Gaza

[Fechter1]

I'm afraid I just don't agree with this. There are no reliable, unbiased sources that could possibly verify whether Hamas truly made an effort to rein in the so-called splinter factions.

Did they truly make an effort? Hamas had no problem using violence against fellow Palestinians to take control of Gaza from Fatah, the legitimate executive authority; the streets ran with blood. But all they could do was ask for the rockets to stop and then shrug and go home? Forgive me if I seem cynical.

I will now link to this a THIRD time...
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=45350

Despite Israel's refusal to end the siege, Hamas brought rocket and mortar fire from Gaza to a virtual halt last summer and fall, as revealed by a report by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC) in Tel Aviv last month. ITIC is part of the Israel Intelligence Heritage & Commemoration Centre (IICC), an NGO which is close to the Israeli intelligence community.

<snip>
The report recalls that Hamas "tried to enforce the terms of the arrangement" on other Palestinian groups, taking "a number of steps against networks which violated the arrangement," including short-term detention and confiscating their weapons. It even found that Hamas had sought support in Gazan public opinion for its policy of maintaining the ceasefire.

Please take the time to read it this time...

And if you claim the ITIC to be biased, please support that charge.

[Fechter1]

I've just watched Gerald Kaufman give an astonishing speech in the house of commons. He's a staunch believer in the right for Israel to exist - and he's a Jew. Even he is saying that the Israeli government is cynically trying to manipulate this crisis.

So clearly he must be a terrorist sympathizer and an anti-semite... [/sarcasm]

[Hauptman]

I will now link to this a THIRD time...
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=45350



Please take the time to read it this time...

And if you claim the ITIC to be biased, please support that charge.

I read the article, and it appears that there were issues that had little to do with the terms of the cease-fire.

Hamas was digging a tunnel near the Israeli security fence for "defensive purposes". Israel blew up the tunnel operation, and then Hamas gave up on the cease-fire completely, launching dozens of rockets, and the situation spiraled from there.

Was Israel justified in taking out the tunnel operation? Was Hamas then justified in firing rockets? Who knows. We've already established that violence is a useless approach for both sides. I still have doubts as to Hamas' true desire for peace. Do you truly believe that tunnel was being dug for defensive purposes?

Neither side fully complied with the cease-fire agreement, but a restricted border is not the same as firing rockets at civilians in my opinion. And I would still like to know why Egypt and Jordan have their borders closed to the Palestinians, but it is demanded that Israel fully open their border crossings.

And are the closed borders that big a problem? They seem to have no problem importing weapons to Gaza. If only they spent as much effort bringing in less destructive items.

[Fechter1]

[QUOTE=Hauptman;765589]I read the article, and it appears that there were issues that had little to do with the terms of the cease-fire.

Hamas was digging a tunnel near the Israeli security fence for "defensive purposes". Israel blew up the tunnel operation, and then Hamas gave up on the cease-fire completely, launching dozens of rockets, and the situation spiraled from there.

Was Israel justified in taking out the tunnel operation? Was Hamas then justified in firing rockets? Who knows. We've already established that violence is a useless approach for both sides. I still have doubts as to Hamas' true desire for peace. Do you truly believe that tunnel was being dug for defensive purposes?
[QUOTE]Let's see... Digging a tunnel - NOT against the terms of the cease-fire. While it MAY have been INTENDED to launch an attack, we'll never know. Point is, no attack was launched.
IDF incursion into Gaza (killing 6 (?) 'militants') - Definitely against the terms of the cease-fire.

Neither side fully complied with the cease-fire agreement, but a restricted border is not the same as firing rockets at civilians in my opinion. And I would still like to know why Egypt and Jordan have their borders closed to the Palestinians, but it is demanded that Israel fully open their border crossings.

And are the closed borders that big a problem? They seem to have no problem importing weapons to Gaza. If only they spent as much effort bringing in less destructive items.

Are you seriously claiming that lack of food, water, medicine, energy is not much of a problem??? Israel is basically trying to starve the Gaza strip into submission. Personally, I admire the restraint of the Palestinians not to launch attacks before Nov 4...
As for the weaponry, they had been accumulated over the course of months through the smuggling tunnels along the Egypt border. What I find curious is that the IDF only started going after these smuggling tunnels AFTER it became known that they were no longer used to smuggle weapons but food, medicine, and other basic supplies, and that 2 of the 'mistaken fire' incidents just happened to hit the UN humanitarian relief effort. While I am not privy to IDF mission planning sessions, the timing seems more than suspect, and only serves to reinforce the notion that Israel is trying to starve out Gaza entirely.

