Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Alizabeth]

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.

[Lyn Farel]

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...

[Desiderya]

Exactly, a dislike. What's been reported so far is a bit more [1], 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]. 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).

[scagga]

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.

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 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 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, 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.

[Katrina Oniseki]

I don't have anything useful to add, except to say the leader of Hamas looks kinda like George Clooney.

[Silas Vitalia]

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.

[Odelya]

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?

[Alizabeth]

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.

[scagga]

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.

[scagga]

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.

[Odelya]

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 and the day of the 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.]

[Alizabeth]

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.

[scagga]

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.

[Silas Vitalia]

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.

[Victoria Stecker]

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.