Backstage - OOC Forums
General Discussion => The Speakeasy: OOG/Off-topic Discussion => Topic started by: Silas Vitalia on 18 Jul 2014, 15:57
-
OK, here's the ground rules for non-catacombing and 'civil' discussion:
1. Understand no one ever solved an argument or changed anybody's mind on the internet arguing with them. Ever. We aren't going to solve the israeli-palestinian issue on the eve online ooc forum.
2. I want to hear opinions, debates, and general convo on the topic without it immediately turning into a shitstorm of derpery. Disagree, be polite.
So I'll start off the conversation with my view that the Western media seems woefully uninterested in taking an even-handed approach to the conflict. The ratio currently in the news seems to be about 20 exploded brown people = one exploded white person for the Western media to give much of a crap about it.
This is not limited to the Palestinians, it's just a fact of our modern society that when poor black and brown folks die in droves, it takes a lot, and I mean a lot of it, to = the same coverage and attention you get when a fraction of the same amount of westerners/white folks die violently.
I'll posit that with today's increasing dissemination of of media to the masses, more stories getting told from previously silent voices, how things really are for the average Palestinian will start to get out. Apartheid conditions will eventually be well documented to the extent that western media will have address things head on.
-
...I'll start off the conversation with my view that the Western media seems woefully uninterested in taking an even-handed approach to the conflict.
I don't have access to television or print media, but from what I have read on news aggregators and the like, there have been a number of cases where MSM journalists have been handed 'involuntary vacations' or 'surpise reassignments' for editorial comments which paint Israelis (both citizens and IDF) in an unflattering light. The suspicion is of course that these are punitive measures designed to have a chilling effect on other western reporters.
So the fear is probably anti-defamation lawsuits, as there is a well-heeled lobby dedicated to spinning public support for western military supremacy in the region, and their hawkishness tends to spill over into their civil affairs.
-
...I'll start off the conversation with my view that the Western media seems woefully uninterested in taking an even-handed approach to the conflict.
I don't have access to television or print media, but from what I have read on news aggregators and the like, there have been a number of cases where MSM journalists have been handed 'involuntary vacations' or 'surpise reassignments' for editorial comments which paint Israelis (both citizens and IDF) in an unflattering light. The suspicion is of course that these are punitive measures designed to have a chilling effect on other western reporters.
So the fear is probably anti-defamation lawsuits, as there is a well-heeled lobby dedicated to spinning public support for western military supremacy in the region, and their hawkishness tends to spill over into their civil affairs.
I suspect this conflict will be one of those (many) things future generations will look back upon us with utter shame and disgust.
-
If we are to believe that human civilization is on a continuous upward trend (in terms of health, security, 'rights', etc.), then your assertion would more or less follow naturally, I think. Hindsight 20/20 and all that.
-
I think it's irresponsible that ze Jews want to stop the Hamas space program again.
-
Is this a discussion of a conflict as old as civilization or how western media portrays on-going ancient conflicts?
-
I think it's irresponsible that ze Jews want to stop the Hamas space program again.
I'll ignore the sarcasm as it's a good point of discussion. I think the State of Israel has unfortunately reached a point where the actions they are taking in justifiable self defense are being seen more and more as defeating their intended purpose.
So when x Hamas action causes Y Israel reaction most people can kind of follow the logic. The apartheid control on the Palestinians is harder to justify, along with the whole kicking them off their land and taking their shit.
It's also ultimately self-defeating. All those exploded children and women have family members and siblings who are likely non-plussed at being collateral damage. It's not difficult to recruit fighters when most of them have lost family members or friends, and are living in a walled-in prison state.
My Israel/Palestine-fu is admittedly weak, but as far as I know the only deal that has gotten extremely close to working was a return to the pre-60s war boundaries and the removal of the Israeli settlements.
Israel would actually get a ton of sympathy and milage if they signed up for those conditions, gave the Palestinians all the things, and then let it run for a few years. If it fell apart after that they can at least have a firmer leg to stand on internationally?
-
It's also ultimately self-defeating. All those exploded children and women have family members and siblings who are likely non-plussed at being collateral damage.
This is the situation on both sides, really. The big difference is that one of the sides doesn't necessarily see it as "self-defeating".
My Israel/Palestine-fu is admittedly weak, but as far as I know the only deal that has gotten extremely close to working was a return to the pre-60s war boundaries and the removal of the Israeli settlements.
To my knowledge, the Oslo Accords which conceived the Palestinian Authority as a mutual negotiating partner to interact with Israel were the closest in practice. However, they got interrupted by the Second Intafada and continued expansion of settlements before anything more than the set-up could be completed and before a more comprehensive, long-term agreement could be enacted.
Israel would actually get a ton of sympathy and milage if they signed up for those conditions, gave the Palestinians all the things, and then let it run for a few years. If it fell apart after that they can at least have a firmer leg to stand on internationally?
The withdrawal from Gaza and the West Bank was largely seen within Israel as a "trial run" for this concept. While it sort-of worked in the West Bank, Gaza fell flat on its face when Hamas took over and has kept the military conflict going perpetually. Since then any further "land for peace" initiatives have been viewed as more or less useless since the first one just gave Hamas a spot to launch its rockets and mortars from.
-
Silas,
(https://warosu.org/data/cgl/img/0069/24/1371929547165.jpg)
-
Absolutely serious, please join in the conversation if you want to be constructive.
When a people are oppressed and in poverty for a long enough time all sorts of unintended consequences will bubble up. I'm not defending Hamas zealot psycopaths who do terrible things. But there are things that create more revenge-filled psychopaths, and there are things that don't. Treating people like prisoners in their own land and restricting their freedom of movement, access to resources, and control over their own lives tends to rub people the wrong way. Taking their property tends to rub them the wrong way. Kicking them out of their homes and then bulldozing their homes and putting up new houses tends to rub people the wrong way. 'civilian casualties' tends to rub people the wrong way. If my kid got blown up by a missile I might have a lifetime of hating the people who did it, and spread that to everyone I know.
Now Israel is obviously not going anywhere, but their current way of doing things is going to lead to permanent misery for an entire population just to punish a few of them.
-
TBH, to portray Israel as responsible for the situation in Gaza is mildly ridiculous in my opinion.
1, there are now no Israeli settlements in Gaza. The Gaza strip was returned to Palestinian authority and all settlements removed in 2005.
2, Israel has during this and past campaigns engaged in preemptive phone calls and "roof knocking" (dropping of flares or small, nonlethal bombs on building roofs) to give warning before actually destructive strikes are performed. In many cases this warning period has been used to pile people into buildings, either in the hopes of warding off an actual airstrike or creating casualties.
3, during this most recent round of fighting there have actually been Israeli utility workers dodging rockets in order to restore electricity to Gaza after a Hamas rocket knocked it out. Not joking. (http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=18809)
4, Hamas has actually refused to allow aid deliveries (http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/06/02/israel.palestinians.aid/) at times. Again, I wish I was joking.
5, rocket fire out of Gaza continued incessantly even during the "lull" period preceding this conflict. During this time, there was little (if any) Israeli return fire.
I'm not trying to say that every Israeli is a pure and noble white knight; there's a lot of shit that Israel needs to get its act together on as well. But seriously, it seems to me that the most immediate (and eventually long-term) difficulties with Gaza cannot be resolved even if Israel opts not for large-scale military responses (as they did during the past "lull" in the conflict).
-
Normally, my stance on Israel vs. Palestine is that they both ought to be treated like the two squabbling children that they are: you tell them both to knock it the fuck off, forcibly if so, and take away the toy they're fighting over because they refuse to share.
And while I'm normally pretty sympathetic to the situation the Palestinians are faced with, in this particular round of fighting, they are the aggressors, not Israel. Sure, it probably wasn't a great idea for some Israelis to kill a Palestinian teen in retaliation for the three of theirs that were killed, but Palestine and Hamas trying to play the victim card and shooting off rockets in response to that is pretty fucking retarded. Is Israel's current reaction a bit out of proportion? Maybe, but I'm a subscriber to the Ender Method, so I'm not really going to hold it against them given how fucking patient they have been over the years.
Now Israel is obviously not going anywhere, but their current way of doing things is going to lead to permanent misery for an entire population just to punish a few of them.
So right now, perhaps the "entire population" should get off their asses and deal with the "few of them" themselves so that progress could actually be made? At some point the failings of the government become the responsibility of the people to fix when it's outright harming those people.
I honestly cannot fault Israel for its response right now. It's become blindingly clear over the last several years that Hamas has no desire to participate in the diplomatic game, and would rather play with violence instead. I can't see Israel bothering wasting too much more of its time continuing to try diplomacy if that doesn't change. Unfortunately, the odds of that happening while Hamas remain in power seem rather slim. Which means that if the Palestinians want a peaceful solution, they are going to have to fix that problem on their own, whether it's by peaceful means or not, because without Hamas being willing to use diplomacy in good faith, all Israel's going to have left are violent means to deal with it for them.
And honestly, at this point, any non-Hamas Palestinians are just meatshields - in the sense that if they weren't there, there would be pretty much no reason Israel could give itself to not roll in and purge the shit out of Hamas with extreme prejudice. As long as there are civilians in the way, Israel has to operate with some level of restraint, however small.
Remove the civilians and it simply becomes a situation of a military standing against another military. Or a bunch of terrorists, if you prefer that terminology.
So, tl;dr on all that, I see removing Hamas as being the most likely solution for the situation. And that if the Palestinians won't do it themselves, Israel will. With violence if it needs to.
-
I think it is unlikely that the Israelis will remove Hamas all together. Their aim seems to be more to weaken Hamas until they are no longer a threat. They would prefer neutering Hamas to removing them completely and having ISIS move in.
-
So the Palestinians, the populace that is, are royally *effed.*
Basically they're the cause Du-jour for the Arab World and the various leaders of those countries love that they provide a great distraction to point at and say "LOOK AT WHAT ZE JEWS ARE DOING TO OUR BROSEFS!" Meanwhile the vast majority of them keep just as tight borders AGAINST the Palestinians because they don't want none of that mess.
Hamas, the PLO and the various other random groups of clowns essentially have a captive populace from which to recruit, extort and generally take advantage of. They essentially don't want the situation to change and as such they only play at serious negotiations.
The Israelis would LOVE to have happy-fun Jew land and kick everyone else out but they do sort of realize that the Palestinians were there first, even if they did jack squat with the land and essentially initially welcomed the investment and attention as they were a backwater of the various Nations over there and rarely got any of the "pie" so to speak. That being said, there is a burgeoning percentage of the Israelis who have said "enough is enough" and are starting to sound more and more like their own personal bogey-man Hitler with their talk of eliminating the problems and basically "settling" them out. They keep building more and more settlements (Armed camps and excuses to bomb essentially) closer and closer to the already seriously overcrowded Palestinian lands. Add to that the lock down of any and all opportunity, be it jobs, recreation or even a day without explosions and they are just feeding into the growth of Hamas and the other clowns.
The long and the short of it is...there IS no solution barring one side getting wiped out or a mass migration of (probably the Palestinians) into their own new turf...which would probably just set a repeat of what's going on now, only with someone "new" playing the role of abuser.
-
I don't think what the Israelis have done to the West Bank is justified. I do think that what they are doing to Gaza is justified. But, as a friend of mine pointed out today, it's a bit stupid anyway.
Israel isn't going to bomb Hamas out of existence unless it flattens the Strip and everyone in it. And I have no idea how invading is going to make anything better. And yes, the way Hamas handles "protecting" civilians is just, well, not. But that doesn't mean that, as Silas noted, killing the civilians won't have consequences.
Ideally, it would be really nice if we could find a way to get some of the people there out of the mess, offer them immigration visas, if they desired. On the other hand, some of the most radicalized fanatics are there, and offering to import those to your own country is a no go.
I see no good solutions here. Well, one. Hamas could have tried treating with Israel. But apparently the existence of Israel is intolerable to them.
-
So the Palestinians, the populace that is, are royally *effed.*
Basically they're the cause Du-jour for the Arab World and the various leaders of those countries love that they provide a great distraction to point at and say "LOOK AT WHAT ZE JEWS ARE DOING TO OUR BROSEFS!" Meanwhile the vast majority of them keep just as tight borders AGAINST the Palestinians because they don't want none of that mess.
Hamas, the PLO and the various other random groups of clowns essentially have a captive populace from which to recruit, extort and generally take advantage of. They essentially don't want the situation to change and as such they only play at serious negotiations.
The Israelis would LOVE to have happy-fun Jew land and kick everyone else out but they do sort of realize that the Palestinians were there first, even if they did jack squat with the land and essentially initially welcomed the investment and attention as they were a backwater of the various Nations over there and rarely got any of the "pie" so to speak. That being said, there is a burgeoning percentage of the Israelis who have said "enough is enough" and are starting to sound more and more like their own personal bogey-man Hitler with their talk of eliminating the problems and basically "settling" them out. They keep building more and more settlements (Armed camps and excuses to bomb essentially) closer and closer to the already seriously overcrowded Palestinian lands. Add to that the lock down of any and all opportunity, be it jobs, recreation or even a day without explosions and they are just feeding into the growth of Hamas and the other clowns.
The long and the short of it is...there IS no solution barring one side getting wiped out or a mass migration of (probably the Palestinians) into their own new turf...which would probably just set a repeat of what's going on now, only with someone "new" playing the role of abuser.
Interesting points Drakolus, especially about the other arab nations using the Palestinians as their raison d'etre for all sorts of shittery.
I know 'disproportionate response' is a hard subject, because militarily you want extreme effing prejudice with an opponent. you don't want a fair fight, you want to kill all of them and 0 of your own guys, preferably from a distance.
Basically it's never, ever going to be solved militarily.
The only legit way I see this ever moving forward is for the USA to threaten to cut the Israeli purse strings to force everyone back to the table, which would of course require a popular president at the end of his 8 year term not fearing re-election to spearhead. Clinton almost got it done but Arafat blew that one in the end.
The thing is only one side is being dehumanized in the media, and that's the poor brown side, who unfortunately does most of the dying and living in pretty crappy conditions.
-
Something like more than half of the population in the Gaza strip is reliant on UN food aid to exist.
More critical than food, is that the aquifers from which Gaza City draws water are going to be dry within a few years. Once they are dry, that's it. Gaza has to be evacuated. And if Gaza has to be evacuated, then those refugees will never be allowed to return.
And the Israelis know this. And so do the Gazans.
With this new thing of tunnels into Israel being discovered, then the Israelis will probably seek to extend the "buffer zone" at the edge of the Gaza Strip, which would mean demolishing and levelling all buildings, and probably installing listening posts to listen for tunnelling and digging.
And if that isn't all that effective, then in a few years, they'll extend the buffer zone further, pushing the Gazans into a smaller and smaller area, which will speed up the rate at which the water issue becomes critical.
The Israeli strategy seems to be, a constant level of violence, such that the world media and the world public become apathetic to it - Violence in Palestine becomes not-news, and so it continues until the water situation will put an end to it for good. While simply pushing all the Gazans into the sea at once would get international condemnation, this fairly low level of violence doesn't get anything like the same amount of criticism.
The fatigue of the media can be seen, when things like, I remember this being reported a year or so ago, but web traffic for people looking at pictures of Israeli female reservists posting selfies in uniform, in total, was of a size comparable to web traffic for news about what was happening on the ground. Like, for every 100GB of internet news about an Israeli ground offensive, there was like 20GB of pics of women in uniform.
-
The only legit way I see this ever moving forward is for the USA to threaten to cut the Israeli purse strings to force everyone back to the table, which would of course require a popular president at the end of his 8 year term not fearing re-election to spearhead. Clinton almost got it done but Arafat blew that one in the end.
Just to provide some news; Senator Kerry has actually being putting a lot to pressure on both parties to get back to the table for much of his term. Below is an article from a prominent Israeli news source there are many other articles. I suggest taking a small peek.
http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/1.605993 (http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/1.605993)
Also: Contrary to what been said so far, there is actually a greatly growing urge from the Israeli people to seek peace through talks and negotiation. As members of the Israeli government, while not dominating power blocs but large enough forces have assembled to basically force this issue.
The current Minister of Finance is a great example of this. Yair Lapid, he has on multiple occasions now threatened to "shut down" the Israeli government if the Prime Minister refused to sit down for talks with the PLO. A proponent of the Two-State solution Yair is just one of many Israeli's who are looking to put this conflict behind them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yair_Lapid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yair_Lapid)
This conflict is an extremely complex, if not the most complex one going on to date. I would HIGHLY recommend people avoid talking in absolutes about it as it would very likely make you wrong. There is very little simple about this conflict, and a lot has happened since its inception.
-
That conflict is mostly the tip of the iceberg anyway. The real conflict is a lot about water and natural resources, and that, nobody never speaks about it.
Also, the real ennmy of the Hamas is not Israel. Israel is just the cultural and religious scarecrow oppressor, but the real ennemy is the Palestinian governement that even with its feeble authority (especially since the death of Arafat), is a major pain in their ass since it doesn't follow the same agenda at all, and represents a direct threat to hamas legitimacy over palestinian populations.
Interesting fact also : Cisjordanian population were very few to manifest their support to the hamas, where the region is mostly ruled by the fatah party, which is closer to the palestinian governement and doesn't call for the same warmongering actions. It's a very regional conflict between the hamas/gaza and Israel, where ofc the hamas is supported by some other arabic countries and despised by others.
...I'll start off the conversation with my view that the Western media seems woefully uninterested in taking an even-handed approach to the conflict.
I don't have access to television or print media, but from what I have read on news aggregators and the like, there have been a number of cases where MSM journalists have been handed 'involuntary vacations' or 'surpise reassignments' for editorial comments which paint Israelis (both citizens and IDF) in an unflattering light. The suspicion is of course that these are punitive measures designed to have a chilling effect on other western reporters.
So the fear is probably anti-defamation lawsuits, as there is a well-heeled lobby dedicated to spinning public support for western military supremacy in the region, and their hawkishness tends to spill over into their civil affairs.
May depend where you live.
Medias are not very soft with Israel in Europe. Especially the German and French governments that never really liked Israel. The German one for historical reasons as well as just "I can't bear the other one", especially after military deals that got... mhh, how to say it... pear shaped (cf german submarines sold to Israel, or stolen depending on the source). The French one for deep diplomatic relations with Palestine, and especially Lebanon.
Which is also telling that we - the westerners - were ready to let Israel roflstomp neighbor countries like Lebanon because rockets and threats were fired from there too. Question of alliances.
In any case, there is only one tv channel that continues to speak about these issues that I know of (franco german one) on a regular basis and do actual journalism (also on Syrian issues, African issues and most forgotten conflicts in the world). And they generally are extremely critical of Israel.
2, Israel has during this and past campaigns engaged in preemptive phone calls and "roof knocking" (dropping of flares or small, nonlethal bombs on building roofs) to give warning before actually destructive strikes are performed. In many cases this warning period has been used to pile people into buildings, either in the hopes of warding off an actual airstrike or creating casualties.
Apparently it doesn't work very well...
Like their white phosphorous "doctrine" they used to apply everytime.
1) We should strike at night to avoid most civilians casualties.
2) We should use white phosphorous flares at night to improve our odds at fewer civilian casualties (you know, to see better because it's dark and all).
3) White phosphorous seems to also cause a lot of casualties when it enters in contact with humans.
4) We should use more white phosphorous flares to avoid that kind of things to happen !
If there is something the Israeli are very good at, it's telling themselves that they absolutely want to prevent civilian casualties. Wouldn't be good PR and all, so better to put the storytelling machine at work.
The only legit way I see this ever moving forward is for the USA to threaten to cut the Israeli purse strings to force everyone back to the table, which would of course require a popular president at the end of his 8 year term not fearing re-election to spearhead. Clinton almost got it done but Arafat blew that one in the end.