In addition to a halt in all military actions by both sides, 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.

Nevertheless, Israeli officials freely acknowledged in interviews with ICG last June that they had no intention of opening the border crossings fully, even though they anticipated that this would be the source of serious conflict with Hamas.

Admissions of Israeli officials that they never intended to follow the terms of the cease-fire... The events on Nov 4 were merely the proverbial straw.
Especially after the obvious efforts that Hamas had gone through to eliminate attacks (i.e. fulfill their part of the cease-fire agreement):

...it shows that only one rocket was launched from Gaza in September and one in October.

To paraphrase a Palestinian scholar heard on NPR a little while ago: "The Israeli notion of a cease-fire means that we have to stop shooting while they can assassinate us at will..."


Gav, do you have a link to the Kaufman speech script?

[Hauptman]

Except there were supplies flowing into Gaza under the ceasefire! Quite a bit more than prior to the ceasefire, yes, firing rockets versus a border that was open but just not completely open enough to let through arms and suicide-bombers is a horrible comparison.

And I will ask again; why is it that Egypt and Jordan have closed borders to the Palestinians, but the Israelis are expected to have completely open borders?

And to say that building a tunnel near the security perimeter is not explicitly against the terms of the ceasefire is completely disingenuous. Did the ceasefire explicitly rule out every method of attack or illegal activity? Do you really believe that tunnel operation was legitimate? That just doesn't seem sincere.

[Fechter1]

Except there were supplies flowing into Gaza under the ceasefire! Quite a bit more than prior to the ceasefire, yes, firing rockets versus a border that was open but just not completely open enough to let through arms and suicide-bombers is a horrible comparison.

Can you back those claims?
Reference back to that article...

The Israelis opened the access points only partially <...> The Hamas representative in Lebanon, Usam Hamdan, told the ICG in late December that the flow of goods and fuel into Gaza had been only 15 percent of its basic needs.

Yes they let through a little more stuff, but those were not the terms of the June Cease-fire. Once again, Hamas complied with their commitments, while Israel did not. Plain and simple

And I will ask again; why is it that Egypt and Jordan have closed borders to the Palestinians, but the Israelis are expected to have completely open borders?

I will admit that I do not know the whole story about the Gaza-Egypt crossings. But I do remember Egyptian officials stating at some point that even if they let people through, they would only be turned back at the other end of the crossing.
Besides, even if they were let in, the IDF has proven a bit trigger-happy, even against UN and ICRC vehicles...
Who controls the Gaza side of that border? And what do you think would happen if that border was fully opened?

And to say that building a tunnel near the security perimeter is not explicitly against the terms of the ceasefire is completely disingenuous. Did the ceasefire explicitly rule out every method of attack or illegal activity? Do you really believe that tunnel operation was legitimate? That just doesn't seem sincere.

But the fact is that tunnel building was not covered by the cease-fire terms. At this point, the palestinian 'militants' were killed for DIGGING. We do not know what the tunnel was to be used for. (You know, that whole "Innocent until proven guilty" thing...)
Let me reiterate: The cease-fire agreement barred any sort of military operation across the border. Unless you can prove to me that the tunnel crossed the border, Israel was the sole aggressor on Nov 4.

[Hauptman]

Yes they let through a little more stuff, but those were not the terms of the June Cease-fire. Once again, Hamas complied with their commitments, while Israel did not. Plain and simple

Plain and simple? Clearly not. If Israel only partially complied with the ceasefire, Hamas just as clearly did the same.

Look, I'm not saying that the Israelis are completely blameless for the mess over there. But they have been under constant attack from the very inception of their country, and every attempt at peace has been met with surprise attacks, kidnappings, and suicide bombers. If their tactics have become more heavy handed over the years if may be they are justifiably losing patience.

Hamas has been unwilling to make any real concessions over the years. They grabbed power in Gaza by gunning down the legitimate elected executive authority. Egypt and Jordan, their closest neighbors, want nothing to do with them. And if they can't even acknowledge the right of Israel to exist then there really isn't anything more to discuss.

