Why doesn't Israel have a missile/rocket/mortar defense shield? Something that will put up a hail of bullets or lasers at anything incoming.

Israel should have gone about this action covertly. Some 'terrorist' waking up dead or suffering with a bad illness would be better than leveling the guy's house hoping he is inside at the time.

Personally, I feel for the Israelis - and I can understand why they would want to do some of the things they do. Particularly, I can understand why the Israeli citizens might want to do some of these things to get a sense of revenge for the terrorist attacks that occur there. I have to somewhat agree with roach though - I don't understand the long-term objective of these attacks. Frankly, I don't understand the long-term objectives of many aspects of the situation going on in Israel, save that both sides are trying to hang on and kill some of the other side while they are at it. Unless Israel is going in raw-dog to obliterate the Palestinians here, then I can't see that they will do anything but make their situation more difficult in the coming years. Arrgh...the whole situation makes my head hurt. I hate to say it, but at the present time I think if you are a Jew (or other persuasion) and you decide you want to live in Israel...well, you're going to have to accept that some level of violence is a part of your life. That position may not be ideal, but then again - the political and religious situation in that part of the world isn't really any surprise.

edit: word substitution.

I sort of agree with pig here. Long ago I decided there were no 'good guys' in the 'middle east conflict.' With the exception of the people on both sides who do not want to fight - of which there are many. The powers that be in both Israel and occupied Palestine are the proponents of ugly, inexplicable brutality that exploit the suffering of their own people. Each is just like the other. How can one take a side? That I do not understand.

It just makes me feel sick.

no body wants war. arabs as much as israelis would rather live in peace than bloodshed and conflict.

the problem though is that for every life taken there is always someone willing to avenge that death. for every death, more soldiers are conscripted, more bombers are willing to give their lives and more kids willing to join the rockthrowers...

and the circle continues

So what you are saying is that they should deliberately be ineffective? That doesn't make sense. They should be able to use any NECESSARY force, and since the Palestinians won't blink an eye if Israel only kills one or two militants they are going big.


First, Israel has already tried the covert route, and it hasn't worked.

Second, 'mortar/rocket defense shields' would cause huge public outcry because this is how they typically work: You have a fire control radar which tracks the incoming round and tells you where it came from. Then your own counter battery obliterates the POO (Point of Origination). Since the Palestinians are firing from populated areas, any counter fire would kill dozens of 'innocent civilians' who just 'happened' to be watching militants fire mortars.

In my mind, Israel would be fully justified to take such action, but the international outcry would mitigate any gains.
-----Added 29/12/2008 at 01 : 06 : 02-----
Oh, and one more thing I forgot to mention.

Egypt, shares a border with Gaza, and they have also kept it mostly closed. They are now starting to open the crossing to allow limited numbers of wounded to be evacuated, but for the most part, it's closed.

Why would another Muslim Nation help Israel 'Embargo' Gaza unless it was being done for good reason? There is certainly no love lost between Israel and Egypt.

You are right ofcourse. I remember when that was going on there were very heated conversations going on here. If you ever have a chance do a search back to 2003/2004 on this subject. You will find some of the most intense debates Ive seen on TFP. From then to now some elements have changed, but founded dynamics are the same. (IMO) Why are the suicide bombings happening. Why the rockets, etc. The answer -because Hamas wants to destroy Israel- but why. It continues to fuel the argument for both sides of "self defense". Before the suicide bombings (which are/were terrible) they were throwing rocks. Thats desperation.

I will be the first to say that if it were a family member of mine that was killed in a bus bombing, I would most likely feel hatred and want revenge. I also know that while I was lucky enough to have been to the "Holy Land" many times in the 90s, going to some of the same places would make me a target today.

I take nothing away from the fact it is easy to sit on the other side of the world and have the comfort of wondering the "whys" instead of the "it has happend who cares why". I hope more start asking why. Its difficult to follow the argument of Israel would only be putting itself in more danger to give up the West Bank. Do you understand the problem with that direction?

With respect to assumed growth expansion- Do you find Israeli settlements on the West Bank to be lawful?

You have to realize how Israel was portrayed first feared by their neighbors which was important for their safety, but between the years of Hamas sending missles and no real stoppage by Israel, and the last rounds with Hezballah Israel needs to re-assert itself for its own defense or it will be over run with a full scale terror atttack.

nonsense. there's no agreement at all that this "reassertion" will do anything beyond generate more of the trouble that the "reassertion" is supposed to limit. have a look at this overview:

Gaza strategy divides Israeli military analysts | World news | guardian.co.uk

it's always strange to me how much less divided folk are who support israel in general about any given israeli military action than are actual israelis. you'd almost think that only a tiny segment of the israeli political spectrum gets a voice in the states--and you'd be right, of course.

the contexts for this action are as much electoral as they are about hamas. they're as much about concern over the disappearance of the american rubber-stamping of anything and everything the israeli right does after 20 january as anything else.

but what most israeli analysts seem to agree on (of those which i've read and/or read about, which is admittedly not representative as a sample) is that the goal is a new cease fire on terms which are more advantageous to israel--apparently starving out the civilian population of gaza, grinding its economy to a halt, and choking off medical supplies is not advantageous enough.

o yeah--my favorite lines in the article above are offhand remarks about the tactical disadvantage "a little human suffering" might present for israel--you know, 18 months of blockade has resulted in a "little human suffering."

this kind of thing is what makes it particularly difficult to talk about post 1967 israel to the exclusion of pre-67 israel for folk. everything changed after 1967. the moral credibility israel arguably had before that was disappeared. occupation replaced it. things got ugly and complicated and are no longer friendly to simplistic narratives about israel-the-victim.

i could go on, but not right now...