Arafat never spoke for the Hamas (but for the Fatah), even if it was the closer thing we had of a public figure that was listened and followed by many palestinians. It was actually one of the worst enemies of the hamas. It was also the one that spoke extensively with Yitzak Rabin. Or more precisely, was the fruit of Yitzac Rabin efforts leading to the accords of Oslo and the cessation of the hostilities leaded by Arafat, that became de facto a legitimate palestinian leader. Which also explains why Arafat retained a bit of legitimacy, influence and power, unlike his successor.
-
Amos Oz once said that a problem is that Israelis act as if they were losers while in reality they are winners, and Palestinians act as if they were winners while in reality they are losers. I find that really convincing.
While I have abandoned discussing the conflict in public (and in EVE Online forums, wtf?) I am frustrated that many people don’t seem to care for civilian casualties—unless it plays into their political agenda. I am also frustrated that many people don’t seem to care differentiating between state and society. I am frustrated that uninvolved take positions that are almost always one-sided and leave little room for ambivalence. Enough said.
-
[..]the Palestinians [..] essentially initially welcomed the investment and attention
I'm not sure what you're referring to here, but so far I am only able to interpret this as a sarcastic take on the First Arab–Israeli War.
Also, I don't really want to get involved into this discussion a lot besides pointing out when I think people get their facts wrong, but recent events have inspired me to work on a political cartoon for the first time in my life:
Nethanyahu, in SWAT gear, complete with ballistic shield, and armed with a decent assault rifle, faces off against a Hamas combatant. The Hamas guy hold a woman and her young daughter in front of him, and fires his pistol at Nethanyahu, but his shots pose little threat, although he manages to hit his toe. Nethanyahu responds by firing a burst from his rifle, killing the Hamas guy and his human shield.
Nethanyahu removes his helmet and turns to his colleague: "Every policeman would have done the same." His colleague, George Zimmerman, also removes his helmet and responds "Of course."
-
Especially the German[...] governments that never really liked Israel. The German one for historical reasons as well as just "I can't bear the other one", especially after military deals that got... mhh, how to say it... pear shaped (cf german submarines sold to Israel, or stolen depending on the source).
O_O
Let me put this in words:
What? This is an amazing load of bull. =)
Also (http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/everyone-knows-that-anti-zionism-has-nothing-to-do-with-anti-semitism/) on a more general note.
-
The Israeli strategy seems to be, a constant level of violence, such that the world media and the world public become apathetic to it - Violence in Palestine becomes not-news, and so it continues until the water situation will put an end to it for good. While simply pushing all the Gazans into the sea at once would get international condemnation, this fairly low level of violence doesn't get anything like the same amount of criticism.
If anything, this works both ways: Rockets and mortars have been dropping into Israel from Gaza for months; outside of Israel, this simply isn't news. I don't know if it's the constant grind of it, or if it's because we just roll our eyes and go "oh those terrorists, at it again?" But, Israel shoots back? Instant headline.
[..]the Palestinians [..] essentially initially welcomed the investment and attention
I'm not sure what you're referring to here, but so far I am only able to interpret this as a sarcastic take on the First Arab–Israeli War.
This is an entirely serious reference to the state of the development of the land early on in the 20th century; early Zionist settlers often bought land (including what was then viewed as wasteland) for development from the local Arab landowners and in some cases forged very close working relationships with them.
It's difficult to pinpoint exactly when this flipped towards hostility, but two good points to bring up is the Balfour Declaration in 1917 followed by the appointment of Haj Amin al-Husseini as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem in 1921. He was a heavy promoter of Arab nationalism (and, arguably, antisemite); the Balfour declaration and continued Jewish immigration to the land made an easy point for Husseini to stir up anger towards "foreign powers" forcing an unwanted decision on an "Arab matter". Whatever the reason, there was a sharp uptick in riots in the 20s, leading to the formation of various Jewish self-defense units.
Regarding the internal Israeli politics: The leftwards swing that is occurring now should be viewed in the context of that having taken a hefty turn towards a right wing/hawkish position since the late 80s/early 90s in many respects. This is now swinging back, particularly under the influence of large numbers of European immigrants.
-
1, there are now no Israeli settlements in Gaza. The Gaza strip was returned to Palestinian authority and all settlements removed in 2005.
Esna, I'm not sure that the removal of illegal settlements from the little strip of land known as the gaza strip was all that was needed to cease the oppression.
2, Israel has during this and past campaigns engaged in preemptive phone calls and "roof knocking" (dropping of flares or small, nonlethal bombs on building roofs) to give warning before actually destructive strikes are performed. In many cases this warning period has been used to pile people into buildings, either in the hopes of warding off an actual airstrike or creating casualties.
I hear they use mortar rounds. Bearing in mind the expanses of space and population density, where would you recommend running to in Gaza if you had minutes to pack up your family and go? (assuming you knew where the 'warning' bomb had landed). Do you know of any other urban battlefield in modern times where this would be deemed acceptable?
3, during this most recent round of fighting there have actually been Israeli utility workers dodging rockets in order to restore electricity to Gaza after a Hamas rocket knocked it out. Not joking. (http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=18809)
Fixing what their country has broken again and again. I'm sure their app came in handy. Did you know that if a palestinian approaches to within about 1km of the gaza border they are automatically liable to be shot without question?
4, Hamas has actually refused to allow aid deliveries (http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/06/02/israel.palestinians.aid/) at times. Again, I wish I was joking.
That's terrible. Did you know Israel does the same thing on a larger scale? But that's ok because construction materials, medicines and certain foodstuffs are dual use, of course. We need to stop drawing false equivalences between the oppressors and the oppressed.
5, rocket fire out of Gaza continued incessantly even during the "lull" period preceding this conflict. During this time, there was little (if any) Israeli return fire.
Perhaps next time they could include Hamas in the negotiations for the ceasefire? It's no good if you announce a ceasefire that you haven't agreed.
I'm not trying to say that every Israeli is a pure and noble white knight; there's a lot of shit that Israel needs to get its act together on as well. But seriously, it seems to me that the most immediate (and eventually long-term) difficulties with Gaza cannot be resolved even if Israel opts not for large-scale military responses (as they did during the past "lull" in the conflict).
Agree with you there. Violence will never win this conflict.
-
And while I'm normally pretty sympathetic to the situation the Palestinians are faced with, in this particular round of fighting, they are the aggressors, not Israel. Sure, it probably wasn't a great idea for some Israelis to kill a Palestinian teen in retaliation for the three of theirs that were killed, but Palestine and Hamas trying to play the victim card and shooting off rockets in response to that is pretty fucking retarded. Is Israel's current reaction a bit out of proportion? Maybe, but I'm a subscriber to the Ender Method, so I'm not really going to hold it against them given how fucking patient they have been over the years.
Point of information: We don't know who committed the terrible act of kidnapping and killing the 3 Israeli teenagers. Hamas denied responsibility but were held responsible, and hundreds of their officials were arrested without charge. They usually take credit for their crimes and are proud of them. I wonder if that could be considered a provocation, bearing in mind that Hamas is a brutal, violent organisation.
Have a look at the timeline:
http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/07/14/3459100/timeline-how-war-returned-to-gaza/
-
Especially the German[...] governments that never really liked Israel. The German one for historical reasons as well as just "I can't bear the other one", especially after military deals that got... mhh, how to say it... pear shaped (cf german submarines sold to Israel, or stolen depending on the source).
O_O
Let me put this in words:
What? This is an amazing load of bull. =)
Also (http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/everyone-knows-that-anti-zionism-has-nothing-to-do-with-anti-semitism/) on a more general note.
I don't see what this has to do with anything that I said. Not sure if trolling or serious. =)
Edit : I won't make you the offense to link you all the articles that you will find by just googling Israel German Relations. It doesn't take to be genius to notice that as much as the relations between both countries have always been rather fruitful in terms of trade and military cooperation, the diplomatic side has regularly been stained by various issues over the years, and especially lately.
-
Honestly, atm we have better relations to Israel then the US. While there were always points of contention between the Israeli and German government, I think both sides appreciate the honesty of each other, so that there are points of contention is no indicator for a strained relationship, but a rather strain resistant one. And that's entirely ignoring that germany feels that it has a historical debt to Israel.
And really, I don't know where you get the idea that those german built subs where stolen by the Israelis. If that'd be so, it was quite convenient that we built in the silos for their tactical nukes just as they asked bevore stealing them. <,<
-
Esna, I'm not sure that the removal of illegal settlements from the little strip of land known as the gaza strip was all that was needed to cease the oppression.
Alone, of course removal of the settlements wouldn't have solved the conflict. The expectation was that with the initial withdrawal complete, there would be an in-turn move for peace from the Gazans and the Palestinian Authority, which could be reciprocated in turn, etc etc. Instead, Hamas rolled in and promptly crushed all opposition then started calling for a renewal of the conflict against Israel.
I hear they use mortar rounds.
If find this freakishly unlikely verging on impossible. I of course do not have easy access to Israeli munitions storehouses, but I can tell you the only guided mortar projectiles I can locate are heavy 120mm rounds whose impact is wildly out of line with what the effects of Roof Knock impacts look like (a lot closer to a firecracker than anything else).
Bearing in mind the expanses of space and population density, where would you recommend running to in Gaza if you had minutes to pack up your family and go? (assuming you knew where the 'warning' bomb had landed). Do you know of any other urban battlefield in modern times where this would be deemed acceptable?
Turn this around: In what other modern urban battlefield in any modern war has any side bothered to specifically locate and warn the civilian population in immediate proximity to an impending military strike? If this is not "deemed acceptable", would you find it more acceptable somehow if Israel simply dropped the actual kill-bomb without warning? You seem to presume that the onus lies with Israel to prevent any and all damage to civilian infrastructure while the rockets that are being fired from Gaza are being deliberately placed in civilian targets. (http://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/press-releases/unrwa-strongly-condemns-placement-rockets-school)
Fixing what their country has broken again and again.
Not sure what you mean here. The line running in from Israel has functioned without issue since the last time we went through this retarded cycle.
To steal what you said above: In what other modern urban battlefield has one side deployed its public employees specifically to prevent loss of civilian utility access in extremely close proximity to military targets while the fighting was ongoing?
Did you know that if a palestinian approaches to within about 1km of the gaza border they are automatically liable to be shot without question?
One, trust me, it's never "without question". There is always an investigation into something like that.
Two, they they may be shot at, if they approach in an aggressive or unusual manner. Calmly approaching the actual border checkpoints as is normal is a good way to avoid this. This really isn't to different from any other DMZ space, especially considering the sheer number of times in which those approaching the border have either fired on or set up an explosive of some kind.
Perhaps next time they could include Hamas in the negotiations for the ceasefire? It's no good if you announce a ceasefire that you haven't agreed.
Hamas has been involved in all three ceasefires I mentioned so far (extended lull leading up to the current conflict, failed ceasefire on 7/15, and failed ceasefire on 7/17). In the first case, they were actually credited (http://news.yahoo.com/ending-d-tente-hamas-takes-responsibility-todays-spike-210909864.html) for preventing longer-range fire against Israeli cities, but rockets continued to drop on cities near the border. In the second, the issue seems to have been that while Hamas' political leadership (http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/15/world/meast/mideast-crisis/) tentatively agreed to the ceasefire, their military refused to comply and continued to fire. In the third case, both Hamas and Israel confirmed agreement to the ceasefire (http://online.wsj.com/articles/israel-and-hamas-cease-fire-begins-to-allow-aid-into-gaza-1405585089), but mortar rounds from Gaza kept coming anyhow.
Agree with you there. Violence will never win this conflict.
Pretty much; just perpetuates a sick cycle. I'm writing up a longer post to comment more on this.
-
Honestly, atm we have better relations to Israel then the US. While there were always points of contention between the Israeli and German government, I think both sides appreciate the honesty of each other, so that there are points of contention is no indicator for a strained relationship, but a rather strain resistant one. And that's entirely ignoring that germany feels that it has a historical debt to Israel.
And really, I don't know where you get the idea that those german built subs where stolen by the Israelis. If that'd be so, it was quite convenient that we built in the silos for their tactical nukes just as they asked bevore stealing them. <,<
Well of course. I was pointing to all those... recurring points of contention, not to a permanently damaged relationship or anything.
I would have to dig up the thing about those subs. There was that political "game" between Israel and Germany when Germany decided not to sell them eventually, and Israel taking advantage of the political situation in Germany to force their hand anyway ? Something like that ? I shouldn't have talked about something I don't remember very well. Its quite old.
-
The german government pretends not to know (despite knowing since '61, apparently) that Israel uses nuclear rockets on these submarines. The submarines in question are being built (last to be shipped ~2017) with the german government paying 33-50% of the costs, probably in hope of gaining some leverage for demands regarding the settlements - which is the point of contestion, by the way, as we'd like to call it "Attempts at changing the situation through diplomacy"[1]
Regarding anti-semitic:
It's very common in this special case. If you think back a few years there was, at least in europa, a wave of anti-american sentiments, demonstrations and quite vocal opposition against the Afghanistan war (albeit even less than 2nd Iraq war). I do not remember seeing the same level of hatred[2] levelled against the USA or US americans in public, despite the similarities being so striking. Terrorist strike at home for the sake of destruction[3], a response blown out of proportions with questionable reasoning and a lot of civilian casualties. I guess "The Jews" are easier to dislike/hate, for historical reasons, and the extreme views surfacing in the mix of old-fashioned ressentiments and proper critique are why being aware of the language used is important. It would be the same as saying "The Muslims" instead of Hamas, al-Quaida or other terrorist friends.
[1]while sprinkling nuke capable subs into the mix. For peace, obv.
[2]Not evident in this thread, here we're just dealing with certain ressentiments
-
1: In the 2000 summit at Camp David, the Israelis made an offer that gave the Palestinians everything they wanted. The offer was rejected. This is extremely accurate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EDW88CBo-8
2: Israel has never taken preemptive military action against Palestine. Period. Ever.
3: It's cute that people decry the collateral damage inflicted by the IDF. When the IDF kills a civilian, it is always an unintentional side effect. (If it were not, they would just carpet bomb Gaza and be done with it, yes?) Hamas, on the other hand is shooting rockets by the dozens into Israel. The Israeli military is just better at stopping them. And unlike precision munitions that the IDF is using, those rockets are not remotely accurate. They're just pointed in the direction of the biggest population centre they can hit. If the people of Gaza want to not get bombed, they need to make sure Hamas is not shooting rockets at Israel. "But most of the people in Gaza are not terrorists." Of course not. It is their home, however. and they are responsible for it.
4: It is the legal and moral imperative of a sovereign state to defend its citizens. That's what governments are for. If Hamas will not stop shooting rockets into Israel and peaceful attempts to bring about a resolution have failed, military action is not just a choice, it is an obligation.
-
Regarding anti-semitic:
It's very common in this special case. If you think back a few years there was, at least in europa, a wave of anti-american sentiments, demonstrations and quite vocal opposition against the Afghanistan war (albeit even less than 2nd Iraq war). I do not remember seeing the same level of hatred[2] levelled against the USA or US americans in public, despite the similarities being so striking. Terrorist strike at home for the sake of destruction[3], a response blown out of proportions with questionable reasoning and a lot of civilian casualties. I guess "The Jews" are easier to dislike/hate, for historical reasons, and the extreme views surfacing in the mix of old-fashioned ressentiments and proper critique are why being aware of the language used is important. It would be the same as saying "The Muslims" instead of Hamas, al-Quaida or other terrorist friends.
[1]while sprinkling nuke capable subs into the mix. For peace, obv.
[2]Not evident in this thread, here we're just dealing with certain ressentiments
In Germany you mean ? Or in Europe in general ? I can only speak for my country of course :
I don't know if there is more hatred leveled against Israel or even Jews in general. From very specific groups with agendas, sure, like anti zionists or just immigrates with Palestinian affinities (that have been in the streets, but not many of them). But from the main population in general ? I don't know... Maybe.
I just remember that there was a complete public outrage before 2nd war in Iraq, coming from all the population. There was a strong dislike of US in general back in that time, before Obama got elected and people suddenly changed their mind radically about the US.
But here against Israel ? Besides the few specific activist groups quoted above, I am really not sure to have seen much outrage...
-
Exactly, a dislike. What's been reported so far is a bit more [1] (http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/everyone-knows-that-anti-zionism-has-nothing-to-do-with-anti-semitism/), and while certainly not coming from the majority it still shows the difference in quality between anti-US and anti-Israel demonstrations.
It's been coined New Antisemitism [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_antisemitism). Sorry for the wikilink, but it's an okayish article that (I think) succeeds at describing the issue at hand, including the problematic of denouncing any criticism on Israel's politics as anti-semitic.
Imagine having this kind of discussion after 9/11, giving out the counsel that you should just give them what they want (incidentially, they wanted 'death to america' in the same sense as hamas desires the destruction of the state of israel and its people. Against contrary opinion, hamas isn't launching rockets to get free cable TV).
-
At risk of getting into a long discussion here.
The expectation was that with the initial withdrawal complete, there would be an in-turn move for peace from the Gazans and the Palestinian Authority, which could be reciprocated in turn, etc etc. Instead, Hamas rolled in and promptly crushed all opposition then started calling for a renewal of the conflict against Israel.
There is a risk of oversimplification here. We do agree that Hamas was elected, right? And when the democratic will was not consistent with the will of the outside world, the voters were punished by blockade and imposition of sanctions? This is part of the prelude to the violence. I wonder whether these decisions may have had any effect on the probability of future violence.
If you will only engage in diplomacy when the other party has elected a party you approve of, I don't really know where to start. You could argue that the inclusion of right-wing parties and ultra-nationalists into the Israeli ruling coalition is a direct analogy, yet this doesn't seem to be perceived as a stumbling block.
I hear they use mortar rounds.
If find this freakishly unlikely verging on impossible. I of course do not have easy access to Israeli munitions storehouses, but I can tell you the only guided mortar projectiles I can locate are heavy 120mm rounds whose impact is wildly out of line with what the effects of Roof Knock impacts look like (a lot closer to a firecracker than anything else).
Ok, these are some of my sources:
http://mondoweiss.net/2014/07/seconds-warning-destroys.html
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/14/gaza-home-destroyed-israel-shati
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israelgaza-conflict-israeli-knock-on-roof-missile-warning-technique-revealed-in-stunning-video-9603179.html
http://www.theweek.co.uk/world-news/middle-east/59444/knock-on-the-roof-how-does-israel-warn-of-airstrikes
http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/07/15/israelpalestine-unlawful-israeli-airstrikes-kill-civilians
Some say 'missiles', some say 'mortar', I can't possibly know what is really happening. One of the above sources states that Amnesty international has condemned the practice of roof-knocking. Can you link me some of the sources that suggest the practice is as safe as you say?
Turn this around: In what other modern urban battlefield in any modern war has any side bothered to specifically locate and warn the civilian population in immediate proximity to an impending military strike? If this is not "deemed acceptable", would you find it more acceptable somehow if Israel simply dropped the actual kill-bomb without warning? You seem to presume that the onus lies with Israel to prevent any and all damage to civilian infrastructure while the rockets that are being fired from Gaza are being deliberately placed in civilian targets. (http://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/press-releases/unrwa-strongly-condemns-placement-rockets-school)
You seem to be saying that Israel should be held to the same standard as a terrorist organisation. Please clarify your position, as this may be a slippery slope.
To steal what you said above: In what other modern urban battlefield has one side deployed its public employees specifically to prevent loss of civilian utility access in extremely close proximity to military targets while the fighting was ongoing?
