Speaking of Israel...

[Hooahguy]

So apparently a cease-fire was called, but Hamas kept sending rockets, so Israel started bombing again.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

One of the problems, of course, is that Hamas is not a discrete entity but a coalition. It does not speak with one voice or act according to one set of directions.

[Idaho]

So apparently a cease-fire was called, but Hamas kept sending rockets, so Israel started bombing again.

This is a standard Israeli trick. They attack, kill hundreds, offer a "ceasefire" which has some totally unacceptable conditions - then make a big fuss when this ceasefire is rejected.

Hundreds of Palestinians dead after collective punishment attacks from state of the art military. Zero Israeli dead after random crude rocket attacks from fringe group. This is not an even fight.

[Fragony]

Pffffft, having as many civilians as possible killed is what Hamas is after. Cynical but true. Hamas has a better weapon, the media, and they play it like a violin, and everybody falls for it.

[Hooahguy]

This is a standard Israeli trick. They attack, kill hundreds, offer a "ceasefire" which has some totally unacceptable conditions - then make a big fuss when this ceasefire is rejected.

Hundreds of Palestinians dead after collective punishment attacks from state of the art military. Zero Israeli dead after random crude rocket attacks from fringe group. This is not an even fight.

I thought Egypt offered the cease-fire?
And apparently one Israeli was killed by mortar fire yesterday.

[Fragony]

I thought Egypt offered the cease-fire?
And apparently one Israeli was killed by mortar fire yesterday.

Did they, or did they offer a way out of escalation. That was rejected. Hamas needs dead Palestinians more than a junk needs crack. In the meantime normal Palestinians who never harmed anybody get bombed because Hamas is more into pr then anything else. They are sacrificing their own, kinda screwed. Stop firing that shit and you won't be hit back, and continue herding your wives and loving goats, or was it the other way around. Stop firing rockets. You can say 'what's it to me', but antisemitism is what islamist colonists brought here and we just got rid of it, or should I call them immigrants, sounds better.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Did they, or did they offer a way out of escalation. That was rejected. Hamas needs dead Palestinians more than a junk needs crack. In the meantime normal Palestinians who never harmed anybody get bombed because Hamas is more into pr then anything else. They are sacrificing their own, kinda screwed. Stop firing that shit and you won't be hit back, and continue herding your wives and loving goats, or was it the other way around. Stop firing rockets. You can say 'what's it to me', but antisemitism is what islamist colonists brought here and we just got rid of it, or should I call them immigrants, sounds better.

While simple enough on one level, "don't shoot at me and I won't shoot at you," the position you advance fails to consider the living conditions in Gaza. Lots of people crowded together, haphazard infrastructure, huge un and under employment, disproportionate numbers of youths to elders....violence is no less a certainty there than in Chicago's south side. Then you add in Hamas, which provides a focus for that frustration-generated anger.

As to the most recent Israeli attack, Israel is taking the easy way out by lumping all of Hamas into one label. Hamas is a kaleidoscope, and the shifting fragments do NOT always line up on one goal or set of behaviors. Hamas -- the larger leadership elements -- may very well have agreed to and kept this latest cease fire (hard to know). But some fragment repudiated it, acted, and Israel struck back at Hamas.

Is it ethical to punish all of Hamas and Gaza for what may have been the unsanctioned actions of a comparative few? One argument says yes -- that if you claim leadership you must enforce your authority upon your membership and if you cannot you will be held responsible. The other position holds that efforts should only be focused upon the guilty few. The second route is much harder, requiring time and intelligence resources and some degree of cooperation.

Cognitively, it is much simpler to just lob rockets at known targets....much easier than doing the meticulous detective work required for specificity. Besides, the rockets have a shelf life and you eventually have to throw them away if you don't use them.

[Fragony]

Of course it's not ethical to punish the whole of Gaza, but is that happening? The Palestinians are the victim of their own government and whoever they are that are really controlling them. I can't blame Israel for being the way they are, I am glad I am not an Israeli who has to have an opinion on it, and I am extra-glad I don't live in Gaza. But who should you really blame. Hamas or Israel? I wouldn't know, but I am absolutily rooting for those that aren't out to destroy everything, guess who I root more for.