Well one way Hamas would gain alot more support and probably bring their cause into a more favourable light, would be to target Israeli political leaders instead of civilians. Firing rockets at civilians is just plain stupid and no one in their right mind supports that.

But targeting top Israeli officials would be very effective. What would the international community say, that Hamas are terrorists for doing so, when Israel does exactly the same thing? And if innocent civilians are killed while targeting top officials, Hamas can say, like Israel, that they regret the loss of human life but that is the way it is. Or they can go the other route, like Israel, and claim innocent lives are lost because those so unfortunate are acting as human shields.

But Hamas isn't that smart and not only does Israel know it, they thrive on it. Afterall, does anyone really think the Israeli's want this conflict to end. The relatively small loss of Israeli lives is more than worth losing than having peace, all the while losing billions in munitions and donations from the US, not to mention **gasp** that the Palestinian's may have statehood and are viewed as equals.

Never will happen. And if Hamas did grow a brain and get smart, I am more than sure that Israel would find something else to make sure this conflict continues and that the Palestinian's never are granted statehood or viewed as a people.

The Egyptians are so anxious not to have to deal with the Palestinians they are shooting at them to keep them from crossing into Egypt. Jordan I suspect is trying as hard as possible to blend into the background, not their problem nope. The anti-Israeli stance of the entire region is the 600lb gorilla in the room that no one wants to talk about. The fact that no other country in the Middle East accepts the reality of a permanent Israel needs to be brought into the discussion in my opinion.

nothing is as simple as american conservatives would prefer to imagine. not even the egypt-gaza border.

here's a background piece that you might read:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL34346.pdf

and here a report from a few hours ago about the opening of the border for wounded people to get treatment--like i keep mentioning, the siege has been routinely preventing basic medical supplies from reaching the civilian population of gaza.

After IAF strike kills at least 230 in Gaza, Hamas chief vows third Intifada has come - Haaretz - Israel News



edit: day 3.
345 dead
1550 wounded.


http://www.lemonde.fr/proche-orient/...ens_id=1106055

Roachboy, I just got finished riding my motorcycle and my hands are a bit frozen, but I will try to respond.

First, I read the background article you posted, and I found it very informative. However, while I understand the situation is very complex, it is natural to try and boil it down to it's 'essence' in order to have any form of manageable debate about it.

I don't see how the article really helps your position. It seems like it would when you start reading it, but then you get into the part about Galad Shalit...The Israeli hostage that Hamas (the government of Gaza) is holding. Egypt has said that they will not reopen the border crossing until/unless Hamas agrees to release a hostage. Since Hamas refuses to release him, the border has remained closed. I understand the issue is far more complicated, but Egypt made the offer and Hamas refused it; preferring instead to put their people at tremendous hardship so they won't have to return an Israeli who was kidnapped IN ISRAEL.

I found the last paragraph to be particularly interesting:

"Looking ahead, Israeli-Egyptian tensions over border security are likely to
continue. One day after the border breach, Israeli Deputy Defense Minister Matan
Vilnai stated that “We need to understand that when Gaza is open to the other side
we lose responsibility for it.... So we want to disconnect from it.” Hamas itself has
expressed a desire to see the border reopened and managed by the Palestinian
Authority. Ironically, both of these positions pose challenges for Egypt, which wants
to keep Hamas isolated, but not be held solely responsible for failing to do so by
either Israel or the United States. Nevertheless, as violence between Israel and Hamas
and other Palestinian factions in the Gaza Strip continues, these issues will continue
to fester. With Hamas showing no indication that it is ready to renounce its stated
goal of Israel’s destruction, all parties would appear to be a long way from seeing the
Gaza-Egypt-Israeli region at peace."

Even the article you have posted indicates that Hamas is in no way willing to stop trying to destroy Israel. How can Israel be expected to negotiate with an enemy who continues to promise Israel's destruction at all costs?

How can that conversation possibly go?
Israel: "Ok, we are willing to give you complete autonomy and self-rule, etc. etc. Just please stop trying to destroy us"
Hamas: "We accept your offer, except for the part about not killing you"
Israel: "Done!"

It's silly to think negotiations are possible when one side has committed to such an absolute. When Hamas is willing to allow Israel to exist, then negotiations will be possible, not before.


Which brings me to another point: What country tolerates it's people being held hostage? If the Government of Mexico openly held American hostages as leverage, I would support a full blown invasion to get the hostages back (if possible) and topple the government that held them. The fact that Israel has handled the situation involving Galad Shalit the way they have is testament to their honest desire to not just lay waste to the Palestinians in order to regain control of the region.