The consequence of not repairing the power supply in this context is an impending crime against humanity. If the attacks on Gaza are knocking out the power supply, and the area is under blockade and government unable to function, then the attacking power has a moral imperative to repair it as it is otherwise a direct attack on civilians. I usually reserve praise for things here that exceed the minimum expectations of a civilised nation (i.e. imagine a parent boasting that they actually take care of their children).
Did you know that if a palestinian approaches to within about 1km of the gaza border they are automatically liable to be shot without question?
One, trust me, it's never "without question". There is always an investigation into something like that.
Two, they they may be shot at, if they approach in an aggressive or unusual manner. Calmly approaching the actual border checkpoints as is normal is a good way to avoid this. This really isn't to different from any other DMZ space, especially considering the sheer number of times in which those approaching the border have either fired on or set up an explosive of some kind.
I disagree with your version of the events. Please supply your sources. Here are some of mine, leaving out those I consider partisan:
Swedish International Humanitarian Law website resource:
http://www.diakonia.se/en/IHL/Occupied-Palestinian-Territory/Administration-of-Occupation/Gaza-Blockade-Land--Sea/Land-Buffer-Zone/
UN FAO page on the effects of the buffer zone and how it is administered:
http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/9A265F2A909E9A1D8525772E004FC34B
Defense for children international regarding engagement in the buffer zone:
http://www.dci-pal.org/english/display.cfm?DocId=1279&CategoryId=1
There are a lot of older sources, and quite a few that I think you won't consider neutral, so I have not included them.
Hamas has been involved in all three ceasefires I mentioned so far (extended lull leading up to the current conflict, failed ceasefire on 7/15, and failed ceasefire on 7/17). In the first case, they were actually credited (http://news.yahoo.com/ending-d-tente-hamas-takes-responsibility-todays-spike-210909864.html) for preventing longer-range fire against Israeli cities, but rockets continued to drop on cities near the border. In the second, the issue seems to have been that while Hamas' political leadership (http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/15/world/meast/mideast-crisis/) tentatively agreed to the ceasefire, their military refused to comply and continued to fire. In the third case, both Hamas and Israel confirmed agreement to the ceasefire (http://online.wsj.com/articles/israel-and-hamas-cease-fire-begins-to-allow-aid-into-gaza-1405585089), but mortar rounds from Gaza kept coming anyhow.
Thank you for the links, I've read each of them, but find they support what I said earlier.
Link 1 is based on secondary reports from Egyptians, without any actual confirmation of discussions with Hamas
Link 2 (quoted relevant text):
"Hamas spokesman Osama Hamdan later stressed that Hamas never received the proposal through political channels.
and
"I believe a proposal is supposed to be prepared after the sides agree on it. It's supposed to be published if two sides give agreement on it. You can't publish it in the media and then ask everyone to accept that or reject that."
Re-link here: http://edition.cnn.com/2014/07/15/world/meast/mideast-crisis
Link 3:
I hadn't kept up-to-date on this - wasn't aware of a 5-hour humanitarian ceasefire, thanks for linking. I do however think you are giving your interpretation of this source rather than conveying what this source actually says. In the article there is an allegation from one side that 'mortar rounds continued to fall', yet the other side reportedly alleges they fired 'before the ceasefire started'. Unless one side is always right and the other is always wrong, how can this media report confirm which version of the chronology is correct? Do you have any other sources that can get us closer to that? Bear in mind that the news can only get its information from one combatant or the other...
-------------
Interested to read your other thoughts.
-
I don't have anything useful to add, except to say the leader of Hamas looks kinda like George Clooney.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/db/Khaled_Meshaal_01.jpg/1280px-Khaled_Meshaal_01.jpg)
-
A lot of you are focusing on the tit-for-tat military fighting, and have spent precious little conversation here on the daily, constant injustices and indignities that the regular Palestinians endure on their own soil in their own land.
When a people grow up in a police-state in poverty and wretchedness, we should not be surprised when they turn to any means necessary to show their anger at their jailers.
I can only imagine having some foreigners come into my town, bulldoze the place I've lived for generations, kick me off my land, and build a fucking 30 foot high wall through my town and force me to go through a military checkpoint, daily, just to get to the other side of my own home.
The cycle of violence can most easily be ended when the people holding all of the cards, the biggest weapons, the strongest military, with control over access, food, power, and movement, decide to.
-
4: It is the legal and moral imperative of a sovereign state to defend its citizens. That's what governments are for. If Hamas will not stop shooting rockets into Israel and peaceful attempts to bring about a resolution have failed, military action is not just a choice, it is an obligation.
How does killing boys playing on a beach contribute to this aim?
-
4: It is the legal and moral imperative of a sovereign state to defend its citizens. That's what governments are for. If Hamas will not stop shooting rockets into Israel and peaceful attempts to bring about a resolution have failed, military action is not just a choice, it is an obligation.
How does killing boys playing on a beach contribute to this aim?
Real war is messy, chaotic, uncertain. It's not like EVE where there is a nice overview and clearly displayed standings. I'm sure the IDF didn't start out that day to kill four boys on a beach.
While we're on the topic, though, if it becomes necessary in the course of a war to break the civilian population, then that is also justified. German and Japan are remarkably well behaved now. During WWII it was actually the policy of the allies to show the offending countries that they were not only defeated, but that they could not have won in the first place. There would be no stab in the back myth after WWII. The firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo, the Red Army storming Berlin and, of course, the two atomic bombs battered Japan and Germany into submission. And now, we're great friends! (Well, okay, by we, I mean, the US's relations with Germany and Japan.)
Wars cost. They cost money, material, but most importantly, they cost lives. This is not some abstract for me. I've seen the cost of war and it is a horrible, horrible cost. And the violence is only going to end when Hamas and the people of Gaza decide that the cost is too high.
-
4: It is the legal and moral imperative of a sovereign state to defend its citizens. That's what governments are for. If Hamas will not stop shooting rockets into Israel and peaceful attempts to bring about a resolution have failed, military action is not just a choice, it is an obligation.
How does killing boys playing on a beach contribute to this aim?
Real war is messy, chaotic, uncertain. It's not like EVE where there is a nice overview and clearly displayed standings. I'm sure the IDF didn't start out that day to kill four boys on a beach.
While we're on the topic, though, if it becomes necessary in the course of a war to break the civilian population, then that is also justified. German and Japan are remarkably well behaved now. During WWII it was actually the policy of the allies to show the offending countries that they were not only defeated, but that they could not have won in the first place. There would be no stab in the back myth after WWII. The firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo, the Red Army storming Berlin and, of course, the two atomic bombs battered Japan and Germany into submission. And now, we're great friends! (Well, okay, by we, I mean, the US's relations with Germany and Japan.)
Wars cost. They cost money, material, but most importantly, they cost lives. This is not some abstract for me. I've seen the cost of war and it is a horrible, horrible cost. And the violence is only going to end when Hamas and the people of Gaza decide that the cost is too high.
I really can't see how you can make this comparison.
World war 2 occurred between major world powers with standing armies, infrastructure and territory.
The situation here is a first-rate military bombing a terrorist organisation operating from what has been referred to as the world's largest open-air prison. Even without the fighting, the situation in the little bantustans is intolerable and incapable of maintaining peace. The situation is worsened as Israel continues to expand rather than evacuate illegal settlements, which is not the best policy to help improve the plight of the occupied, or pursue if peace is to be expected.
-
While we're on the topic, though, if it becomes necessary in the course of a war to break the civilian population, then that is also justified.
Seriously don't know if you're trolling here.
-
I'm sure the IDF didn't start out that day to kill four boys on a beach.
But it happened. Despite claims of efficient weapons. They were small boys. On a beach.
While we're on the topic, though, if it becomes necessary in the course of a war to break the civilian population, then that is also justified.
Seriously don't know if you're trolling here.
No, it isn’t trolling. It is propaganda. I find it not understandable to describe human beings as “collateral damage.” For doing that it is necessary to believe in a justified and morally superior fight against an evil enemy. Propaganda.
Just to make it clear. I detest Hamas and other terrorist organisations. I nearly got killed at the incident which became known as Tel Aviv central bus station massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Aviv_central_bus_station_massacre) and the day of the Allenby Street bus bombing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allenby_Street_bus_bombing) I was ill and didn’t go to my Hebrew class—bus No 4 usually got me there. But not only are Hamas and others willingly killing civilians, but also oppressing their own people for which they do not care.
However, I cannot accept, however “evil” the enemy is, that 500+ civilians die in the matter of a week, because Bibi was to obsessed with Iran for dealing with the situation in Gaza.
And the violence is only going to end when Hamas and the people of Gaza decide that the cost is too high.
Isn't that the same logic that Hamas follows? [And just as Hamas and the people of Gaza are not the same, the government of Israel and its citizens is not the same thing either.]
-
I really can't see how you can make this comparison.
World war 2 occurred between major world powers with standing armies, infrastructure and territory.
The situation here is a first-rate military bombing a terrorist organisation operating from what has been referred to as the world's largest open-air prison. Even without the fighting, the situation in the little bantustans is intolerable and incapable of maintaining peace. The situation is worsened as Israel continues to expand rather than evacuate illegal settlements, which is not the best policy to help improve the plight of the occupied, or pursue if peace is to be expected.
What, you think that there are rules? That when some pissant insurgents started shooting at one of our FOBs with a twenty year old RPK and some AK-47s that we were somehow obligated not to retaliate with anything we had in the area? "I say, old chap, you can't send in the tanks and Cobras, because that's not just sporting enough." Hamas picked on a first rate military and gets squashed. If they did not want to get squashed, then they should have not shot rockets in the first place.
As far as targeting civilians specifically, WWII is just a nice easy example and one that is commonly understood in the global framework of this forum. There are plenty of other good examples of campaigns designed to break a civilian population. Sherman's March to the Sea is another that springs readily to mind at this early in the am.
For most people in the western world, war is a poorly understood abstract concept. On the one hand, that's a good thing. War sucks and the less of it, the better. On the other hand, that means the time when it becomes necessary, people lack a proper framework for being able to comprehend and analyze the information they receive. War is hell and it cannot be differently. Soldiers and Marines die, enemy troops die, civilians on all sides die and at the end of it all, when enough misery and anguish has happened, both sides come to an understanding of peace.
-
What, you think that there are rules?
Links for your reference:
Geneva conventions
http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/treaties-customary-law/geneva-conventions/
List of UN treaties regarding human rights, including those applicable to arbitrary detention, war crimes, apartheid, torture, etc.
https://treaties.un.org/pages/Treaties.aspx?id=4&subid=A&lang=en
That when some pissant insurgents started shooting at one of our FOBs with a twenty year old RPK and some AK-47s that we were somehow obligated not to retaliate with anything we had in the area?
A prisoner has his four limbs chained to a rock and is continually beaten, without any prospect of release. One day the chain to his right arm is released by his captor, but the beatings continue. The captor cannot understand why the prisoner tries to harm him whenever he can, for in his mind he has been 'merciful' and 'done something that the prisoner wanted'.
The captor sits under an umbrella with an iced G&T while he ponders what he should do. He is worried that the cut he received on his little finger might leave a scar. This is one ungrateful prisoner we're holding, he thinks. He cannot be fixed, and must be punished for his insolence. I will cut off his right arm so he cannot scratch me again.
For most people in the western world, war is a poorly understood abstract concept.
Based on your last 2 posts, you seem to be the best fit to this statement.
-
If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. I'm sorry that your world isis, is one filled with nails.
That someone can so flipantly talking about 'Crushing a civilian population' illuminates much of the problem with this conflict.
-
The firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo, the Red Army storming Berlin and, of course, the two atomic bombs battered Japan and Germany into submission. And now, we're great friends!
Yeah, suggesting that the indiscriminate targetting of civilian populations during a world war is a good model to follow when dealing with a terrorist organization is...
... a good way to make sure you're fighting terrorists for the next thousand years. *Some* of the actions of the Allies during WWII would have gotten them tried for war crimes if it weren't for the fact that they won. Now, you're right, we're on good terms with Germans and Japanese now, but that's partly because they were able to look at their own governments actions in starting those wars and say, "Yeah, we screwed up."
That doesn't work here because the Palestinians don't think they're acting in aggression, they think they're acting in self-defense. And as long as Isreal continues to punish the entire population of the Gaza Strip (1.6 million people crammed into 360 sq. km) for the actions of Hamas, that will be the case.
Would it be nice if Hamas stopped chucking rockets into Isreal? Absolutely. Do I think that will be enough to bring peace? Fuck no. Peace will happen when Isreal decides they want it and are willing to work for it.
You've got two major groups of Palestinians (GROSS OVERGENERALIZATION INCOMING): Those in the West Bank who are generally peaceful, and those in the Gaza strip that aren't. If Isreal wants peace, then it needs to try to bolster those in the West Bank and undermine those in Gaza. The Isreali government has been doing the EXACT OPPOSITE of that for the last decade. The Palestinians look at how Isreal has dealt with the West Bank and laugh at the suggestion that they are serious about wanting peace.
Isreal will have peace when it decides it really wants it. Based on their actions for the last decade or so, they don't.
-
Israel: "Ok, just to let you Palestinian folks know, we're gonna be doing a bit of shelling here or there, so yeah... move out?"
Palestinians: "Where the fuck to?"
-
Honestly, living in Germany, I don't feel like the allies 'crushed the civilian population' and I had plenty of talks with the war as well as post-war generation in and outside of my family. Also, I don't think that Germany is 'great friends' with the USA - rather it seems to me that we're partners out of necessity and that especially the US looks at Germany increasingly as part of their empire.
In the end, there is no friendship amongst nations, but mutual interests. Between the people of nations can be sympathy and maybe even something friendship alike, but I feel that much of the sympathy for the US in Germany, which was built up slowlyafter WWII,is dwindling away again.
That said, I think it is fair to say that Hamas aims at civilians, while the Israelis do accept that civilian deaths will occur. The truth is also, that civilian deaths are eventually inavoidable in an armed conflict. Neither the Geneva conventions nor human right treaties change that.
And yes, there'd be prolly much greater civilian losses on the Israeli side, if they weren't technologically superior. So, it's kind'a difficult to add up the deaths of civilians caused by the Israelis against the deaths that they prevented on their own side of the border. In the end it's always civilians suffering most, the people who never signed up for any of this. Yet, it's not like that's all the Israelis fault, the Hamas plays a hughe part there as well. It's really not like you can declare peace unilaterally, especially not in assymetric warfare where there is no clear point when enemy combatants and territory are won.
And yah, I can't think of any western nation that really can lay claim to being innocent, either. There are so many wars fought around the world in the name of the interests of the westen industrialized countries, so many people dying for our relative wealth on a daily basis, that it seems quite self-righteous to me if I hear people moralizing about how the IDF should deal with this.
In an ideal worldthese conflicts could be solved easily and without loss of innocent lives. We don't live in a perfect, ideal world, though. Western civilisation should know that from the writings of the greek philosophers and the Genesis story (Yah, the Adam and Eve story is really not a scientific article about the creation of the world, surprise!), really.
-
There are so many wars fought around the world in the name of the interests of the westen industrialized countries, so many people dying for our relative wealth on a daily basis, that it seems quite self-righteous to me if I hear people moralizing about how the IDF should deal with this.
1- Follow the law
2- Treat the cause, not the symptom
That's enough to bring peace.
-
There are so many wars fought around the world in the name of the interests of the westen industrialized countries, so many people dying for our relative wealth on a daily basis, that it seems quite self-righteous to me if I hear people moralizing about how the IDF should deal with this.
1- Follow the law
2- Treat the cause, not the symptom
That's enough to bring peace.
1 - laws are imperfect
2 - there are not always the means availabe to treat the symptom
3 - the real world out there isn't as easy as the one you imagine
4 - it takes two people to make peace
-
For anyone interested in the historical background, I ran across this a while back. It's a pretty fantastic record of how we got where we are now.
http://www.merip.org/primer-palestine-israel-arab-israeli-conflict-new
Summary at the end regarding why things aren't likely to improve:
International opinion is nearly unanimous that a two-state solution, including a sovereign Palestinian state, is the best if not only way forward in the century-old conflict over historical Palestine. Yet there is no visible movement toward achieving this outcome.
One reason is the seismic rightward shift in Israeli Jewish opinion, which since the outbreak of the second intifada holds that no peace is possible with the Palestinians. Rather than “conflict resolution,” many feel, Israel should pursue a policy of “conflict management.” Partly to cater to such opinion, and partly to please the powerful settler lobby, recent Israeli governments have been unwilling to negotiate in good faith. Settlements grow apace.
A second reason is the split between Abbas and Hamas in the Palestinian body politic. Their dispute over strategy—negotiations versus resistance—divides ordinary Palestinians as well. Meanwhile, Palestinian citizens of Israel and refugees in neighboring Arab countries are adamant that a comprehensive peace must include them. There are increasingly pressing questions about the viability of the two-state vision and even the utility of international law for delivering a minimally just “solution” to the question of Palestine.
Still a third reason is the lack of political will in Washington, where the Obama administration (for the time being, at least) retains stewardship of the “peace process.” In the spring of 2013, Secretary of State John Kerry began traveling frequently to the Middle East in an effort to restart Israeli-Palestinian negotiations aimed at a two-state solution. He succeeded in doing so, and at the time of writing maintains a brave face in public about the possibility of success. There is no indication, however, that a peace agreement is on the horizon. In January 2014 President Obama himself told the New Yorker that he estimated the chances of a successful conclusion to negotiations to be “less than 50–50.” In our judgment, the odds are much lower.
-
There are so many wars fought around the world in the name of the interests of the westen industrialized countries, so many people dying for our relative wealth on a daily basis, that it seems quite self-righteous to me if I hear people moralizing about how the IDF should deal with this.
1- Follow the law
2- Treat the cause, not the symptom
That's enough to bring peace.
1 - laws are imperfect
2 - there are not always the means availabe to treat the symptom
3 - the real world out there isn't as easy as the one you imagine
4 - it takes two people to make peace
I disagree with your opinion. Let's work through this in 2 steps.
To comply with international law and treat the cause of the problem, Israel either removes the illegal settlements or integrates them within the borders of an independent Palestinian state based on pre-invasion 1967 borders.
Worthwhile compensation and recognition of the right of return (a UN-recognised human right) for the hundreds of thousands of refugees created over the last century. If they cannot be settled back where they came from (territory which is now within Israel-proper), then they can be given the right to settle in what is now the west bank.
Selected likely effects:
- Creation of a viable Palestinian state
- Collapse of popular electoral vote for violent Palestinian political parties. Moderate, re-conciliatory parties become more influential.
- It would give the Palestinians hope for a better life. They currently have none, which means that they have little to lose if they continue fighting
- Addressing the refugee situation will lead to a sharp fall in recruits to violent organisations, and give access to better health & education to work towards a new generation
What is the alternative?
-
What, you think that there are rules?
Links for your reference:
Geneva conventions
http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/treaties-customary-law/geneva-conventions/
List of UN treaties regarding human rights, including those applicable to arbitrary detention, war crimes, apartheid, torture, etc.
https://treaties.un.org/pages/Treaties.aspx?id=4&subid=A&lang=en
That when some pissant insurgents started shooting at one of our FOBs with a twenty year old RPK and some AK-47s that we were somehow obligated not to retaliate with anything we had in the area?
A prisoner has his four limbs chained to a rock and is continually beaten, without any prospect of release. One day the chain to his right arm is released by his captor, but the beatings continue. The captor cannot understand why the prisoner tries to harm him whenever he can, for in his mind he has been 'merciful' and 'done something that the prisoner wanted'.
The captor sits under an umbrella with an iced G&T while he ponders what he should do. He is worried that the cut he received on his little finger might leave a scar. This is one ungrateful prisoner we're holding, he thinks. He cannot be fixed, and must be punished for his insolence. I will cut off his right arm so he cannot scratch me again.
For most people in the western world, war is a poorly understood abstract concept.