[Beskar]

Reason why it is such a mess is because after the initial partition, Egypt and Jordan annexed Gaza and the Westbank and alienated the citizens by not granting citizenship. These then declared war on Israel, and got stomped with Israel taking those areas and Sinai in the peace-deal. Israel since voluntary gave up these lands and Sinai to the respective parties involved.

A solution would be to build settlements in Egypt and Jordan and allow the Palestinians to emigrate to them and be granted respective citizenship. Israel then annexes the Gaza-strip and West-Bank, integrating the remaining citizens. This would be a death-blow to the Palestinian state, but if this is done correctly, it might produce the most ideal solution for everyone involved, even if they are not happy with it.

[Ja'chyra]

This is a standard Israeli trick. They attack, kill hundreds, offer a "ceasefire" which has some totally unacceptable conditions - then make a big fuss when this ceasefire is rejected.

Hundreds of Palestinians dead after collective punishment attacks from state of the art military. Zero Israeli dead after random crude rocket attacks from fringe group. This is not an even fight.

Seriously? Why would you enter a fair fight when the very existence of the nation people have bled and died for is at risk?

While I don't advocate the bombing of civilians I do defend their right to defend themselves from the thousands of rockets fired their way. Oh, and before we criticize too much, how many civvies dies in Afghanistan and Iraq?

[Pannonian]

Seriously? Why would you enter a fair fight when the very existence of the nation people have bled and died for is at risk?

While I don't advocate the bombing of civilians I do defend their right to defend themselves from the thousands of rockets fired their way. Oh, and before we criticize too much, how many civvies dies in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Erm, the existence of Israel isn't at risk. Nothing the Palestinians can do can put the existence of Israel at risk, except maybe pushing for a one state solution and then breeding like rabbits. Individual Israelis may be at risk, but not the Israeli nation. When those bombers blew up 3 tube trains and a bus in 2005, commuters were at risk, but not the British nation, nor even the city of London. I took the tube to St John's Wood for the Lord's Test a few days after that, and I never felt threatened.

[HoreTore]

how many civvies dies in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Way too many, which is why I have opposed those wars from the very beginning.

NATO is critized every single day. Don't act like we live in a fantasy world where Israel is demonized and NATO glorified.

[Papewaio]

How many have died to terrorism? Can anyone even quote he worst attack in Israel/Palistine
How many as collatoral damage?

I've said it before, there are much worse things then terrorism and police states is one of them.

Look at the amount of people who disappeared in the South American dictatorships, Apartheid South Africa and a quasi occupied Palistine.

[Pannonian]

Also, for a bona fide threat to the existence of a nation, see one suggested strategy for Gaza. Conquer with the army, expel its current inhabitants, replace with Israelis, and incorporate the territory into Israel. Now that is a bona fide threat to a nation, as opposed to individual members or clusters of people in that nation. And that suggestion was made by the presumed deputy to Israel's current ruling party (he was the only challenger to Netanyahu as Likud leader to get a significant number of votes). And should he ever lead an Israeli government, he'd be in a position to make that suggestion a reality, unlike the pipedreams of any Palestinian leaders.

Other wonderful suggestions of Mr. Feiglin: an upper house that would be open only to Jews. Even the ultra-conservative Wellington forced the King to open up the franchise and government to faiths other than the dominant one, way back in the early 19th century. Also, cut military expenditure (by 30% according to Mr. Feiglin's wonderful calculations) by abandoning non-lethal weaponry like rubber bullets against protestors (read: Palestinians), and use live ammunition instead. The presumed implication is that this will reduce their population as well.

[Kralizec]

Seriously? Why would you enter a fair fight when the very existence of the nation people have bled and died for is at risk?