[Inquartata]

This is semantic waffle.

Mmmmm....waffles....

[Fechter1]

Plain and simple? Clearly not. If Israel only partially complied with the ceasefire, Hamas just as clearly did the same.

Again, please provide sources to support your claims that Hamas did not attempt to to fulfill the term of the June cease-fire.

I have as yet not seen you post one shred of support for ANY of your claims.

[Inquartata]

Much as I admire your inclusion of the word 'hoplogist' in any post, it does seem, as Gav points out, a bit waffley. The final sentence is totally unqualified and, in my opinion, based upon your own assumptions.

Well, one does of course expect one's interlocutor to agree with anyone who sides with him in an argument. However, the term is not less correct because it is more precise.

Perhaps- but what I was driving at is that you first post was very clear that a military solution did not exist. It seems bizarre now that you try and justify Israeli's strategic aims.

I don't believe that Israel has any illusions that they are going to "win". I still agree that there is no ( acceptable ) military solution to the Palestinian question. However, there may well be military solutions to specific problems on a smaller scale, such as the rocketings, Hamas stockpiling armaments, and so on.

Just because you say so?

Because it's true. Goes back to August 28, 2005, the Beersheba central bus station. As you well knew, I suspect.

If Israel allowed 99% of aid into Gaza, withdrew 99% of its illegal settlements, released 99% of the Palestinians held without charge, ended 99% of its assassinations and incursions then the world would say of Israel 'blessed are the peacemakers'.

Except for Syria, Libya, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, etc, etc, etc.

Oh, and of course the Palestinians. Who would say "Allah be praised, our ultimate destruction of the Zionists draws near!"

There would almost certainly be a lasting peace.

I see that you are an optimist. As opposed to a realist.

However, if a group possibly beyond even the control of Hamas, threw one rocket into a field, Israel would theoretically have the right to slaughter over a thousand Palestinians?

"Possibly"?

Even when you point out that it will not make Israelis any safer?

Except that I never said any such thing...

The IRA failed to hand in all its weapons, end its illegal rackets in N Ireland, even continued to kill and maim- Britain still released cop killers from jail and withdrew the army. Republican extremists then unleashed the worst atrocity of the conflict (Omagh)- did the British army destroy Londonderry or end the peace process? Yet the British people are now safer from republican terrorism than at any time. Northern Ireland is transformed.

What's your point? The Irish are not the Palestinians.

Did even the US expect any concessions from Sunni awakening groups in Anbar- in exchage for their alliance?

I don't know. And how is it relevant?

Drat, the library is closing. Anon...

[Hauptman]

Again, please provide sources to support your claims that Hamas did not attempt to to fulfill the term of the June cease-fire.

I have as yet not seen you post one shred of support for ANY of your claims.

Attempting to stop firing rockets into civilian settlements was not part of the agreement.

Hamas does not recognize the existence of the state of Israel, and it is still the stated goal of Hamas to destroy the Israeli people; ignore it if you want. They are criminals and thugs who had no problem murdering their fellow Palestinians to illegally take control of the Gaza strip.

Until Hamas is willing to at least acknowledge the right of the Israeli people to even exist there is no point to further discussion. Given their positions, one could wonder whether Hamas has the right to exist.

[Inquartata]

To continue:

So the nature or strategic relevance of the relationship is unimportant?
This is basically another one of your rhetorical vanities.

Were you paying attention to the examples I cited?

Or do you think that the Sandinistas were NOT American proxies? Do you think that Vietnam was NOT a proxy war?

To act as a proxy for another does not denote automaton-like obedience and an utter lack of will of one's own. It is merely one empowered to act for another. Iran empowers Hamas with material, monetary and intelligence support. Hamas acts in a manner approved and wished by Iran. Do you disgree with any of these characterizations?

Basically, you don't know.

You mean, in the same way that you don't know---but still assert---that Hamas would welcome peace under thus-and-such conditions? In the same way that you don't know---but still assert---that Iran is NOT a proxy of Iran? ( Or do you have inside knowledge about what Hamas leadership thinks, wants and plans? ) The same way you don't know---but still assert---all of Mr. Greenstocks' points...even though Greenstock "doesn't know" any of them are in fact accurate, either?

That "you don't know" tactic is a sword with two edges. It cuts both ways.

Didn't stop you from making sweeping statements on their modus operandi and tactical intentions re the peace process.