Based on your last 2 posts, you seem to be the best fit to this statement.
Glad you brought up the Geneva Conventions! Under the conventions, a terrorist organization has no rights whatsoever. Israel, under the conventions, is well within its rights to shoot any member of Hamas on the spot. Just as I could have done to an insurgent in Iraq. But, Israel, like the US, is the good guys, so they don't.
Israel was attacked on its first day of existence and has been under attack ever since. I fail to see how that makes them the aggressors.
How many combat deployments do you have? Maybe you were embedded as a journalist somewhere?
Silas, you could not be more wrong. I hate war. Despise it with a passion. Every time I visit my parents, I drive over a bridge named after a friend of mine that got killed in Fallujah. It haunts my dreams and my waking thoughts. War is a last resort.
Once that choice is made, though, I don't wring my hands and jump up and down that people are dying. I accept and understand the hell. I wish that they could get along in peace. Since they can't though and Hamas has become a nail, that nail should be pounded so hard that it doesn't pop back up again, ever.
-
Glad you brought up the Geneva Conventions! Under the conventions, a terrorist organization has no rights whatsoever. Israel, under the conventions, is well within its rights to shoot any member of Hamas on the spot. Just as I could have done to an insurgent in Iraq...continues off topic
Isis. You seem to be on a tangent, far, far away. Please come back to the topic and leave your personal baggage outside. My linking was with reference to the treatment of civilians, not combatants.
-
There are so many wars fought around the world in the name of the interests of the westen industrialized countries, so many people dying for our relative wealth on a daily basis, that it seems quite self-righteous to me if I hear people moralizing about how the IDF should deal with this.
1- Follow the law
2- Treat the cause, not the symptom
That's enough to bring peace.
1 - laws are imperfect
2 - there are not always the means availabe to treat the symptom
3 - the real world out there isn't as easy as the one you imagine
4 - it takes two people to make peace
I disagree with your opinion. Let's work through this in 2 steps.
To comply with international law and treat the cause of the problem, Israel either removes the illegal settlements or integrates them within the borders of an independent Palestinian state based on pre-invasion 1967 borders.
Israel can't just decide to put up a Palestinian state and even if it does, there's still the question whether the Palestinians will accept that Israel-enforced Palestine.
Worthwhile compensation and recognition of the right of return (a UN-recognised human right) for the hundreds of thousands of refugees created over the last century. If they cannot be settled back where they came from (territory which is now within Israel-proper), then they can be given the right to settle in what is now the west bank.
Yah, all that depending on the refugees and Hamas accepting whatever compensations as acceptable and worthwhile.
Selected likely effects:
- Creation of a viable Palestinian state
- Collapse of popular electoral vote for violent Palestinian political parties. Moderate, re-conciliatory parties become more influential.
- It would give the Palestinians hope for a better life. They currently have none, which means that they have little to lose if they continue fighting
- Addressing the refugee situation will lead to a sharp fall in recruits to violent organisations, and give access to better health & education to work towards a new generation
What is the alternative?
How did you measure that those are the likely effects?
Really, I think in your mind this is a simple, one sided thing. While in fact peace is always, by definition and necessity, two-sided at least, as it's two parties agreeing on it.
-
Also, I don't think that Germany is 'great friends' with the USA - rather it seems to me that we're partners out of necessity and that especially the US looks at Germany increasingly as part of their empire.
I can't speak for every American, but all the ones I've interacted with tend to view our interaction with "Europe" as an increasingly unpleasant necessity. The most plausible reason I've been given to continue our presence there is that containing Putin will help prevent a war with costly economic consequences for the U.S.
/end reply to Mithra specifically
As for Gaza, I do think Isis has at least one good point: it's not the responsibility of any national government to care about the citizens of another state more than its own. I think the problem with what Israel is doing, from Israel's perspective, is that continually crushing Gaza probably won't solve the problem of Hamas.
And lastly, be careful of assuming that just because someone isn't in power, they won't be assholes. America may not be the nicest country to live in, but it's generally pretty good, and yet we still have white militias who occasionally act in a terrorist fashion and want to start a race war. It's entirely possible that Israel could give Hamas everything everyone who is pro-Palestinian in this thread proposes and still find rockets coming down on them. At which point I am sure that it would be concluded that Israel, being the more powerful party, is responsible to find a way to create a peace.
No matter how powerful you are, you can't make people not hate you.
-
As for Gaza, I do think Isis has at least one good point: it's not the responsibility of any national government to care about the citizens of another state more than its own. I think the problem with what Israel is doing, from Israel's perspective, is that continually crushing Gaza probably won't solve the problem of Hamas.
It’s not another state. It’s occupied territory.
-
Israel can't just decide to put up a Palestinian state and even if it does, there's still the question whether the Palestinians will accept that Israel-enforced Palestine.
Excellent point. There have been many refusals of previous offers, historically. The issue in the past offers has been regarding the right of return, the status of the settlements and the status of east Jerusalem. I am not aware of a previous offer that has managed to make provisions for each of this issues.
One step towards getting the Palestinians to accept an offer is to have one spokesperson, i.e. one government. It is essential for involved parties to help create a credible, moderate and legitimate Palestinian government that can negotiate for its people, both in Gaza and in the West Bank. At present they seem to be divided...and when they unify they aren't cooperated with...and there seem to be unfortunate events that seem to coincide and lead to one of the parties being held to blame...spiraling into another Gaza conflict. Just saying.
Yah, all that depending on the refugees and Hamas accepting whatever compensations as acceptable and worthwhile.
Hamas are violent fanatics. The way to achieve peace with them is for their support to cease. This won't be achieved by force, but by addressing the many grievances of their population, which will lead to them ceasing to support violence against Israel. More force will only worsen things.
How did you measure that those are the likely effects?
Really, I think in your mind this is a simple, one sided thing. While in fact peace is always, by definition and necessity, two-sided at least, as it's two parties agreeing on it.
Absolutely right, it would be naive to the extreme to think that all someone has to do is flick a switch and hey presto, peace. I invite you to suggest a better end point. The alternative is a 1-state solution, which will mean the end of the zionist dream of a Jewish state by the resultant demographic change.
If Israel continues to respond to violence with violence, the escalation of this conflict will mean one day they will create a foe with weapons that could actually overwhelm them.
-
Israel was attacked on its first day of existence and has been under attack ever since.
A worthwhile pursuit to question why this was the case? Why would they be attacked on the first day and since?
The "state" of Israel was created out of thin air. Poof. All you people living there? GTFO it's ours now.
Whether they have some historic ties to a place or not, whether somehow valid or not, there were people already living there, and then they were forcibly removed and told the land wasn't theirs anymore. That tends to start conflict.
The USA did the same thing with the Native Americans, but we were more effective with that genocide and kept their numbers small enough and spread out far enough, and unarmed, that we didn't end up with our own entifada.
-
Israel was attacked on its first day of existence and has been under attack ever since.
A worthwhile pursuit to question why this was the case? Why would they be attacked on the first day and since?
Indeed. Israel is a colonial project. Partly successful, party not. I care for my relatives and friends living there, I enjoy eating Falafel in Tel Aviv and having lunch at King George. Israel is there to stay. But it cannot not deny its origins.
I know there was Resolution 181, I know that the neighbouring Arabs didn’t accept it, I know the narrative. I has been repeated ad nauseam. But if Israelis and people from the outside just continue celebrating Yom Ha'atzmaut (independence day) while refuting any claims that there is a justification that “the others” commemorate the same day as Yawm al-Nabka (catastrophe day), I see no desirable future.
-
Israel can't just decide to put up a Palestinian state and even if it does, there's still the question whether the Palestinians will accept that Israel-enforced Palestine.
Excellent point. There have been many refusals of previous offers, historically. The issue in the past offers has been regarding the right of return, the status of the settlements and the status of east Jerusalem. I am not aware of a previous offer that has managed to make provisions for each of this issues.
One step towards getting the Palestinians to accept an offer is to have one spokesperson, i.e. one government. It is essential for involved parties to help create a credible, moderate and legitimate Palestinian government that can negotiate for its people, both in Gaza and in the West Bank. At present they seem to be divided...and when they unify they aren't cooperated with...and there seem to be unfortunate events that seem to coincide and lead to one of the parties being held to blame...spiraling into another Gaza conflict. Just saying.
And how should Israel fabricate such a government? Such would be up to the Palestinians, really.
Yah, all that depending on the refugees and Hamas accepting whatever compensations as acceptable and worthwhile.
Hamas are violent fanatics. The way to achieve peace with them is for their support to cease. This won't be achieved by force, but by addressing the many grievances of their population, which will lead to them ceasing to support violence against Israel. More force will only worsen things.
terrorist don't stop operationg, simply because they lack public support.
How did you measure that those are the likely effects?
Really, I think in your mind this is a simple, one sided thing. While in fact peace is always, by definition and necessity, two-sided at least, as it's two parties agreeing on it.
Absolutely right, it would be naive to the extreme to think that all someone has to do is flick a switch and hey presto, peace. I invite you to suggest a better end point. The alternative is a 1-state solution, which will mean the end of the zionist dream of a Jewish state by the resultant demographic change.
If Israel continues to respond to violence with violence, the escalation of this conflict will mean one day they will create a foe with weapons that could actually overwhelm them.
I'm not saying a two state soution would be bad, I just think that the onus here isn't simply with the -admittedly technologically and militarily superior- Israel. I don't see how Israel doing everything right if one has the ideal solution in mind makes that solution come about, how Hamas would stop it's actions even if Palestinian public support for them were zero or how a change in politics would somehow cancel out decades of hatred on both sides.
Sometimes the best solution to a problem isn't rechable in any pragmatic sense and even if it is, it's qite often not as easy to reach as we'd like it to be.
-
How do you achieve peace with an organization that wants to destroy your home nation (and its people).
-
And how should Israel fabricate such a government? Such would be up to the Palestinians, really.
I agree with you.
The Palestinians did a unity government that fell apart in the recent aftermath of the kidnapping of the 3 Israeli teenagers. Hamas did not claim responsibility but was held responsible. Guilt has still not been established, and the heavy-handed Israeli approach to investigating their kidnapping and death resulted in the detention of many Hamas officials without charge - which I can't say would help maintain peaceful relations.
In the wider context, there needs to be a suitable environment for a unity government to survive, notwithstanding the context of blockade, withheld tax income, economic destitution and despair amongst large swathes of the population. Continued settlement expansion as we speak weakens support for a negotiated solution, and makes the Israelis look like they are acting in bad faith. Surely if Israel wanted a viable Palestinian state they would not go out of their way to put more 'facts on the ground' to make this goal harder to achieve? Taking steps to stop and reverse this trend will help create trust that negotiations are not being held to pay lip service to the USA.
terrorist don't stop operationg, simply because they lack public support.
Again, I agree. However, such organisations rely on the desperation and oppression of their people to gain recruits. Remove those factors and people will not be drawn to them. See the rise of extreme politics after the great depression as an example.
If a viable Palestinian state and better quality of life is about to become a reality, then violence against Israel would be viewed as terrorism rather than resistance. So long as the oppression is in place, they have nothing to gain from subjugation and nothing to lose from fighting.
I don't see how Israel doing everything right if one has the ideal solution in mind makes that solution come about, how Hamas would stop it's actions even if Palestinian public support for them were zero or how a change in politics would somehow cancel out decades of hatred on both sides.
Remember how we said we need to address causes, not symptoms? Hamas is a symptom. Address the circumstances that caused them to gain such popularity, as described above.
-
How do you achieve peace with an organization that wants to destroy your home nation (and its people).
Ask the USA to stop supporting them?
-
A worthwhile pursuit to question why this was the case? Why would they be attacked on the first day and since?
The "state" of Israel was created out of thin air. Poof. All you people living there? GTFO it's ours now.
Whether they have some historic ties to a place or not, whether somehow valid or not, there were people already living there, and then they were forcibly removed and told the land wasn't theirs anymore. That tends to start conflict.
I'm just going to address this real fast: The idea that the conflict took off on 14 May 1948 and was spurred solely by an Israeli takeover of Arab land is highly, highly inaccurate. The conflict (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tel_Hai) had been (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riots_in_Palestine_of_1920) ongoing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffa_riots) for some (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Palestine_riots) years prior (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936%E2%80%931939_Arab_revolt_in_Palestine) to that; the 1948 war was merely the first time it was between multiple recognized states rather than an internal conflict.
I feel the situation prior to 1948 can be characterized as something of a catch-22 for the British: When they took a harder, hands-on approach it stirred sentiment against "foreign interventionist" policies in the land. When they tried to take a hands-off approach, riots and battles between militias ran out of control.
-
A worthwhile pursuit to question why this was the case? Why would they be attacked on the first day and since?
The "state" of Israel was created out of thin air. Poof. All you people living there? GTFO it's ours now.
Whether they have some historic ties to a place or not, whether somehow valid or not, there were people already living there, and then they were forcibly removed and told the land wasn't theirs anymore. That tends to start conflict.
I'm just going to address this real fast: The idea that the conflict took off on 14 May 1948 and was spurred solely by an Israeli takeover of Arab land is highly, highly inaccurate. The conflict (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tel_Hai) had been (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riots_in_Palestine_of_1920) ongoing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffa_riots) for some (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Palestine_riots) years prior (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936%E2%80%931939_Arab_revolt_in_Palestine) to that; the 1948 war was merely the first time it was between multiple recognized states rather than an internal conflict.
I feel the situation prior to 1948 can be characterized as something of a catch-22 for the British: When they took a harder, hands-on approach it stirred sentiment against "foreign interventionist" policies in the land. When they tried to take a hands-off approach, riots and battles between militias ran out of control.
What business was it of the British to be anywhere near? What gave them the right to govern any area outside of the British Isles?
The Western powers had a lovely few hundred years of decimating native populations with their colonies, and then leaving in the night for their previously subjugated to fend for themselves with broken economies, weak leadership, and no institutions. Is it any wonder most of Africa and the middle east are in such shape?
When you leave a place with no working institutions and no rule of law, the strong prey on the weak, the corrupt rule, and the populace suffers. When you keep a place under your boot, you breed resentment, poverty, and fanaticism.
-
I'm just going to address this real fast: The idea that the conflict took off on 14 May 1948 and was spurred solely by an Israeli takeover of Arab land is highly, highly inaccurate. The conflict (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tel_Hai) had been (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riots_in_Palestine_of_1920) ongoing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffa_riots) for some (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Palestine_riots) years prior (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936%E2%80%931939_Arab_revolt_in_Palestine) to that; the 1948 war was merely the first time it was between multiple recognized states rather than an internal conflict.
I feel the situation prior to 1948 can be characterized as something of a catch-22 for the British: When they took a harder, hands-on approach it stirred sentiment against "foreign interventionist" policies in the land. When they tried to take a hands-off approach, riots and battles between militias ran out of control.
While it's great to see someone providing citations for their claims for once, I hate to say this Esna, but that Battle to Tel Hai page is in serious need of proper citation. It contradicts itself in its "Significance" subheadings and somewhere along the way I read "Zions mainstream historiography." Words like that almost immediately cause a knee jerk reaction of skepticism for me at least.
-
What business was it of the British to be anywhere near? What gave them the right to govern any area outside of the British Isles?
That would be the British Navy. International politics 101: a sovereign state is allowed to do whatever it can get away with. The idea of 'human rights' is a farce. Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor for them and will argue forcefully for them. However, they are a recent invention. Imagine traveling back in time and explaining human rights to an Athenian, or a Roman, Ramases II, Eric the Red, Genghis Khan, Qin Shi Huang. The concept just does not exist in history. It's a product of modern circumstances. If those circumstances change and the shit hits the fan, the concept will disappear just as quickly. The same can be said of international law.
Everyone decries western imperialism. Without it, though, the absolute standard of living among the homo sapiens of planet earth would be significantly lower. I will also point out that human rights is a product of western thought.
As a Realist ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(international_relations) ) I tend to look at the Gaza problem not as a international issue, since Hamas is not a state actor (nor are they particularly rational). Which makes the Gaza 'invasion' more of a domestic police action than an actual war. Though, really, the issue is muddled as hell.
-
Today they bombed a hospital. I hope they remembered to warn them off 5 minutes before so that all the wounded could vacate the building beforehand.
I would find it a bit scandalous otherwise tbh.
What is the alternative?
Rockets and white phosphorus.
-
What business was it of the British to be anywhere near? What gave them the right to govern any area outside of the British Isles?
That would be the British Navy. International politics 101: a sovereign state is allowed to do whatever it can get away with. The idea of 'human rights' is a farce. Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor for them and will argue forcefully for them. However, they are a recent invention. Imagine traveling back in time and explaining human rights to an Athenian, or a Roman, Ramases II, Eric the Red, Genghis Khan, Qin Shi Huang. The concept just does not exist in history. It's a product of modern circumstances. If those circumstances change and the shit hits the fan, the concept will disappear just as quickly. The same can be said of international law.
Everyone decries western imperialism. Without it, though, the absolute standard of living among the homo sapiens of planet earth would be significantly lower. I will also point out that human rights is a product of western thought.
As a Realist ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(international_relations) ) I tend to look at the Gaza problem not as a international issue, since Hamas is not a state actor (nor are they particularly rational). Which makes the Gaza 'invasion' more of a domestic police action than an actual war. Though, really, the issue is muddled as hell.
Firstly, international politics 101 would have taught you that the entirety of international politics is based around the concept of "State Sovereignty." That is the inaliable right of a state to its borders and the freedom to act as it chooses within them. Your claim that it's about "what you can get away with" is absurd.
Secondly; the Only recognized superseding rights and freedoms than State Sovereignty are those listed in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and Freedoms giving member nations freedom to intervene on other signatories after a general assembly.
Finally; Hamas is not Palestine, and Palestine is not Hamas. In the same way an Afghan is not inherently Taliban.
People here on both sides of this argument seem to be confusing Hamas with the legitimate representation of the Palestinian people. The would be the PLO. You can find Hamas' manifesto all over the Internet and nowhere in its tiny little hate filled pages will you see a claim to speak as the authority of the Palestinian people.
So please everyone stop confusing the two. Israel would no sooner go to the table with Hamas than American Diplomats would go to the table with East Street Bloods over gang violence in NY.
-
What business was it of the British to be anywhere near? What gave them the right to govern any area outside of the British Isles?
That would be the British Navy. International politics 101: a sovereign state is allowed to do whatever it can get away with. The idea of 'human rights' is a farce. Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor for them and will argue forcefully for them. However, they are a recent invention. Imagine traveling back in time and explaining human rights to an Athenian, or a Roman, Ramases II, Eric the Red, Genghis Khan, Qin Shi Huang. The concept just does not exist in history. It's a product of modern circumstances. If those circumstances change and the shit hits the fan, the concept will disappear just as quickly. The same can be said of international law.
Everyone decries western imperialism. Without it, though, the absolute standard of living among the homo sapiens of planet earth would be significantly lower. I will also point out that human rights is a product of western thought.
As a Realist ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(international_relations) ) I tend to look at the Gaza problem not as a international issue, since Hamas is not a state actor (nor are they particularly rational). Which makes the Gaza 'invasion' more of a domestic police action than an actual war. Though, really, the issue is muddled as hell.
Firstly, international politics 101 would have taught you that the entirety of international politics is based around the concept of "State Sovereignty." That is the inaliable right of a state to its borders and the freedom to act as it chooses within them. Your claim that it's about "what you can get away with" is absurd.
Secondly; the Only recognized superseding rights and freedoms than State Sovereignty are those listed in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and Freedoms giving member nations freedom to intervene on other signatories after a general assembly.
Finally; Hamas is not Palestine, and Palestine is not Hamas. In the same way an Afghan is not inherently Taliban.