While I don't advocate the bombing of civilians I do defend their right to defend themselves from the thousands of rockets fired their way. Oh, and before we criticize too much, how many civvies dies in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Most of the civilian casualties Afghanistan and in Iraq died at the hands of the insurgents, so you'll have to take that into account first. Honestly, I have no idea if the armed forces of other countries are more effective at preventing civilian deaths.

---

I think that some people in this thread treat the Gazan rockets too lightly. It's not about the raw casualty numbers they generate (allthough it would have been a lot higher without the Iron Dome) but the fact that they disrupt the daily life of thousands of Israelis. Fortunately for them, the Israeli are well prepared in both seeking shelter and treating their wounded.

That said, from a cost/benefit point of view, the rockets are a laughably ineffective weapon, as are the tunnels that they dig. You could easily compare them with the V-2 missiles that Nazi Germany used (comparing the weapons and their deployment - not the guys using them). They were horribly expensive and didn't accomplish anything, except disrupting the lives of civilians in and around London and making a slight dent in morale.

Pelting Israel with mortars and rockets, and occasionally killing two or three people with a tunnel that costs $500.000 before it's taken down, is completely irrational. It can only be explained by the fact that Hamas has absolutely no other way to fight Israel. Some people say that the Gazans feel compelled to fight Israel because they're islamists. I think the far, far more important reason is that the Palestinians are an opressed people. And they have no "civilized" means to fight back.

Israel's use of force does seem, at first sight, excessive to me this time. But ultimately I don't question their right to respond with military force to terrorist attacks, even if it does result in civilian casualties. They're forced to defend themselves. My problem is that they're to a large degree responsible for this situation in which they're forced to defend themselves. People who lay the blame entirely on Hamas should take into account that Fatah has been extremely cooperative with Israel in the last decade and it has gotten them nowhere, meanwhile Israel continues to colonize the west bank.

[Papewaio]

I think we should stop calling it colonizing which assumes that the invader also takes care of the locals see British Empire.

Settling also assumes that the land is part of Israel and not in a neighboring state.

I'm not sure what to call it but in light of Ukraine I would rename the settlers micro-annexation if trying to be PC. Outright invasion is what it actually is. So does a people have the right to spontaneously defend itself to a country invading its land?

Surely the Palestinians have as much right to eject invaders as Israel does.

[Pannonian]

I think we should stop calling it colonizing which assumes that the invader also takes care of the locals see British Empire.

Settling also assumes that the land is part of Israel and not in a neighboring state.

I'm not sure what to call it but in light of Ukraine I would rename the settlers micro-annexation if trying to be PC. Outright invasion is what it actually is. So does a people have the right to spontaneously defend itself to a country invading its land?

Surely the Palestinians have as much right to eject invaders as Israel does.

It's Old Testament-style conquest. Take over an area using force, expel or exterminate the current population, destroy their culture, and replace with one's own people and culture. See the Canaanites for an example of how to deal with an existing settlement.

[Ja'chyra]

Erm, the existence of Israel isn't at risk. Nothing the Palestinians can do can put the existence of Israel at risk, except maybe pushing for a one state solution and then breeding like rabbits. Individual Israelis may be at risk, but not the Israeli nation. When those bombers blew up 3 tube trains and a bus in 2005, commuters were at risk, but not the British nation, nor even the city of London. I took the tube to St John's Wood for the Lord's Test a few days after that, and I never felt threatened.

Their nation is at risk because to show any weakness would be to see itself wiped out from it's neighbours, Israel is in the unenviable position of having to be strong at all times and that may influence the severity of it's reprisals. Not saying it's right just it's something to be considered.

Way too many, which is why I have opposed those wars from the very beginning.

NATO is critized every single day. Don't act like we live in a fantasy world where Israel is demonized and NATO glorified.

Still reading your own obscure meanings into other peoples posts I see

[Papewaio]

It's Old Testament-style conquest. Take over an area using force, expel or exterminate the current population, destroy their culture, and replace with one's own people and culture. See the Canaanites for an example of how to deal with an existing settlement.

The original Israelis are probably descendents of Canaanites.