There is a large difference. You and Mr. Greenstock listen to what Hamas says and draw your conclusions from that. I, and most people, watch what it does, not what it says. Deeds are a far better indicator of intent than words. ( Albeit we have an abundance of their words backing up the conclusions drawn from watching their actions, as well. You just choose to label THOSE rhetoric and the ones that support your beliefs as stating Hamas' true feelings and intentions. Seems pretty arbitrary to me. )

When Hamas kills Israeli civilians, it is pretty clear that its intention is to kill Israelis. It can mouth platitudes all it wants, but until it starts acting on them and not on the blustering threats you shouldn't expect anyone to pay much attention to them. But the rockets and bombs are too real to mistake.

Violence is the sad reality of the situation, it just isn't sustainable to charterise it as a never ending cycle of Palestinian infractions and reluctant Israeli self defense. Israel's rhetoric and action in support of a lasting peace has been no less empty.

Again, looking just at deeds, the comparison is not even close...

For example, when they withdraw settlers from gaza in the name of 'peace', they simply ship them (and more) into the West Bank.

I find it odd that you actually equate establishment of settlements with spraying schoolchildren with automatic weapons fire...

Hamas’ conditions include guarantees that Israel will lift the blockade on Gaza,

Oh, and by the way---Gaza has two borders, you know. A blockade will not work if one is open. So why is this only an Israeli blockade? Maybe the Palestinians are not particularly loved by their fellows in the region, either? Maybe they were an ill-tempered, truculent lot of troublemakers long before 1948? Maybe they form a convenient rhetorical truncheon with which to beat the hated Zionists, but little more, to their brothers in Islam across the Egyptian border and elsewhere?

But hey, why even mention Egypt when everyone knows that it's Israel and only Israel which is the source of all the woes of the poor, innocent, peaceable, oppressed Palestinians. Right?

Hamas sources say that if Israel accepts the Egyptian proposals, “We will be ready to start (the ceasefire) immediately.”

Right...in the same ways that it observed previous ones? With just a FEW rocket attacks, and only the OCCASIONAL suicide bomber, and just a SMATTERING of mortars? Which should not, indeed cannot, be construed as violations. Because, of course, the poor victims of Hamas are entitled to a little bit of mayhem, conditional on their victimhood?


And---I'm out of time again!

[Purple Fencer]

Israel declareda cease fire....Hamas continued to lob missiles into Israel...Israel responds....at least Israel STOPPED for a bit.

Hamas doesn't understand the meaning of the words "cease fire"....they appear to be taking a page from the North Vietnam playbook...using cease fires to reorganize and rearm.

Israelmay be going over the top here (although there's only so many times you can poke the tiger in the eye before he retaliates big time), but Hamas is MORE in the wrong.

[bpm]

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

Haven't seen you answer this question yet - Are you really suggesting that random rocket attacks are "Ok" - because nobody had been killed in a while?


-B

[Slim]

The position in America is this: Israel is justified in doing anything it likes to Palestinians because Hamas and Israel are morally unequivalent.

What others suggest is that the political and moral dimensions of the conflict are actually a lot more complicated than this.

Not this again.

PM, you are a troll. This thread is nothing more than another attempt for you to rationalize terrorism and bash Israel and the US. No one commented on what is happening over there because it's the same old $hite, and we're tired of it. High 5's to Israel for getting the job done.

Be gone. Again.

[Slim]

Haven't seen you answer this question yet - Are you really suggesting that random rocket attacks are "Ok" - because nobody had been killed in a while?


-B

Yes, actually he is.

[pigeonmeister]

Haven't seen you answer this question yet - Are you really suggesting that random rocket attacks are "Ok" - because nobody had been killed in a while?

-B

Hi- I don't have time to respond to Inq's lengthy posts, but hope to get to them in due course. You know, all through this debate I was thinking 'I wonder when Slim will emerge from under his rock to offer his usual delightful input.' As usual, I don't think he has done himself any favours by doing so.

On the specific point above, I have time to offer a quick response.

Clearly not. I am suggesting that it is a false analysis to suggest that this was a one sided infraction by Hamas. I would simply ask why Israel alone retains the right to apply psychological, economic, political and military pressure- and kill and maim indiscriminantly (which is what rocket attacks and an economic blockage amount to).