People here on both sides of this argument seem to be confusing Hamas with the legitimate representation of the Palestinian people. The would be the PLO. You can find Hamas' manifesto all over the Internet and nowhere in its tiny little hate filled pages will you see a claim to speak as the authority of the Palestinian people.
So please everyone stop confusing the two. Israel would no sooner go to the table with Hamas than American Diplomats would go to the table with East Street Bloods over gang violence in NY.
Minor contention although I agree with much of your points - state actors routinely and frequently negotiate and meet with terrorist and other groups.
The us government representatives (the NYPD), and in my city (Chicago) routinely meet with gang leaders to discuss pressing matters and to try and settle tensions.
The USA also frequently meets with non-state actors, the ones controlling areas we are fighting in.
Israel will eventually have to treat with Hamas, however repugnant the thought.
-
Firstly, international politics 101 would have taught you that the entirety of international politics is based around the concept of "State Sovereignty." That is the inaliably right of a state to its borders and the freedom to act as it chooses within them. Your claim that it's about "what you can get away with" is absurd.
Secondly; the Only recognized superseding rights and freedoms than State Sovereignty are those listed in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and Freedoms giving member nations freedom to intervene on other signatories after a general assembly.
Finally; Hamas is not Palestine, and Palestine is not Hamas. In the same way an Afghan is not inherently Taliban.
People here on both sides of this argument seem to be confusing Hamas with the legitimate representation of the Palestinian people. The would be the PLO. You can find Hamas' manifesto all over the Internet and nowhere in its tiny little hate filled pages will you see a claim to speak as the authority of the Palestinian people.
So please everyone stop confusing the two. Israel would no sooner go to the table with Hamas than American Diplomats would go to the table with East Street Bloods over gang violence in NY.
Don't know much about Realism, I am guessing, but I gave you a link! As far as the UN, how many divisions does it have? The UN is a useful farce for the big five to more or less do what they want. The sooner people recognize that, the happier everyone will be. Now, it's okay if someone wants it to be more, that's fine. Just understand that it's not and will likely never be.
The problem is that Hamas is the de facto authority in Gaza. As long as that remains the case, bloodshed is likely to continue. As long as Hamas puts missiles in hospitals, hospitals are going to get bombed. If the people of Gaza want to not get bombed, the people of Gaza need to get rid of Hamas. See the Sunni Awakening. (Yes, I know, it ended poorly. That's more to do with internal Iraqi politics than anything else.)
-
The Western powers had a lovely few hundred years of decimating native populations with their colonies, and then leaving in the night for their previously subjugated to fend for themselves with broken economies, weak leadership, and no institutions. Is it any wonder most of Africa and the middle east are in such shape?
While I can understand the point you make regarding all the issues in Africa, Middle East, etc, that statement in itself sounds rather simplistic to me, or even half mistaken even.
If these Western Powers "left in the night" it was also because most of those colonies actually thrived for their independence. It may seem that way for a lot of british colonies because the way the british commonwealth was done and worked. The emphasis was always put on the commonwealth and the merchant fleet, as well as trade. What the british did right was that their colonial overseers were not extremely intertwined with their colonies and their natives. Most transitions between british rule and local autonomy went more or less smoothly, if i'm not mistaken, and it was even a government will to actually go that way, which can give the feeling that they "left in the night". Except maybe in India, but that started out of local issues iirc.
If you take french colonial Empire on the other hand, the emphasis was put on very different matters, and most of them were either on triangular trade with slave trade (like everyone did) in the first colonial empire, but in the second colonial empire (which means the modern colonial empire, from which a lot of isles still remain part and fully integrated to the nation) the emphasis has always been on "uplifting" natives and bringing civilization and culture to these lands. Most of these have always been considered a very true and important part of the nation itself, nation that was supposed indivisible and united under a common cultural legacy. This spawned dirty wars like Indochina and Algeria among other conflicts (not real wars) less known, like New Caledonia. Which is also why the state has always kept its tendrils very deep in ex african colonies, and is still doing so.
Actually at the risk of sounding a bit imperialist, all those decolonizations were probably extremely detrimental to most of the newly formed countries afterwards. Especially in Africa with such arbitrary borders and the total loss of support from the metropolis. It should have been done more smoothly, as hastened as they were. In either way, these countries are left alone, or pillaged by westerners through widespread national corruption.
-
As long as Hamas puts missiles in hospitals, hospitals are going to get bombed.
Who said there were missiles in that hospital ? Do you have even proofs of what you are claiming ?
-
What business was it of the British to be anywhere near? What gave them the right to govern any area outside of the British Isles?
That would be the British Navy. International politics 101: a sovereign state is allowed to do whatever it can get away with. The idea of 'human rights' is a farce. Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor for them and will argue forcefully for them. However, they are a recent invention. Imagine traveling back in time and explaining human rights to an Athenian, or a Roman, Ramases II, Eric the Red, Genghis Khan, Qin Shi Huang. The concept just does not exist in history. It's a product of modern circumstances. If those circumstances change and the shit hits the fan, the concept will disappear just as quickly. The same can be said of international law.
Everyone decries western imperialism. Without it, though, the absolute standard of living among the homo sapiens of planet earth would be significantly lower. I will also point out that human rights is a product of western thought.
As a Realist ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(international_relations) ) I tend to look at the Gaza problem not as a international issue, since Hamas is not a state actor (nor are they particularly rational). Which makes the Gaza 'invasion' more of a domestic police action than an actual war. Though, really, the issue is muddled as hell.
Firstly, international politics 101 would have taught you that the entirety of international politics is based around the concept of "State Sovereignty." That is the inaliable right of a state to its borders and the freedom to act as it chooses within them. Your claim that it's about "what you can get away with" is absurd.
Secondly; the Only recognized superseding rights and freedoms than State Sovereignty are those listed in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and Freedoms giving member nations freedom to intervene on other signatories after a general assembly.
Finally; Hamas is not Palestine, and Palestine is not Hamas. In the same way an Afghan is not inherently Taliban.
People here on both sides of this argument seem to be confusing Hamas with the legitimate representation of the Palestinian people. The would be the PLO. You can find Hamas' manifesto all over the Internet and nowhere in its tiny little hate filled pages will you see a claim to speak as the authority of the Palestinian people.
So please everyone stop confusing the two. Israel would no sooner go to the table with Hamas than American Diplomats would go to the table with East Street Bloods over gang violence in NY.
Minor contention although I agree with much of your points - state actors routinely and frequently negotiate and meet with terrorist and other groups.
The us government representatives (the NYPD), and in my city (Chicago) routinely meet with gang leaders to discuss pressing matters and to try and settle tensions.
The USA also frequently meets with non-state actors, the ones controlling areas we are fighting in.
Israel will eventually have to treat with Hamas, however repugnant the thought.
This is actually exactly my point. Although admittedly I may have worded it poorly. During many of the peace talks (Oslo I, Oslo II, Camp David, etc) One of Israel demands, one that was actually agree upon was that a function and efficient "policing body" must exist within what would have been Palestine had the been successful. The entire express purpose of this to be the management of Hamas within Palestine.
When I mentioned US diplomats I meant that quite literally. As in essence they represent the federal administration instead of the state body of law, if that helps to clarify my point. I hope.
Cheers
-
As long as Hamas puts missiles in hospitals, hospitals are going to get bombed.
Who said there were missiles in that hospital ? Do you have even proofs of what you are claiming ?
http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/07/20/official-rockets-found-in-unrwa-gaza-school-returned-to-hamas/
It is a well known fact that Hamas locates weapons at locations such as schools and hospitals. The above is a school, but there have been other instances of using hospitals. That way, when Israel attacks the sites, Hamas claims atrocity.
-
Ah, realism, bible of the hipster IR student wanting to appear to have the answer to everything.
-
I didn't speak about that school. I spoke about the Al Aqsa hospital. You have no proof for this one, absolutely none. You have been only making wide assumptions since the beginning.
I am rarely inclined to trust, listen to people that usually start their sentences by "it's a well known fact that" while linking a single occurrence of something happening and making generalities out of it. I have no doubt that you can find some other examples as well, but that will hardly cover most of those cases. You are only using specific examples and presenting them as universal truths.
That's a slippery slope, and a dangerous one at that.
-
As long as Hamas puts missiles in hospitals, hospitals are going to get bombed.
Who said there were missiles in that hospital ? Do you have even proofs of what you are claiming ?
http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/07/20/official-rockets-found-in-unrwa-gaza-school-returned-to-hamas/
It is a well known fact that Hamas locates weapons at locations such as schools and hospitals. The above is a school, but there have been other instances of using hospitals. That way, when Israel attacks the sites, Hamas claims atrocity.
The site you've linked here is pretty questionable. Simply going to its front page and you can see the slant it's taking.
-
Ah, realism, bible of the hipster IR student wanting to appear to have the answer to everything.
A political philosophy almost as resoundingly rejected as Neo-Con theory post Iraq 2010
-
Well, you're even more incorrect. It was not bombed, but rather hit by direct fire from IDF tanks. So, the IDF was actually looking at what they were shooting at. Twelve rounds total. That's some fucking precision work right there. Israel asserts that Hamas was using the hospital (or the area nearby) to store AT rockets. The easy thing to do would be to drop a JDAM (or whatever the IDF uses) from 30000 feet and be done with it. Instead, they were cognizant of civilian causalities and put their own troops in the line of fire to avoid as much collateral damage as possible.
Also, forget the slant. Who cares; it was just the first link that came up in google. No one is denying that there were rockets in a school.
-
Scagga, I'm not going to disagree that things went wrong on the israeli side, but again, you're oversimplifying there in my opinion. I won't go through what you said point by point to show that in each case the Palestinians had a share of responsibility for things not going as they ideally should, but I'm sure if you think about it you will see that on your own. I can only repeat my mantra:
You need two sides that want to make peace and work for it to have it. Placing blame on just one side is oversimplyfying the situation and so is the idea that you even can figure out who is more to blame for it.
-
Also, forget the slant. Who cares; it was just the first link that came up in google. No one is denying that there were rockets in a school.
That's kinda the point though. If you provide credible sources it's easier to believe such claims. It's much more about debate etiquette than anything else.
Also twelve tank shells into a known school does not sound "precise" by any means, a bomb is worse for sure, but neither are "precise."
-
To both sides of the conflict:
(http://i.imgur.com/7RPAKwy.jpg)
-
Also, forget the slant. Who cares; it was just the first link that came up in google. No one is denying that there were rockets in a school.
That's kinda the point though. If you provide credible sources it's easier to believe such claims. It's much more about debate etiquette than anything else.
Also twelve tank shells into a known school does not sound "precise" by any means, a bomb is worse for sure, but neither are "precise."
http://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/press-releases/unrwa-strongly-condemns-placement-rockets-school
Also, generally speaking, if people use correct grammar and spelling, it's easier to take them seriously. Since, apparently, debate etiquette is more important than facts, now.
As for your comment on main tank rounds, I am going to assume that you are a civilian with absolutely no first hand experience. One does not get much more precise than a main tank round. The only thing I can think of off hand would be to walk up and use a satchel charge. You can debate politics and worldviews all you want, but when it comes to weapons and tactics, I am as close to an expert as you are going to get on these boards.
Modern main tank guns are capable of routine first round hits at over four km away, while moving, on a target about the size of the hood of a midsized sedan. Yes, they are precise.
-
Also, forget the slant. Who cares; it was just the first link that came up in google. No one is denying that there were rockets in a school.
That's kinda the point though. If you provide credible sources it's easier to believe such claims. It's much more about debate etiquette than anything else.
Also twelve tank shells into a known school does not sound "precise" by any means, a bomb is worse for sure, but neither are "precise."
http://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/press-releases/unrwa-strongly-condemns-placement-rockets-school
Also, generally speaking, if people use correct grammar and spelling, it's easier to take them seriously. Since, apparently, debate etiquette is more important than facts, now.
As for your comment on main tank rounds, I am going to assume that you are a civilian with absolutely no first hand experience. One does not get much more precise than a main tank round. The only thing I can think of off hand would be to walk up and use a satchel charge. You can debate politics and worldviews all you want, but when it comes to weapons and tactics, I am as close to an expert as you are going to get on these boards.
Modern main tank guns are capable of routine first round hits at over four km away, while moving, on a target about the size of the hood of a midsized sedan. Yes, they are precise.
Ad Hominims aside, did you take the time to actually read that article? It states that this was the first time this has ever happened quite openly on the page. Which kinda debunks Every other time they have hit hospitals or schools. Furthermore the schools were "vacant" so there goes your "human shield" argument as well.
Next time you feel like snapping at someone simply for asking for proper citation, make sure you actually read what you cite, hmm?
-
While it's great to see someone providing citations for their claims for once, I hate to say this Esna, but that Battle to Tel Hai page is in serious need of proper citation. It contradicts itself in its "Significance" subheadings and somewhere along the way I read "Zions mainstream historiography." Words like that almost immediately cause a knee jerk reaction of skepticism for me at least.
Fair enough; I was pulling examples to demonstrate that the conflict existed long before 1948.
In my opinion, here's a basic outline of what needs to happen for things to calm down:
Palestinians:
- Stop shooting rockets, mortars, etc. Just, stop. It hasn't helped, isn't helping, and won't help. So long as this keeps up, nothing is going to go anywhere.
- Similarly, crossborder raids and attacks on entry points need to end. Offensive activity is a nonstarter for any kind of peace process.
- Stop glamorizing, glorifying, and otherwise promoting acts of violence against a civilian population and those who perform them. Similarly, stop vilifying Israel and Israelis in education and media. If you continue to present those who commit such attacks as doing great and noble deeds against a universally vicious and bestial enemy - surprise, things will keep going.
- Form a joint co-operative committee to assist in the management of historical and religiously significant sites in the West Bank, including access for Israelis to these sites.
Israel:
- Get your hardliners under control. If you desire peace on an equal footing, you need to control those who would go out to stir up shit with the Palestinians. If that means deploying the police, do it. If that means relocating people, do it. Make an active and visible effort to prevent conflict.
- In response for a complete and total cessation of artillery fire from Gaza, begin opening borders to increased traffic and transport. Lift travel limitations where reasonably possible.
- Get to work on that joint antiquities committee to provide a joint mutual force for management of religiously significant sites in both areas. This means continuing to provide open access to the al-Aqsa mosque (something they fortunately do already).
Finally, settlements. The big doozy. Here's the thing: I'm not actually against settlements. In fact, I think possibly the best hope for the region is in settlements. There are plenty of (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harvey-stein/fields-of-heaven-israeli-settler-palestinian-farm-project_b_1822594.html) examples of (http://www.timesofisrael.com/settlers-and-palestinians-break-their-fast-together/) Israelis and Palestinians working together in the West Bank, and this kind of continued cooperation should be heavily promoted. In the future, settlements should be planned for both sides with an eye towards promoting cooperation and peaceful neighbors. If this means limiting settlement to those with a stated interest in that, then do it - on both sides.
Thoughts?
EDIT: Vince about summed up my thoughts on it. :s
-
Furthermore, while your knowledge of military hardware is quite impressive I find myself curious as to how you can think shooting tank rounds at rocket caches is somehow more precise than a bomb disposal team? The IDF has more than enough manpower to roll up and conduct a proper explosive disposal operation instead.
-
The easy thing to do would be to drop a JDAM (or whatever the IDF uses) from 30000 feet and be done with it.
Modern main tank guns are capable of routine first round hits at over four km away, while moving, on a target about the size of the hood of a midsized sedan.
The JDAM (or LGB) from 30,000 feet can also be that precise. It is however more challenging for a JDAM (or LGB) to hit a vertical plane vs a horizontal plane.
Furthermore, while your knowledge of military hardware is quite impressive I find myself curious as to how you can think shooting tank rounds at rocket caches is somehow more precise than a bomb disposal team? The IDF has more than enough manpower to roll up and conduct a proper explosive disposal operation instead.
Bomb disposal teams are useful when the ordnance cache is undefended and the surrounding area relatively secure.
An attempt to 1) enter an unfriendly building, 2) clear the building of hostiles, 3) deal with a potentially large cache of AT-weapons is likely to get a large number of the defenders killed and possibly also result in the deaths of the EOD** team and their escort. In this case, defense includes non-uniformed combatants* in surrounding civilian structures with anti-personnel weapons.
*These individuals blend in with the civilian population. The Geneva Convention is very clear on how to treat fellow uniformed combatants. How to treat non-uniformed combatants is less clear.
**The EDO team is also having to deal with the unexploded ordinance in friendly territory.
-
Furthermore, while your knowledge of military hardware is quite impressive I find myself curious as to how you can think shooting tank rounds at rocket caches is somehow more precise than a bomb disposal team? The IDF has more than enough manpower to roll up and conduct a proper explosive disposal operation instead.
I didn't say that it was more precise. I said EOD is the only thing that I could think of off hand more precise.
We don't actually know that EOD was a viable option. There is actual combat happening in Gaza. We don't know if there were enemy fighters making use of the cache, or any huge number of variables. The Merkava is capable of carrying personnel in the rear; it's entirely possible they were trying to make their way to the hospital for an EOD team to dispose of the rockets with a controlled blast. Then again, they might not have. EOD might not have been available. I'm not going to speculate.
In any military operation, the enemy gets a say. The use of main tank rounds was probably the best the IDF could do.
Also, I know a lot less about air power than ground weapons, but I was under the impression that the accuracy of a JDAM was about five meters. Which is really really good, but still, not anywhere close to a main tank gun.
Edit again:
Orange has a good point that EOD is also in Israel dealing with the two thousand rockets that have been shot at Israel since this thing kicked off. EOD is a demanding job and there are not that many EOD teams. When I was in Iraq, the wait time for EOD was usually a few hours, so yes, there is that.
-
Also twelve tank shells into a known school does not sound "precise" by any means, a bomb is worse for sure, but neither are "precise."
Most of us tend to think of tank cannons of being like their WW2 versions: sometimes accurate, sometimes not. A main gun on a tank today is pretty damn close to being more accurate than some rifles, over much further distance. So, yeah. I dunno if firing into a school is all that great, but they hit what they aimed at.
Of course, you'd have to pay me a HELL of a lot of money to do EOD on a Hamas-stockpiled collection of munitions, whether you thought it was booby-trapped or not.
-
Okay people I am not talking about "Precision" in terms of accuracy here but it terms of collateral damage. Unless the stockpile was comically piled up in the sandbox outside of the school the tanks would very likely have to shoot through something to destroy them.
A disposal team on the other hand may be able to enter the building and defuse/disarm the weapons. (After its properly cleared by IDF forces for traps and enemy combatants.) Remember folks in her own article these sites were listed as "Vacant" so its a pretty safe assumption there weren't any people inside, furthermore if there were, given the fact that these sites were known to be vacant proper presumptions could be made about anyone who was inside.
-
Okay people I am not talking about "Precision" in terms of accuracy here but it terms of collateral damage. Unless the stockpile was comically piled up in the sandbox outside of the school the tanks would very likely have to shoot through something to destroy them.
A disposal team on the other hand may be able to enter the building and defuse/disarm the weapons. (After its properly cleared by IDF forces for traps and enemy combatants.) Remember folks in her own article these sites were listed as "Vacant" so its a pretty safe assumption there weren't any people inside, furthermore if there were, given the fact that these sites were known to be vacant proper presumptions could be made about anyone who was inside.
I mean, I get that popping a school with a HE round or twelve to get rid of some rockets is sorta hard on the school and also on those who go to it.
The only issue I have with just saying the above, though, is that there's always this thin little voice in my head asking "who the hell stores rockets in a school?"
-
Okay people I am not talking about "Precision" in terms of accuracy here but it terms of collateral damage. Unless the stockpile was comically piled up in the sandbox outside of the school the tanks would very likely have to shoot through something to destroy them.
