military action is not going to accomplish in terms of alleviating negativde feelings among the Palestinians towards Israel. Indeed, it is much more likely to exacerbate the situation and poison future diplomatic attemps at conflict resolution.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. Collectively punishing 1.5 million people to get to the few thousand actual fighters is simply counterproductive, and will create more terrorists than it kills.

I must at this time voice another matter. I do not appreciate the derogatory tone in your posts. I have tried hard to keep my side of the discussion civil, free of personal attacks or the flippant language that is prevalent in these discussions. If you cannot be bothered to afford me the same curtesy, then all I have left to say to you is good day.