I also posit that the analysis 'Hamas targets civilians and Israel targets terrorists' is unsustainable. It is clearly not demonstrable by dropping one ton bombs from 30,000 feet on one of the most densely populated cities in the world. What has occured in Gaza has been indiscriminate reprisals against the Palestinian people.

I think also the wider Israeli strategy, which is to pretend that Hamas effectively doesn't exist politically, is unrealistic. I think, equally, that the ceasefire, and not this latest war, was more effective in maintaining Israel's security. I also contend that Israel showed little interest in maintaining the terms of the ceasefire and put quite a lot of effort into demonstrating how they had broken it.

More generally, I don't disregard the concept of proportionality simply because Israel is the more 'righteous'. I can't see how those attacks warrant 1300 deaths- I further find that, to some extent at least, Palestinians have been killed for political and electoral expediency and for the sake of the IDF's reputation (after Lebanon, 2006).

In conclusion, I think it is disengenous to suggest that the entire justification for starting and prosecuting this war, and its wider context, can be reduced to the question I was asked at the top of this post. That it was asked, in my opinion, is simply evidence of the black and white terms in which events involving any element of radical Islam are often viewed in post-9/11 America.

Perhaps predictably, unlike almost anywhere else in the world, in the US this makes me an appeaser of terror and, at least to some on this thread, a pathological jew hating nazi.

[pigeonmeister]

Not this again.

PM, you are a troll. This thread is nothing more than another attempt for you to rationalize terrorism and bash Israel and the US. No one commented on what is happening over there because it's the same old $hite, and we're tired of it. High 5's to Israel for getting the job done.

Be gone. Again.

I'd like to thank a fellow forumite for pointing out that Slim probably lives in a bunker in the Rockies with enough weaponry to flatten Gaza on his own and tinned food to last a decade.

[Slim]

Hi- I don't have time to respond to Inq's lengthy posts, but hope to get to them in due course. You know, all through this debate I was thinking 'I wonder when Slim will emerge from under his rock to offer his usual delightful input.' As usual, I don't think he has done himself any favours by doing so.

On the specific point above, I have time to offer a quick response.

Clearly not. I am suggesting that it is a false analysis to suggest that this was a one sided infraction by Hamas. I would simply ask why Israel alone retains the right to apply psychological, economic, political and military pressure- and kill and maim indiscriminantly (which is what rocket attacks and an economic blockage amount to).

I also posit that the analysis 'Hamas targets civilians and Israel targets terrorists' is unsustainable. It is clearly not demonstrable by dropping one ton bombs from 30,000 feet on one of the most densely populated cities in the world. What has occured in Gaza has been indiscriminate reprisals against the Palestinian people.

I think also the wider Israeli strategy, which is to pretend that Hamas effectively doesn't exist politically, is unrealistic. I think, equally, that the ceasefire, and not this latest war, was more effective in maintaining Israel's security. I also contend that Israel showed little interest in maintaining the terms of the ceasefire and put quite a lot of effort into demonstrating how they had broken it.

More generally, I don't disregard the concept of proportionality simply because Israel is the more 'righteous'. I can't see how those attacks warrant 1300 deaths- I further find that, to some extent at least, Palestinians have been killed for political and electoral expediency and for the sake of the IDF's reputation (after Lebanon, 2006).

In conclusion, I think it is disengenous to suggest that the entire justification for starting and prosecuting this war, and its wider context, can be reduced to the question I was asked at the top of this thread. That it was asked, in my opinion, is simply evidence of the black and white terms in which events involving any element of radical Islam are often viewed in post-9/11 America.

Perhaps predictably, unlike almost anywhere else in the world, in the US this makes me an appeaser of terror and, at least to some on this thread, a pathological jew hating nazi.

We Americans certainly are a simple and predictable lot, aren't we?

For anyone new here, this is classic PM rhetoric. It's the same old tune we hear from him every time events in the middle east predictably boil over and the people causing the trouble get whacked.

What I find disingenuous was your feeble attempt to dance around your original intent, which is once again merely to justify and defend the continued anti-social behavior of certain elements of the islamic faith.

You may return to waving your green flag now.

[Slim]

I'd like to thank a fellow forumite for pointing out that Slim probably lives in a bunker in the Rockies with enough weaponry to flatten Gaza on his own and tinned food to last a decade.

Wonderful. Now I have to move again.....