A disposal team on the other hand may be able to enter the building and defuse/disarm the weapons. (After its properly cleared by IDF forces for traps and enemy combatants.) Remember folks in her own article these sites were listed as "Vacant" so its a pretty safe assumption there weren't any people inside, furthermore if there were, given the fact that these sites were known to be vacant proper presumptions could be made about anyone who was inside.
Let's start from the end.
Disposal team disarming each weapon, at a site distant from the building where the cache is - ignore everything surrounding it. It can be a building in Canada or Iceland. Consider the time involved in doing just that action.
Add time for possible traps/IEDs that must be disarmed before proceeding with disarming and moving the actual weapons.
Now, add significant security detail - IDF forces surrounding the school and corridor by which the defused weapons are exfiltrated for further disposal (since the requirement is to not damage the building in which it is cached).
Lastly, the IDF forces are now in a fixed position for X amount of time to protect the operation. The IDF may take sniper fire, possibly returning fire, to include tank fire into the building from which they are being sniped. They may be engaged by hit-and-run attackers. They are however now fixed in place to protect the disarming operation.
It was likely better to accept the collateral damage to the building to dispose of the munitions in-place versus the potential pitched battle to disarm and exfiltrate the munitions.
Also, I know a lot less about air power than ground weapons, but I was under the impression that the accuracy of a JDAM was about five meters. Which is really really good, but still, not anywhere close to a main tank gun.
That impression is accurate to keep things simple - a lot goes into how accurate a GPS fix can be from the number of satellites in view, their position, how cloudy it is, whether it is solar min or max, etc. The type of receiver also matters (even on the civil side, a surveying receiver (http://www.trimble.com/Survey/TrimbleR10.aspx?tab=Product_Overview) vs a smartphone have different error margins).
LGB's are a different story entirely. (Video example (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HaDE9KCk2o)) Those suckers follow the laser in.
-
Let's start from the end.
Disposal team disarming each weapon, at a site distant from the building where the cache is - ignore everything surrounding it. It can be a building in Canada or Iceland. Consider the time involved in doing just that action.
Add time for possible traps/IEDs that must be disarmed before proceeding with disarming and moving the actual weapons.
Now, add significant security detail - IDF forces surrounding the school and corridor by which the defused weapons are exfiltrated for further disposal (since the requirement is to not damage the building in which it is cached).
Lastly, the IDF forces are now in a fixed position for X amount of time to protect the operation. The IDF may take sniper fire, possibly returning fire, to include tank fire into the building from which they are being sniped. They may be engaged by hit-and-run attackers. They are however now fixed in place to protect the disarming operation.
It was likely better to accept the collateral damage to the building to dispose of the munitions in-place versus the potential pitched battle to disarm and exfiltrate the munitions.
I'm afraid I'll have to disagree about how you interpret what its like on the ground in The Gaza Strip. Hamas' is not an ever present enemy that fires at IDF forces indiscriminately when they are inside Gaza. Hamas' attacks almost exclusively come in the form on mortar, rocket, and most recently attempt drone use that strike INTO Israel proper.
I may be wrong about this but from what I've read and understand there aren't these ground fights like you think of with Iraqi Insurgency, Hamas' simply doesn't operate like that.
Another reason for this being the heavy handed retaliation IDF frequently respond with making outright gun battles highly risky as IDF is prone to carpet the area the second they even suspect Hamas fighters are present.
-
If I was a ground commander in any conflict, the last thing I am going to do is purposely become immobile, in order to prevent physical damage to a building with no chance of noncombatant causalities. I am going to take the swiftest action possible to destroy the weapons cache and move on. It isn't about what Hamas has done in the past, it is about what they could do.
Hamas is engaging the IDF in urban warfare, right now, in Gaza. Yesterday, as IDF forces lost 13 soldiers to hostile actions/fire. (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/israel-soldiers-killed-hamas-battle-gaza)
Hamas, Hezbollah, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Taliban all learn from each other how to fight their Goliaths.
-
We should stop using the term 'collateral damage.'
Those are people like you and me.
Devaluing certain human beings in order to accept high levels of civilian murder and misery becomes much easier for the killers when the victims are systematically reduced to abstract things.
'collateral damage' is a much easier term to discuss and hand to the media and news talk shows than 'exploded children' 'mothers with limbs blown off'
It's the same reason the US never showed coffins returning from Iraq for years, and the US news media self-censors and never shows mutilated and destroyed bodies in the aftermath of mass shootings and violence.
If the public actually saw what was being done in our names, we wouldn't be doing it.
-
We should stop using the term 'collateral damage.'
Those are people like you and me.
Devaluing certain human beings in order to accept high levels of civilian murder and misery becomes much easier for the killers when the victims are systematically reduced to abstract things.
'collateral damage' is a much easier term to discuss and hand to the media and news talk shows than 'exploded children' 'mothers with limbs blown off'
It's the same reason the US never showed coffins returning from Iraq for years, and the US news media self-censors and never shows mutilated and destroyed bodies in the aftermath of mass shootings and violence.
If the public actually saw what was being done in our names, we wouldn't be doing it.
I specifically used the term in reference to the destruction of a building/property, collateral to the destruction of other property, specifically weapons. Others before me were also referencing the destruction of property (but may have been using the term more liberally).
I was not discussing inadvertent and noncombatant casualties of war.
The increasing precision of modern weapons is driven in part to reduce collateral damage (property) and reduce noncombatant casualties.
-
Finally, settlements. The big doozy. Here's the thing: I'm not actually against settlements. In fact, I think possibly the best hope for the region is in settlements. There are plenty of (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harvey-stein/fields-of-heaven-israeli-settler-palestinian-farm-project_b_1822594.html) examples of (http://www.timesofisrael.com/settlers-and-palestinians-break-their-fast-together/) Israelis and Palestinians working together in the West Bank, and this kind of continued cooperation should be heavily promoted. In the future, settlements should be planned for both sides with an eye towards promoting cooperation and peaceful neighbors. If this means limiting settlement to those with a stated interest in that, then do it - on both sides.
Thoughts?
Esna, I would agree with the steps you suggested for both sides to start with to reduce tensions. I would suggest that the promise of lifting of the blockade is essential to help improve living standards in Gaza. Prior to this violence there was effectively rationing of what was allowed in and out, all air/sea/land trade prohibited, preventing any form of economic activity and promoting an environment where violence seems to be the only option to be taken notice of.
The thing that I can't get my head round, and would like you to explain a bit more, is why you think the illegal settlements are a good idea. You do appreciate that more than 500,000 settlers have been placed into the west bank since it was occupied in 1967? Are you aware that they are often placed on the best land with a very unequal share of the resources, and that Palestinians are prohibited from developing their own land in most areas? There are a lot of other issues that I won't go in to for the sake of brevity, but how is it that you see settlements as a 'good thing', if you take into account the reality they create? (other than the 'let's get along' videos of a few people eating together, and jobless palestinians accepting work to build more settlements as the alternative is to starve...)
-
Final post for me in this thread chaps, happy to continue it privately.
Sign off it with a youtube music video that describes a sentiment I suspect is widely held in Gaza at present.
Dam - meen erhabe (who's the terrorist?) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9lLq7ufUik)
-
Orange has the right of it. Staying in place for however long with the number of troops needed to secure the site is bad ju-ju. Sounds to me the iDF did the best they could.
Silas, what do you want me to call them? Civilian causalities? That and collateral damage are the two most commonly used terms in the military. And while you may wax poetically that if we (not sure who the we is here) saw what was going on, we would not do it. The public knows about the effects of weapons, civilian deaths. I will point out that war has not stopped.
You're an idealist, or maybe a hopefulist (yeah, I just made that up.) Humans are a fallen creation. We, frankly, revel in death. The Romans piled into the arenas and cheered at each death. In Sparta, the ruling class declared war on their slaves on a regular basis. Genghis Khan's troops would collect ears. Now, we watch movies like Saw or Game of Thrones where the violence is as realistic as it's ever been and pay good money to do so. Images of civilian deaths are actually quite common. We just don't care.
Every Sunday the priest prays for world peace. I pray for it, too. I just don't expect it.
-
Now, we watch movies like Saw or Game of Thrones where the violence is as realistic as it's ever been and pay good money to do so.
Um, hi. Just a minor niggle on your point. I get you're talking in more general terms about society at large and how-much-has-changed-and-how-much-has-changed-the-same but I think it's worth pointing out that while Saw and Game of Thrones can certainly glamorize violence (and there's an argument for desensitization) I don't think there's much correlation between watching violent fictional media and being accepting or approving of real-life violence, personally.
I can only speak for myself, but certainly my enjoyment of watching last season of Game of Thrones doesn't translate to me being able to pop someone's eyeballs with my fingers, or watch someone do that in front of me in real-time or be anyway ok or blasé about that scenario :ugh: (not least because I'm squeamish about eyes!)
I think caring, and the extent of it is subjective - some people will care more than others. I would comment that things happening far away can take on an abstract component; this is why news stories sometimes go for the "human angle" or personalize tragedy so people can empathise. I think sometimes there is a limit to our caring and where it can be spent - the internet and global events and a barrage of information would require constant caring and that would be deeply emotionally draining. The concept of the monkey sphere is probably relevant as well (most of your caring is probably automatically invested in your nearest and dearest and things that effect you directly).
I don't think that's callousness. More a defence mechanism. To do otherwise would be overwhelming.
(Frankly, I do get overwhelmed with the world's awfulness from time to time, and then it's time to turn off the computer and go to bed)
I certainly think it's not that people don't care about death or violence because they're completely desensitized to violence through media saturation and portrayals - just that it's difficult to conceptualize when it's not happening to them or in front of them. (Which leads in well to someone's earlier point about the use of terms like "collateral damage" referring to people, as that makes it difficult to conceptualize/empathise, whereas mentioning the names of people who died would personalize things, making it easier to conceptualize/empathise).
-
The solution! (http://www.theonion.com/articles/everyone-in-middle-east-given-own-country-in-31700,36484/)
-
Meh.
The best way to fix this constant back and forth is to let Iran have The Bomb (http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137731/kenneth-n-waltz/why-iran-should-get-the-bomb). That is the only way to ensure good behavior from the Israelis since they're using the "peace process" and IDF vs Hamas to obfuscate and distract people from the continuous land grabs on the part of the settlers. Once again, Israel is blundering themselves into a rush for tactical superiority and losing in the strategic big picture (http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141647/ariel-ilan-roth/how-hamas-won). It's funny that the Israelis are so cognizant that they're constantly playing into the hands of Hezbollah and Hamas, but yet the only thing they do is to perform ground invasions that result in quagmire clusterfucks for them. Cue that quote about insanity.
Another cause for concern is in the attitudes of Israeli and American Jews towards the value of Palestinian life. Nearly 4 years of living in the United States has brought me into contact with Jewish classmates and roommates who tell me of privately-run Jewish schools in New Jersey and Maryland where teachers repeatedly refer to Arabs as "cockroaches" or "little snakes". Many Israeli Jews refer to the cycle of offensives into Palestine as "mowing the lawn". (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/thousands-of-gazans-flee-homes-as-israel-promises-to-press-the-fight/2014/07/13/d37eed04-0ac6-11e4-b8e5-d0de80767fc2_story.html) I'm sorry, but even a people who lay claim to historical victimhood of this scale do not have the right to use that language on other people.
-
Giving Iran the bomb is not a good solution to the problem, as they will just try to flatten the entire area which will draw a large part of the Western World into yet another shitty war that no one really wants in a volatile region.
-
Iran does not want the bomb.
<.<
>.>
-
Giving Iran the bomb is not a good solution to the problem, as they will just try to flatten the entire area which will draw a large part of the Western World into yet another shitty war that no one really wants in a volatile region.
That opinion tends to be painted by sensationalist media in the West which knows that Israel's interests will be severely hampered by a nuclear-armed Iran, and so they (media) will do everything in their power to defend Israel's interests or they will be immediately labelled "anti-Semitic" or some other retarded rhetorical shit. Seriously, the influence of the pro-Israel lobby is so pervasive that it's causing the US to make foreign policy decisions that are detrimental to its own interests. The 2003 invasion of Iraq was predicated on pleasing Ariel Sharon, not oil. If it was all about oil, the United States would have chosen to make their life easier and sided with the Palestinians so that the Middle Eastern oil barons would stop bitching about it.
For all the blustering rhetoric, the Iranian regime is not suicidal and they know all too well that if they ever get the bomb and so much as to even actually use it, it will mean game over for them. When a state pursues nuclear weapons, it's not for the purpose of using them for the sake of using them, but because nuclear weapons are the key to establishing their geopolitical power and guarantees their security. If anything, there is greater incentive for Iran to get The Bomb because recent events have shown that it's a) always sensible to have it and b) it's foolish to give them up once you have it. Gaddafi voluntarily surrendered his nuclear weapons and all he got in return was an insurrection and getting shot live on TV. Ukraine gave up their nukes in the 90s in exchange for security guarantees from Russia and the US. Fat lot of good it's done for the Ukrainians. Putin wouldn't be messing with Ukraine and fucking with their borders if they still had their nukes.
I'm willing to bet my right arm that once Iran (inevitably) gets the bomb, all that idiotic rhetoric about sending airstrikes into Iran will be over, and Israel will stop behaving like that retarded spoilt child that constantly screams in plane cabins and act like an adult. Adult behavior includes finding a pragmatic and lasting solution with the Palestinians since American weakness will continue to persist and Israel will find itself alone in the Middle East.
-
It isn't the Iranians having nuclear weapons that bothers me. I view Iran, as a whole, as rational actors.
It is the idea of the Saudis having nuclear weapons that bothers me. Should Iran produce a weapon, my understanding is the Saudis will start a crash program to develop their own. I am less confident in the Saudis being rational actors.
-
I don't think it's in the interest of the US that Iran has the bomb. Thus...
But really, there was a time when people thought that the bomb solves all conflicts through nuclear dterrance, then stuff like Able Archer 83 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83) happened. The more players enter, the more probable mistakes become. It's kind'a obvious that no one really wants the bomb as it's our best bet to get rid of humanity at the time. It's not sensible in any sophisticated meaning of the word to have the bomb.
Also, honestly, the rhetoric about Israel acting like the 'retarded spoilt child' is just as sensible as that which calls the US acting like the 'pubescent, adolescent hooligan/rowdy'.
-
It isn't the Iranians having nuclear weapons that bothers me. I view Iran, as a whole, as rational actors.
It is the idea of the Saudis having nuclear weapons that bothers me. Should Iran produce a weapon, my understanding is the Saudis will start a crash program to develop their own. I am less confident in the Saudis being rational actors.
As I understand things, the Saudis are either planning, or are in the actual process of obtaining, off-the-shelf short-range nuclear weapons from Pakistan.
Some people in Iran want Iran to have nuclear weapons, even just a token handful, so that western powers will leave Iran alone. Given the history of the democratically elected regime being overthrown by a US-UK force, installing a tyrannical absolute monarch instead, and the actions of much of the western powers during the Iran-Iraq war (e.g. the complete lack of action or condemnation when confronted with the evidence of Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Iranian citizens), things like the USS Vincennes incident, and subsequent events, then the wish for the West to just leave Iran alone isn't too difficult to understand.
-
We're veering off topic, but Iran has shown precious little desire to be 'left alone.' They have clea aims to regional hegemony and act accordingly through supplying weapons, manpower, and influence as best they can.
More nuclear weapons, in anyone's hands, is a terrible, suicidal concept. Nuclear Mutually assured destruction is a terrible idea of that holds most of the planet at knifepoint. If enough nukes are out there it absolutely will happen that someone will screw up, and a good chunk of the planet gets vaporized.
-
We're veering off topic, but Iran has shown precious little desire to be 'left alone.' They have clea aims to regional hegemony and act accordingly through supplying weapons, manpower, and influence as best they can.
More nuclear weapons, in anyone's hands, is a terrible, suicidal concept. Nuclear Mutually assured destruction is a terrible idea of that holds most of the planet at knifepoint. If enough nukes are out there it absolutely will happen that someone will screw up, and a good chunk of the planet gets vaporized.
I wholly agree :) of course it would help if the nuclear powers/UN actually protected the territorial integrity of those without.
-
It's better as long as it's only us holding nuclear power.
/cynism
-
It's better as long as it's only us holding nuclear power.
/cynism
Well the solution is always less nuclear weapons, and I hope the US/Russians will continue to chip away at their mutual stockpiles.
This is sort of the one species-level extinction things where it should transcend politics. It's terrifying that the right sequence of mistakes can end our little experiment called humanity, and we've come very. very. very close on several occasions.
Extremely close with two highly trained and sophisticated militaries, non-state actors or states who have non state actor clients will likely not be as careful.
-
Giving Iran the bomb is not a good solution to the problem, as they will just try to flatten the entire area which will draw a large part of the Western World into yet another shitty war that no one really wants in a volatile region.
That opinion tends to be painted by sensationalist media in the West which knows that Israel's interests will be severely hampered by a nuclear-armed Iran, and so they (media) will do everything in their power to defend Israel's interests or they will be immediately labelled "anti-Semitic" or some other retarded rhetorical shit. Seriously, the influence of the pro-Israel lobby is so pervasive that it's causing the US to make foreign policy decisions that are detrimental to its own interests. The 2003 invasion of Iraq was predicated on pleasing Ariel Sharon, not oil. If it was all about oil, the United States would have chosen to make their life easier and sided with the Palestinians so that the Middle Eastern oil barons would stop bitching about it.
For all the blustering rhetoric, the Iranian regime is not suicidal and they know all too well that if they ever get the bomb and so much as to even actually use it, it will mean game over for them. When a state pursues nuclear weapons, it's not for the purpose of using them for the sake of using them, but because nuclear weapons are the key to establishing their geopolitical power and guarantees their security. If anything, there is greater incentive for Iran to get The Bomb because recent events have shown that it's a) always sensible to have it and b) it's foolish to give them up once you have it. Gaddafi voluntarily surrendered his nuclear weapons and all he got in return was an insurrection and getting shot live on TV. Ukraine gave up their nukes in the 90s in exchange for security guarantees from Russia and the US. Fat lot of good it's done for the Ukrainians. Putin wouldn't be messing with Ukraine and fucking with their borders if they still had their nukes.
I'm willing to bet my right arm that once Iran (inevitably) gets the bomb, all that idiotic rhetoric about sending airstrikes into Iran will be over, and Israel will stop behaving like that retarded spoilt child that constantly screams in plane cabins and act like an adult. Adult behavior includes finding a pragmatic and lasting solution with the Palestinians since American weakness will continue to persist and Israel will find itself alone in the Middle East.
I agree with a lot of your sentiments from the last post or two, but Iran publicly pursuing a bomb will 100% lead to a larger regional conflagration. Israel is not going to let that happen, and the US will not keep a lid on Israel not letting that happen.
The US has done some piss-poor diplomacy with the whole thing, on all sides, for the last few decades.
Ironically I think the current going theories are that we will actually be aligned with Iran in the not too distant future.
-
Here you folks may enjoy this, since you are talking about Iran.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei)
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khomenei. The religious/spiritual/supreme leader of the Islamic nation of Iran issued a Nuclear Fatwah (which his predecessor had also issued) stating that owning and stockpiling Nuclear Arms of any kind is Haram (Aka a sin) in Islam.
Another interesting fact is that he also issued a Fatwah against the use of Biological and Chemical arms. During the Iraq/Iran War Saddam frequently used mustard gas and other chemical weapons of the sort against the Iranians. Khomenei even after his military and government advisor pleaded with him to lift the Fatwah, refused. Iran subsequently never used these kinds of weapons during that war.
Im mentioning this because the Western Media has painted Iran into what (at least to me) is an incompatible corner. On one hand they claim that Iran wants "The bomb" and that its nuclear efforts are solely focused on achieving that goal. On the other however they paint them as rogue nation of radical Shia Muslim's. (Shia being the predominant majority of Iranian's.)
So my question question is. "What do you guys think of this? Can you square the two?"
Discuss... :D
-
We can split the topic but it is not in dispute that Iran has been working full steam ahead towards bomb making capability. Their plan isnt so much to openly have the weapons but rather to be able to quickly assemble enough fissile material to mate with a rocket that has been demonstrated to have x range.
They have been moving away from this position slightly after the banking sanctions started bearing fruit.
But any claims about reactors for peaceful purposes only is hilarious and not fooling anyone. You don't need to enrich nearly that much for civilian reactors, and you don need to enrich it underneath a mountain for civilian purposes, and you don't turn down others to buy reactor ready material either.
We would be smart to approach the situation more from why they feel they need such a thing and how we can ameleorate those issues.
Also those fatwas are worth their weight in toilet paper. :)
-
Also those fatwas are worth their weight in toilet paper. :)
Oh dammit. You owe me a new monitor.
And I'm agreeing with Silas. Fuck my miserable fucking god damn fucking life.
-
Actually, less than their weight as toilet paper as there is some dispute as to whether a Fatwa was actually issued as to nuclear weapons. At most, it seems that it was verbal and by definition can't be used as a toilet paper or anything else, consisting only of hot air.
I am happy to be proven wrong if someone can link a copy of the actual Fatwa (as opposed to reports talking about it)
-
So for kicks and giggles, someone shelled a UN school being used as shelter for civilians. Isreal is claiming that it was hit by a rocket launched from Gaza that fell short. Everyone else is saying that it was hit by Israeli shells. 16 dead and over 200 wounded.
... which really doesn't seem like much next to the other 750 dead palestinians and 4500 or so wounded.
-
Channel 4's Jon Snow interviews Dr. Mads Gilbert. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4z4TvDbffI0#t=239)
Statistics start at linked point, but the whole video is worth watching (if upsetting).
-
Here’s a link to the N-fatwa thing: https://www.princeton.edu/irandataportal/laws/supreme-leader/khamenei/review-of-khameneis-fatwa/index.xml
I am too lazy to find a Q&A-style entry in a fatwa database, however the N-fatwa is often repeated on his website, Iranian news agencies etc. But call it fatwa or political position (both revisable): A civil nuclear programme should be the right of any nation.
But any claims about reactors for peaceful purposes only is hilarious and not fooling anyone. You don't need to enrich nearly that much for civilian reactors, and you don need to enrich it underneath a mountain for civilian purposes, and you don't turn down others to buy reactor ready material either.
“Normal countries” don’t need to enrich uranium underneath a mountain. But when you are under constant sanctions for 30+ years, saw the west supporting your Iraqi war enemy and turning and blind I on his use of chemical weapons, when you are constantly threatened with war and more sanctions, regime change and so on, how—regardless of who started it games—would you react to any suggestions of “why don’t you buy your uranium from us [as long as it pleases us]” and “enrich as we command [because it pleases us and you are evil]”?
-
A civil nuclear programme should be the right of any nation.
Damn right it should. Instead even first world countries are continuing to fuck up the planet with carbon energy (both coal and petrol).
Except for Japan of course. Those should be the ones exempt of nuclear power plants. That's just so fucking ironic.
-
Here’s a link to the N-fatwa thing: https://www.princeton.edu/irandataportal/laws/supreme-leader/khamenei/review-of-khameneis-fatwa/index.xml
I am too lazy to find a Q&A-style entry in a fatwa database, however the N-fatwa is often repeated on his website, Iranian news agencies etc. But call it fatwa or political position (both revisable): A civil nuclear programme should be the right of any nation.
But any claims about reactors for peaceful purposes only is hilarious and not fooling anyone. You don't need to enrich nearly that much for civilian reactors, and you don need to enrich it underneath a mountain for civilian purposes, and you don't turn down others to buy reactor ready material either.
“Normal countries” don’t need to enrich uranium underneath a mountain. But when you are under constant sanctions for 30+ years, saw the west supporting your Iraqi war enemy and turning and blind I on his use of chemical weapons, when you are constantly threatened with war and more sanctions, regime change and so on, how—regardless of who started it games—would you react to any suggestions of “why don’t you buy your uranium from us [as long as it pleases us]” and “enrich as we command [because it pleases us and you are evil]”?
No, not all countries should have the right to nuclear power.
The Iranians have been offered many times by a host of different parties to supply them with civilian-grade plutonium and energy producing reactors. If they were legitimately interested in such a thing then they would be pursuing this course.
This isn't a case of a punitive squashing of a country's economy.
It would take Iran about 3 seconds for sanctions to be lifted: allow unrestricted inspections, dismantle the nuclear weapons program, etc. Is that unfair, is that not nice? You better believe it. That's the price to re-enter the world economy as a member nation.
The Iranians can unilaterally change their relationship with the West and the rest of the region at any point their dictatorship wishes to, it's absolutely and 100% that simple. If they allowed free elections and took all of those previously mentioned steps they would absolutely be welcomed back into the international community.
I also absolutely separate the Iranian people from their terrible and repressive government.
-
Lets make it very clear that the current Iranian government has been working incredibly hard with a whole host of major world powers to prove that is nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes. As part of the P5+1 talks, Iran has agreed to almost unprecedented access in recent history to IAEA inspectors and has opened up the possibility of signing the 'additional protocols' where sanctions will be lifted - further increasing the range and scope of IAEA inspections to incorporate other 'suspected' nuclear facilities, despite the obvious capability of that - from Iran's perspective - being used to 'spy' on Iranian military assets.
As part of these talks, which aren't completed yet, Iran has also signed on to an interim agreement restraining their enrichment programme and downblending existing stocks. Again, IAEA inspections have shown a continued adherence (http://www.isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/ISIS_Analysis_IAEA_Safeguards_Report_20February2014-Final.pdf) (it seems eve isn't the only one with the ISIS problem atm) to this agreement - with notable and respectable progress having been made every time they came to check things out.
I'd also note that Iran hasn't developed its civilian nuclear programme in isolation either, the Russian state nuclear energy corporation has been a key part of Iranian nuclear development, pretty much overseeing some of the largest constructions. They've also reached out to the international market for acquiring the fuel to make sure that their medical isotopes programmes remains sustainable - a move which has been blocked by major powers.
President Rouhani has taken nuclear dialogue a long way - and I believe that now is the time for some good faith dealing before that opportunity is lost to insofar speculative guesses that Iran is developing nuclear weapons technology in contradiction to the very foundations of their Shi'a theocratic system of government.
Also, it's suggested by the Iranian government that heavy water development only began after sanctions and mountains and so on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqyd7SJDjDU
Of course that's a national PR piece so please do take it with the appropriate salt.
In Summary: Speculation around Iran's nuclear programme is as much about 'best guess' as it is actual fact. We know how that turned out in Iraq. We also know that every Iranian overture and action within the interim agreement (the 'joint declaration') of the P5+1 talks has been performed in good faith, with Iran doing quite a deal of 'damage' to their civilian nuclear progress for only limited sanction relief.
If they weren't committed to a long term resolution within the framework of their rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty then all this wouldn't be worthwhile for them.
-
Lets make it very clear that the current Iranian government has been working incredibly hard with a whole host of major world powers to prove that is nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes. As part of the P5+1 talks, Iran has agreed to almost unprecedented access in recent history to IAEA inspectors and has opened up the possibility of signing the 'additional protocols' where sanctions will be lifted - further increasing the range and scope of IAEA inspections to incorporate other 'suspected' nuclear facilities, despite the obvious capability of that - from Iran's perspective - being used to 'spy' on Iranian military assets.
As part of these talks, which aren't completed yet, Iran has also signed on to an interim agreement restraining their enrichment programme and downblending existing stocks. Again, IAEA inspections have shown a continued adherence (http://www.isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/ISIS_Analysis_IAEA_Safeguards_Report_20February2014-Final.pdf) (it seems eve isn't the only one with the ISIS problem atm) to this agreement - with notable and respectable progress having been made every time they came to check things out.
I'd also note that Iran hasn't developed its civilian nuclear programme in isolation either, the Russian state nuclear energy corporation has been a key part of Iranian nuclear development, pretty much overseeing some of the largest constructions. They've also reached out to the international market for acquiring the fuel to make sure that their medical isotopes programmes remains sustainable - a move which has been blocked by major powers.
President Rouhani has taken nuclear dialogue a long way - and I believe that now is the time for some good faith dealing before that opportunity is lost to insofar speculative guesses that Iran is developing nuclear weapons technology in contradiction to the very foundations of their Shi'a theocratic system of government.
Also, it's suggested by the Iranian government that heavy water development only began after sanctions and mountains and so on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqyd7SJDjDU
Of course that's a national PR piece so please do take it with the appropriate salt.
In Summary: Speculation around Iran's nuclear programme is as much about 'best guess' as it is actual fact. We know how that turned out in Iraq. We also know that every Iranian overture and action within the interim agreement (the 'joint declaration') of the P5+1 talks has been performed in good faith, with Iran doing quite a deal of 'damage' to their civilian nuclear progress for only limited sanction relief.
If they weren't committed to a long term resolution within the framework of their rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty then all this wouldn't be worthwhile for them.
I absolutely grant the current public administration has been making some big strides lately in a more positive direction, I think most people can agree on that.
Iran's is a difficult power structure to follow, however, with the public face often acting only at the behest of the supreme leader, and the real power structure having no public oversight or need to show their cards, so to speak. There are plenty who assume this latest round of easing of tensions and cooperation is merely a stalling tactic.
Again many people question the need for any secrecy or hidden installations and military controlled production sites for a 'civilian' nuclear program. A country with ridiculous oil wealth sure picks an interesting time to try and go alternative energy, yes?
What is likely happening is much more of a nuanced game with the interior factions; I don't doubt there are genuinely some factions within the government who think the cost of pursuing nuclear weapons is far too high, and potentially destabilizing to their country to be pursued.
How much weight those factions actually have vs the hardliners remains to be seen.
The left hand might not even know what the right hand is doing, so to speak.
-
http://globalvoicesonline.org/2014/07/31/warning-graphic-video-from-gaza-documents-the-killing-of-journalist-ramy-ryan-by-israeli-missiles/
The IDF sure does know how to show journalists and first-responders what's what.
-
In case anyone missed it:
When Genocide is Permissible (http://w01.freezepage.com/a/14069/09211XPDLSKVFJP/0)
From the Times of Israel.
Hastily taken down soon after publication.
The writer continues to defend himself on twitter.
-
In case anyone missed it:
When Genocide is Permissible (http://w01.freezepage.com/a/14069/09211XPDLSKVFJP/0)
From the Times of Israel.
Hastily taken down soon after publication.
The writer continues to defend himself on twitter.
He's actually deleted both his twitter and facebook account.
I'm not surprised...
Edit: The writer in question has had his blog discontinued, and he issued a public apology ( http://5tjt.com/apology-from-yochanan-gordon/ (http://5tjt.com/apology-from-yochanan-gordon/) )
-
In case anyone missed it:
When Genocide is Permissible (http://w01.freezepage.com/a/14069/09211XPDLSKVFJP/0)
From the Times of Israel.
Hastily taken down soon after publication.
The writer continues to defend himself on twitter.
He's actually deleted both his twitter and facebook account.
I'm not surprised...
Edit: The writer in question has had his blog discontinued, and he issued a public apology ( http://5tjt.com/apology-from-yochanan-gordon/ (http://5tjt.com/apology-from-yochanan-gordon/) )
Quite a reversal.
Editorial thumbscrews work miracles.
-
Everyone has crazies. News at 10.
I think the last few days have illustrated the Catch-22 in the region quite effectively. When a "ceasefire" is called, it is promptly broken and Israel attack. When Israel attacks, they don't hold back from striking even when human/humanitarian shields are used. Either way, people suffer.
-
Yes, everyone has crazies, but the difference is one is the oppressor and the other the oppressee, i.e. only one of those sides is actually capable of committing said genocide, and one side is actually cultivating these crazies.
Since Israel often receives praise a "the only democracy in the middle east" I don't think it's a high bar to say "no genocide". Sure, it was an article written by one guy who was swiftly taken down. But things to consider:
1) The writer was not some fringe skinhead but an educated man.
2) He actually felt confident enough to write and publish it.
3) Judging by the twitter reaction and other reports from the country he is far from alone.
In fact this is what has really pushed me off the fence in this debate, the sheer unbridled racism that is permeating to the core the state of Israel, the absolute hatred of the "Arabs", not just "cuz Hamas", but just reasons of pure and simple racism, belief in the purity of the Israeli state and the evil of the Arab world.
Perhaps I would not be so bothered if the State, the Prime Minister, the Knesset, actually said something like "racism is bad, yo" but they don't, not even pretending to. In fact, the institutes of state are downright encouraging this sort of behaviour, hand in hand with the Israeli media. If you're an Israeli and don't agree with the war or the racism? Ha, buckle up. Death threats, arson, beatings, all the tools of state-passively-permitted mob have been visited upon dissenters, to such a point that many of these individuals who have dared speak out have already prepared "escape plans" in case of even worse violence.
"But wait!" I hear you say, "it's still only a few crazies actually doing this". Well, yes, 2 out of 5 is still a minority, but considering the majority seem at least passive to the minority, it's a moot point. You don't get groups of Israelis singing "No teaching in Gaza tomorrow, there's no children left!", or cheering as they see the missiles flying into Gaze without there having been an atmosphere that cultivates them. These are not isolated incidents.
"Hold up" I hear you say again "well sure it's sour, but if you'd had your attempts at peacemaking thrown back at you, you'd feel the same" Yes! But that's assuming the Israeli's have tried to make peace. Spoiler alert, when Israel was carved out, the settlers didn't sing Kumbaya and invite the neighbours in for tea, they pretty much just took whatever land they could grab and then keep pushing the Palestinians out (all with British passive acceptance). Name me a truly defensive war where the defender pushes not just their borders, but their people, their cultural influence far beyond their own borders with the intent of staying permanently. Now who would agree with the idea of kicking people who don't look like you or worship your god out while continually building your settlements on their land? Well I'll give you a clue, there's a charming band of people in South Africa who have a similar idea called a Boer Volkstaat.
Until this recent spat, I was pretty content to sit upon the fence, tut disapprovingly and say "Well you both have some points..." and not really come down on a side. But this open and vile imperialistic, "manifest destiny" racism fuelling the Israeli war machine has just torn it for me, especially since we in the "West" permit it and enable it to happen! We sell them arms, we protect them diplomatically, we sing their praises as "the only democracy in the Middle East!" It's a bad joke. So in this fucked up situation, with these fucked up sides, all I can say is I disapprove of one much more than I disapprove of the other. Fucking breakthrough.
http://www.vice.com/read/israeli-racism-gaza-kleinfeld-511 (http://www.vice.com/read/israeli-racism-gaza-kleinfeld-511)
-
Most societies have a conservative faction telling them they are gods specialist, bestest, most special people, bit in this particular case they have state approval and weapons to make their vision a real thing.
I'm ashamed of my country's continued blind support with money, weapons, and ammunition. We continue to blindly bend over to Bibi, he knows he can tell us whatever he wants and we'll keep the money flowing. Dispicable.
-
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xaf1/t1.0-9/q71/s720x720/10505347_10152157580141561_2383285081644255037_n.jpg)
-
Actually, said writer has been fired from his job and roundly denounced. Looking at social media to see if he is viewed as popular is going to leave you with a hefty dose of confirmation bias, which is why (barring a few singular events) it is rarely a valuable tool when examining politics, especially foreign politics.
Here's my problem with this hubbub: When an Israeli says something like, it creates a massive hue and cry which is taken as an example that all Israeli society is inherently racist. Even the post here presents it as
LOOK AT THIS BIG BAD THING THE ISRAELIS DID NOW!
When similar statements are not merely enshrined in Hamas' charter (http://archive.adl.org/main_israel/hamas_charter.html#.U95fqfldXIU) but taught in classrooms (http://www.timesofisrael.com/palestinian-kids-taught-to-hate-israel-in-un-funded-camps-clip-shows/) and state-sponsored textbooks (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/04/world/middleeast/to-shape-young-palestinians-hamas-creates-its-own-textbooks.html?pagewanted=all), the response is an apparent shrug.
Racism is a serious problem for both sides. You'll notice that one of my points in the post a couple pages back is that Israel needs to get its crazies under control as well. But, if you are going to focus on this issue, you need to keep in mind that Hamas is ten steps beyond anything that goes on in Israel, and react accordingly. If they want to be accepted as a legitimate, peaceful government interested in co-existing with Israel, they damn well need to start acting like it. So far, I've not seen much to convince me of that.
-
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xaf1/t1.0-9/q71/s720x720/10505347_10152157580141561_2383285081644255037_n.jpg)
Heh, that's right, and that's also telling that this guy omits (out of mistake, or out of intent ?) the case of South Africa and the greatest sham of a saint figure there ever was, and all the deaths that go with it.
I find that a bit hypocritical of him.
Edit : also, i'm not sure if that's so true, I mean, either it's just me but I'm pretty sure most of those issues were denounced in the media. Not like it is for Gaza of course, though. Especially all the obscure things that occur in Africa.
Here's my problem with this hubbub: When an Israeli says something like, it creates a massive hue and cry which is taken as an example that all Israeli society is inherently racist. Even the post here presents it as
With the oversized victim complex surrounding Jews these days and how every fingers is ready to point at antisemitism for whatever reason there is, I think it is not really surprising the see the exact opposite and extreme reaction to arise, much like it is in the case of femen, lgbt, or even more old and deep rooted, good old anti black racism.
There is something almost newtonian in this, akin to laws on momentum and all...
When similar statements are not merely enshrined in Hamas' charter (http://archive.adl.org/main_israel/hamas_charter.html#.U95fqfldXIU) but taught in classrooms (http://www.timesofisrael.com/palestinian-kids-taught-to-hate-israel-in-un-funded-camps-clip-shows/) and state-sponsored textbooks (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/04/world/middleeast/to-shape-young-palestinians-hamas-creates-its-own-textbooks.html?pagewanted=all), the response is an apparent shrug.
Generally speaking, you don't expect better from terrorist organizations like the Hamas. You should expect better of countries and governments, which may be actually a good sign no ? I mean, if everyone was deaf and indifferent to what Israel does, it would be rather worrying, seen that way. It means people still hold them above mere terrorists like the Hamas and are offended to see them respond in kind (or even more).
-
When similar statements are not merely enshrined in Hamas' charter (http://archive.adl.org/main_israel/hamas_charter.html#.U95fqfldXIU) but taught in classrooms (http://www.timesofisrael.com/palestinian-kids-taught-to-hate-israel-in-un-funded-camps-clip-shows/) and state-sponsored textbooks (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/04/world/middleeast/to-shape-young-palestinians-hamas-creates-its-own-textbooks.html?pagewanted=all), the response is an apparent shrug.
Generally speaking, you don't expect better from terrorist organizations like the Hamas. You should expect better of countries and governments, which may be actually a good sign no ? I mean, if everyone was deaf and indifferent to what Israel does, it would be rather worrying, seen that way. It means people still hold them above mere terrorists like the Hamas and are offended to see them respond in kind (or even more).
Sadly, Hamas is both the government of the Gaza Strip, majority party in the Palestinian National Authority, and a terrorist organization.
-
QFT Orange.
-
When similar statements are not merely enshrined in Hamas' charter (http://archive.adl.org/main_israel/hamas_charter.html#.U95fqfldXIU) but taught in classrooms (http://www.timesofisrael.com/palestinian-kids-taught-to-hate-israel-in-un-funded-camps-clip-shows/) and state-sponsored textbooks (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/04/world/middleeast/to-shape-young-palestinians-hamas-creates-its-own-textbooks.html?pagewanted=all), the response is an apparent shrug.
Generally speaking, you don't expect better from terrorist organizations like the Hamas. You should expect better of countries and governments, which may be actually a good sign no ? I mean, if everyone was deaf and indifferent to what Israel does, it would be rather worrying, seen that way. It means people still hold them above mere terrorists like the Hamas and are offended to see them respond in kind (or even more).
Sadly, Hamas is both the government of the Gaza Strip, majority party in the Palestinian National Authority, and a terrorist organization.
And this is why I find some of the complaining about Israel punching back when rockets get fired across the border to be puzzling. Complaining about civilian casualties, fine, I can understand (and approve of) that. On the other hand, Hamas being what it is, it would not surprise me to find out they are deliberately putting military assets near civilian facilities just to make Israel look bad when they strike at them and there's collateral damage. If I were a betting person, I would bet heavily on that being the case.
But of the reaction to strike back in the first place? Uh... no. Sorry. I won't fault anyone for trying to crush terrorists like the insects that they are in response to being attacked. It'd be nice if Israel were a little more precise and better at avoiding civilian casualties, but expecting them not to respond at all to the attacks and tunnels being dug underground is retarded, full stop.
-
If you think that people actually complain about them striking back, I feel that you are gravely mistaken.
Note : also, can we stop that passive aggressive bullshit calling the opposite viewpoint retarded ? It's getting tiresome and rather inflammatory.
-
Israel is pursuing a course of action treating the symptoms and not the causes. They are going to do this every few years for eternity, creating more Hama's terrorists every time they blow up some poor family unlucky enough to be born in Gaza.
Many people feel it would be wiser to remove the support for Hamas: Stop running an apartied open air prison camp, give them back their land, stop taking more of their land. Stop treating a million people like caged animals.
Hamas is not an existential threat to Israel. Israel is already an existential threat to a million Palestinians.
The solution is a political one.
-
Hamas political goal is to remove the state of Israel and its people from the map. They sure will stop if they had success with their strategy of terrorism and exploiting civilians in the first place.
-
Look how many civilian casualties Israel is willing to make in order to decrease civilian casualties!
You know what? I find myself suddenly in support of new and numerous illegal Israeli settlements in Gaza. Send the colonists immediatly!
Maybe the Israeli army will be a little more worried about making civilian casualties when it's also Israeli civilian casualties.
Also, nice accuracy by Hamas, they've actually killed more soldiers than civies in the last weeks. Maybe that's why they kept shooting their largely ineffective missiles? So Israel would send them some soldiers to shoot at?
Where my tongue is? I dunno, maybe half is split cheekside. I think I'll bite it now, but my jaw keeps dropping.
-
Hamas political goal is to remove the state of Israel and its people from the map. They sure will stop if they had success with their strategy of terrorism and exploiting civilians in the first place.
Might be easier to combat them if they don't have half the gaza population supporting them.
The lol thing is even when they use them as meat shields, they support them, which is rather telling on the effet Israel intervention has.
Israel is pursuing a course of action treating the symptoms and not the causes. They are going to do this every few years for eternity, creating more Hama's terrorists every time they blow up some poor family unlucky enough to be born in Gaza.
Many people feel it would be wiser to remove the support for Hamas: Stop running an apartied open air prison camp, give them back their land, stop taking more of their land. Stop treating a million people like caged animals.
Hamas is not an existential threat to Israel. Israel is already an existential threat to a million Palestinians.
The solution is a political one.
It's a political game. Why would right wing governements like the Israeli one do otherwise. In either case they win, more radicals to vote for them, and a situation that never get resolved.
-
Which is why the Intervention isn't aimed at bringing peace and democracy into Gaza, but aimed at being able to guarantee the safety of Israeli citizens in the future. Call it a band-aid fix, but the assumption the Hamas situation will solve itself if you just give them all the opportunities in the world to 'destroy Israel' is inacceptable. Don't forget that success is equally good at radicalizing a population as is an oppressive enemy.
-
Admit I did step out of this thread before, so will simply share a link, of a moving speech in the Irish parliament lately on the Gaza carnage (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PL9lYxKSZ9w). Worth a watch.
-
Which is why the Intervention isn't aimed at bringing peace and democracy into Gaza, but aimed at being able to guarantee the safety of Israeli citizens in the future. Call it a band-aid fix, but the assumption the Hamas situation will solve itself if you just give them all the opportunities in the world to 'destroy Israel' is inacceptable. Don't forget that success is equally good at radicalizing a population as is an oppressive enemy.
More like shooting oneself in the foot rather than band aid fixing... Each civilian victim is 10 more hamas militants.
-
Whereas 1 dead Israeli civilian means 10 less, amirite?
-
My only view on the issue is that Israel is conducting the very same actions towards an indigenous population that practically every Western Democracy has conducted in their past. The only difference is that these days things like extreme violence towards the natives, mass relocations and deportations to free up land for exploitation for settlers etc., is seen as a bad thing because the West has moved past the requirements of Manifest Destinies, nation building, colonialism and Empire towards a more civilized age.
Supposedly.
-
I also doubt that in a scenario in which the U.S was no longer as energy dependent on all that Saudi oil there would be much care if Israel were to push the the current populace of Gaza and the West Bank into the Sinai and Jordan.
-
Relevance to conversation - level 100
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/t1.0-9/q77/s720x720/10362943_1460359910883925_1690426346637813341_n.jpg)
-
I also doubt that in a scenario in which the U.S was no longer as energy dependent on all that Saudi oil there would be much care if Israel were to push the the current populace of Gaza and the West Bank into the Sinai and Jordan.
The U.S. is a net energy exporter. We aren't all that dependent on Saudi oil.
-
I also doubt that in a scenario in which the U.S was no longer as energy dependent on all that Saudi oil there would be much care if Israel were to push the the current populace of Gaza and the West Bank into the Sinai and Jordan.
The U.S. is a net energy exporter. We aren't all that dependent on Saudi oil.
True, but China isn't and a "stable" cost per barrel of oil is important to the world economy :(
-
Well econ 101; it's cheap. If it were all from the US it would be expensive.
-
Whereas 1 dead Israeli civilian means 10 less, amirite?
Huh ?
-
Too intolerable to walk away still.
A detailed discussion of the situation on the young turks (http://youtu.be/x63jF8GMPuM?list=UU1yBKRuGpC1tSM73A0ZjYjQ), an American internet talk show.
-
Whereas 1 dead Israeli civilian means 10 less, amirite?
Huh ?
Mh?
-
The EU's position of abstaining was because the EU doesn't want some EU members condemning one side, while other s condemn the other side, because they want a united EU stance.
Which means the Scottish Government calling for arms embargos is a big mis-step from them.
But, they've already decided that there is to be no place in an independent Scotland for the Scottish Jews, that being pro-Hamas, and giving money to the Muslim Brotherhood, will win more votes from Scottish Muslims than will be lost from the Scottish Jews, so the rent-a-mobs that protest against Israeli artists will continue.
Super.
-
An Indian TV channel just released footage (http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/ndtv-exclusive-how-hamas-assembles-and-fires-rockets-571033?pfrom=home-lateststories)of Hamas militants (in civilian clothes, no less) setting up and firing a rocket from a lot directly adjacent to the hotel which was being used as a safe zone for journalists.
Gotta admit, I am impressed by the guts of the cameraman and the reporter here: Not only do they continue filming as the militants are setting up the rocket, but they proceed outside afterward in an attempt to examine the launch site. That's either very gutsy, very dumb, or both.
-
nevermind
-
Yeah, I'm pretty sure the UN camps and shelters are not aware when such an obvious stuff is happening just right next to their building.
What can the UN agencies actually do, if/when militants are launching rockets adjacent to UN facilities ? Politely ask them not to do so ?
-
Yeah, I'm pretty sure the UN camps and shelters are not aware when such an obvious stuff is happening just right next to their building.
What can the UN agencies actually do, if/when militants are launching rockets adjacent to UN facilities ? Politely ask them not to do so ?
Like calling dozen of times the IDF that there were no hamas militants nearby ? That would be rather disingenuous of the UN to say all clear when it's not, no ?
Nuke us guys ! Come on ! Nuke us !
Bleh, it's not much different from stuff like Kosovo. Except we don't send anything because it's Israel. :roll:
-
An Indian TV channel just released footage (http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/ndtv-exclusive-how-hamas-assembles-and-fires-rockets-571033?pfrom=home-lateststories)of Hamas militants (in civilian clothes, no less) setting up and firing a rocket from a lot directly adjacent to the hotel which was being used as a safe zone for journalists.
I thought the air-dropped guided bombs and directed artillery/etc are often touted as extremely precise?
IE can't they blow up the 'adjacent lot' and not the UN area/hospital/school/whatever?
The Pentagon has been calling Israel out for killing unduly high levels of civilians.
The Pentagon, mind you. We've killed many, many more civilians than Israel over the last few wars, so if the Pentagon is calling you out for indiscriminate killing, you done fucked up at an egregiously high level.
-
An Indian TV channel just released footage (http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/ndtv-exclusive-how-hamas-assembles-and-fires-rockets-571033?pfrom=home-lateststories)of Hamas militants (in civilian clothes, no less) setting up and firing a rocket from a lot directly adjacent to the hotel which was being used as a safe zone for journalists.
I thought the air-dropped guided bombs and directed artillery/etc are often touted as extremely precise?
IE can't they blow up the 'adjacent lot' and not the UN area/hospital/school/whatever?
For a medium guided bomb like the GBU-39 SDB, CEP is approximately 5-8m. For a lighter, more accurate weapon like the AGM-65, CEP is way own to 1.5m.
The problem is the whole "blow up" part. In an open-air environment like that, even presuming a perfect direct hit on the launcher, the blast wave is not going to suddenly stop at the edge of the lot and refuse to extend over to the hotel. Even if the immediately lethal radius from blast effects is relatively small (I cannot say I know the AGM-65's lethal radius, unfortunately) then there is still a risk of injury from the blast wave beyond that, and even further out if your room happens to have large glass windows (as the hotel does). This is why the bombs are often fused to go off inside when your target is an urban building - the walls will absorb some of the blast, drastically lowering the lethal radius.
tl;dr - the bomb may be accurate, but that doesn't mean they were out of danger in that particular situation.
-
An Indian TV channel just released footage (http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/ndtv-exclusive-how-hamas-assembles-and-fires-rockets-571033?pfrom=home-lateststories)of Hamas militants (in civilian clothes, no less) setting up and firing a rocket from a lot directly adjacent to the hotel which was being used as a safe zone for journalists.
I thought the air-dropped guided bombs and directed artillery/etc are often touted as extremely precise?
IE can't they blow up the 'adjacent lot' and not the UN area/hospital/school/whatever?
When they use stuff like white phosphorus, flechettes and fragmentation sub ammunition, and when we see the results of "pin pointing", it's as to wonder if they think the whole world are retards.
-
tl;dr - the bomb may be accurate, but that doesn't mean they were out of danger in that particular situation.
tl;dr - Hamas have zero problem using civilians as meatshields to try and dissuade retaliatory or pre-emptive strikes. Unfortunately (and simultaneously fortunately) for them, it doesn't seem Israel has too many fucks to give on that count.
-
A thought.
There seems to be a notion that Hamas are terrorists and therefore not to be spoken to.
However at least two countries that are currently part of the community of nations were formed, in part, because of terrorism committed by the founders of those countries. I don't see anyone suddenly refusing to speak to the Republic of Ireland because of the IRA campaigns following the Easter uprising.
And Israel gets a free pass on the Irgun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun) and the Stern gang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_%28group%29). Oh, and shooting up a US warship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident) back in the day. Well, ok, they paid compensation for the ship.
Killing terrorists and the people around them tends to just get you more terrorists. Talking to them gets you ex-terrorists, eventually, because people only resort to terrorism when they are desperate. At least the usual kind.
Sometimes it seems that conventional armed forces use terrorism because they can.
-
I also doubt that in a scenario in which the U.S was no longer as energy dependent on all that Saudi oil there would be much care if Israel were to push the the current populace of Gaza and the West Bank into the Sinai and Jordan.
The U.S. is a net energy exporter. We aren't all that dependent on Saudi oil.
Being a net energy exporter in terms of natural gas doesn't mean a dependence exists for heavier hydrocarbon imports not only for the U.S but also for Europe. Saudi Arabia as with a lot of Arab states remain opposed to the existence of Israel and have the leverage that they'll just send their oil tankers elsewhere if they feel there isn't some actions taken when Israel does things like invade Gaza.
I just remain unconvinced that I'd see as much, if any, condemnation from the U.S or Europe towards Israel if Saudi/Gulf States oil wasn't of such critical importance for domestic energy supplies in the West.
As for Israel itself, condemnation for civilian casualties abroad matters little because irrespective of whether or not 1000, 2000, 5000, or 10,000 Palestinian civilians die nothing will change: their Arab neighbours would still love nothing more to see them gone and any UN resolution regarding war crimes will get the veto on the Security Council from the U.S. Really, they've got nothing to lose.
-
A thought.
There seems to be a notion that Hamas are terrorists and therefore not to be spoken to.
However at least two countries that are currently part of the community of nations were formed, in part, because of terrorism committed by the founders of those countries. I don't see anyone suddenly refusing to speak to the Republic of Ireland because of the IRA campaigns following the Easter uprising.
At least in my view, this opinion has much less to do with Hamas "being a terrorist organization" than that the talks with Hamas fail to get any real results out of them. There have been... what? At least 4 bilateral ceasefires during this latest round of fighting that were ended prematurely by attacks on Israel or Israeli forces? To say nothing of the incessant rocket fire during the "lull" in the fighting preceding this conflict, or the deeper cultural issues.
And Israel gets a free pass on the Irgun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun) and the Stern gang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_%28group%29). Oh, and shooting up a US warship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident) back in the day. Well, ok, they paid compensation for the ship.
Actually, they got anything but a free pass. For the first decade or so of its existence, Israel was watched very carefully by many Western powers. The difference was, both those groups were dissolved shortly after the formation of the State of Israel; the following decades proved that Israel could generally be relied on not start stuff with its neighbors for no reason at all.
Hamas, in contrast, has ruled the Gaza Strip for over eight years now, and they're still on with the aggressive rhetoric and constant provocation.
-
As for Israel itself, condemnation for civilian casualties abroad matters little because irrespective of whether or not 1000, 2000, 5000, or 10,000 Palestinian civilians die nothing will change: their Arab neighbours would still love nothing more to see them gone and any UN resolution regarding war crimes will get the veto on the Security Council from the U.S. Really, they've got nothing to lose.
You're not being cynical enough. Plenty of Israel's neighbors don't want them gone for precisely the reason that Israel is a focus for hatred, as opposed to the leaders of said neighbors.
-
As for Israel itself, condemnation for civilian casualties abroad matters little because irrespective of whether or not 1000, 2000, 5000, or 10,000 Palestinian civilians die nothing will change: their Arab neighbours would still love nothing more to see them gone and any UN resolution regarding war crimes will get the veto on the Security Council from the U.S. Really, they've got nothing to lose.
You're not being cynical enough. Plenty of Israel's neighbors don't want them gone for precisely the reason that Israel is a focus for hatred, as opposed to the leaders of said neighbors.
I was talking about the populace in general of Israel's neighbours, not their regimes that find Israel an often convenient diversion, yes. ;)
-
Looks like things have heated up again.
There have been... what? At least 4 bilateral ceasefires during this latest round of fighting that were ended prematurely by attacks on Israel or Israeli forces? To say nothing of the incessant rocket fire during the "lull" in the fighting preceding this conflict, or the deeper cultural issues.
I'm not sure about how many bilateral ceasefires there have been, but I think it is factually incorrect to say each ceasefire ends due to rocket fire. There is evidence to the contrary.
I do recall Israel publicly stating that it would continue to attack Hamas tunnels regardless of whether a ceasefire was in place. I would quote one article that discussed this:
(Link to the main article: http://mondoweiss.net/2014/08/deceptions-revealed-kidnapped.html (http://mondoweiss.net/2014/08/deceptions-revealed-kidnapped.html))
Misleading too was the general agreement that, in attacking a group of soldiers in Rafah and seizing Goldin, Hamas had violated the first moments of a 72-hour humanitarian ceasefire.
The Washington Post reported on the circumstances as a Hamas suicide bomber emerged from a tunnel to explode his vest, killing two soldiers, and Goldin was pulled into the shaft. “On Friday morning, Israeli troops were in the southern Gaza Strip preparing to destroy a Hamas tunnel, said Israeli military officials. Suddenly, Palestinian militants emerged from a shaft.”
CBS reporter Charlie D’Agata parroted the same Israeli briefings, also inadvertently exposing the central deceit. The soldier was “suspected of being kidnapped during an operation to clear tunnels – crucially, [officials] say, this happened after the ceasefire was supposed to take place.”
So if a ceasefire was in place, what were Goldin and his comrades doing detonating tunnels, tunnels in which Israel says Hamas is hiding? Were Hamas fighters supposed to simply wait to be entombed in their bunkers during the pause in hostilities? Or was Israel the one violating the ceasefire?
And then there was the explosion of military fury as Israel realised its soldier was missing. Israeli correspondents have admitted that the notorious “Hannibal procedure” was invoked: the use of all means to stop a soldier being taken alive, including killing him. The rationale is to prevent the enemy gaining a psychological advantage in negotiations.
The unleashing of massive firepower appeared designed to ensure Goldin and his captors never made it out of their tunnel, but in the process Israel killed dozens of Palestinians.
It was another illustration of Israel’s absolute disregard for the safety of civilians. At least three-quarters of the more than 1,700 Palestinians killed so far are non-combatants, while almost all Israeli casualties have been soldiers. This has been a pattern in all Israel’s recent confrontations.
-
Hamas, in contrast, has ruled the Gaza Strip for over eight years now, and they're still on with the aggressive rhetoric and constant provocation.
Israel initiated an illegal blockade on Gaza in 2006 because they did not like the result of a free election. We scratch our heads to wonder why violence ensued.
Link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006%E2%80%932007_economic_sanctions_against_the_Palestinian_National_Authority
If Israel elects hardliners that believe that no Palestinian state should exist, that is fine in your view, and sanctions due to these views would be unjustified. This is a government that uses violence, collective punishment and continually increasing occupation as tools to meet its goals.
-
Rockets are just a symptom of an underlying pervasive problem that Israel continues to perpetuate.
The Norwegian Doctor Mads Gilbert expresses the idea quite simply in the video linked below.
No siege = No tunnels
No occupation = No Rockets
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOk_KaaXc9E (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOk_KaaXc9E)
-
I tried getting my employer to let me shift a few work weeks around so I could join Mads Gilbert in Gaza. The response was that if I went there I would not have a job afterwards. I was inches away from going to collect unemployment, but I have people and animals relying on my paycheck so to my chagrin I stayed where I am.
While HAMAS has serious issues, including rhetoric including the extermination of Jews and other questionable methods, the occupation simply overshadows it all. The indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the complete and utter disregard for Palestinian welfare and rights... how exactly do you expect them to respond? What would we do if we were treated like this? Had our land, our resources, our water, our people taken and repressed? I would be among the first to fight with tooth and nail against the occupants. Against the hate. Against the idea that Israel is chosen by God and deserves to take away everything that is mine. Now consider that they bomb UN Schools filled with refugees. UN Schools the UN commanders gave Israel forces notice of seventeen times. They bomb markets. They bomb civilian homes and families.
Submit or die. No recognition of human rights or the Geneva Convention.
The biggest miracle here is that the entirety of the Palestinian population haven't turned to the extremist side. I know I would have.