The Israeli concerns about smuggling across the Gaza-Egypt border appear to be founded...Hamas has been shooting an awful lot of rockets recently.

Additionally, the concern about tunnels is also founded, Egypt reported in that article to have found more than 100 tunnels along their 8 mile shared border last year. Many of the munitions Israel has been dropping are low-yield bunker busters intended to destroy tunnels. They are heavy, with very little explosives so they penetrate and then collapse tunnels while minimizing civilian casulties.


Your second article is also a good one. I did mention that Egypt kept their border crossing "mostly closed" because I had read a similar article detailing a very limited re-opening for casualty evacuation and humanitarian assistance.

It also mentions how Israel is conducting it's attacks:
"The first wave of air strikes was launched by 60 warplanes, which hit a total of 50 targets in one fell swoop. The IAF deployed approximately 100 bombs, with an estimated 95 percent reaching their intended targets. Most of the casualties were Hamas operatives"

Seems like Israel isn't wantonly killing innocent civilians after all.

And:
"Immediately following the first wave, some 20 IAF aircraft struck 50 Palestinian rocket launchers in an effort to minimize Hamas' retaliatory strikes. "

Also good 'kills' in my opinion.

Your second article is from an Israeli news service, I think. Are you sure you meant to build your case with it?

I can read English well and Arabic passably, but not French. So I have no idea what your third article says.

-----Added 29/12/2008 at 05 : 43 : 40-----
Oh, and please lay off on the Ad Hominem attacks.

Roachboy, I like to discuss issues with you, and I seem to be the chief dissenter from your point of view in this thread so I have to assume that some of your statements are aimed at me.

Such as this one, immediately following one of my posts: "american conservatives are delusional both in general (look around you) and in particular when it comes to politics involving israel"

and this one after I mentioned the Egypt-Gaza border for the first time in this thread: "nothing is as simple as american conservatives would prefer to imagine. not even the egypt-gaza border."

I don't mind shrugging off a bunch of things, but I feel you are consistently marginalizing my posts simply because you disagree with them. I don't know whether it is intentional or not, but that's how it's coming across to me.

I am not oversimplifying the issue. I understand it to be enormously complicated, but in order to discuss it in any sort of meaningful way it becomes necessary to focus on one thing at a time. If we each tried to post comprehensive arguments covering the Israeli-Gaza issue, they would be far too large for anyone to read.

Furthermore, I am not part of the 'American Right' as you put it, and my politics are far more flexible than you seem to give me credit. I enter into these discussions in order to test and refine my own point of view, rather than out of a serious attempt to change the opinions of others.

I don't think the Bush administration has handled foreign policy well in general, but I am not about to automatically dismiss everything they have done as being wrong. Nor do I really think Israel's current strategy is optimal for Israel, but I do believe it is better than doing nothing except continuing to eat rockets on a daily basis. Were I in a position of power, I would push hard to force Hamas and Israel to some form of stability from which, over time, negotiations could begin and a lasting truce could be reached.

slims--maybe i should shift my approach a bit then. maybe explaining where i'm coming from is a first step. there'll be a second down there somewhere i'm sure.

my primary reaction to what's been happening with gaza is that i am appalled.
because i have for whatever reason indulged in reading alot of stuff from and about gaza during the blockade, when i think about what's happening my mind goes first to what i know about conditions on the ground there.

the backdrop against which this takes place is way more information than i wish i knew about the treatment that palestinians have been subjected to since 1967--in the west bank with the settlement program and all that's entailed (e.g. choking off water supply by building on wells--but the list goes on and on)...

what my thinking tends to bypass is the political disarray on the palestinian side--the fractured and corrupt nature of the plo/fatah, the idiocy of hamas.

what i put in its place often is the dynamics of occupation--which pits a military superpower against a politically fractured, economic pulverized population of civilians. whose interests are more often than not in no way helped by the political infrastructure, such as it is, that's in place. and the simple fact of the matter is that all of the explanation for the political fracture and economic pulverization can be connected back to occupation.

i know how the occupation came about. i know about the 67 war.

as for my attitude toward israel, i am probably closest to folk on the israeli left--you don't hear much about the left in the states, but typically these folk are ambivalent about questions like right of return--personally i favor it, but i don't really have an iron in that fire--but i think it would in principle be better for everyone were israel to morph into a modern secular democratic state and afford full citizenship rights to everyone who lives in the physical territory, alongside a functional and integral palestine. like alot of these same folk, i think the settlements in the west bank never should have been permitted in the first place and that they have to come down. all of them and the sooner the better. this is of a piece with the argument that palestine has to be viable and so has to be continuous.

i tend to favor a special status for jerusalem simply because i don't see it as a resolvable issue. a kind of extra-national space maybe.

i think the policies of likud, particularly in situations where it has had to form coalitions with the far right, have been an unmitigated disaster for any hope of peace in the region. what is saddest and most depressing about the present debacle--for which there is plenty of blame to be assigned to hamas (for playing chicken with israel about the cease fire, for example) and to the israel/united states bloc (for refusing to recognize the results of the last election in gaza, for the siege, for all of it)---the saddest part is that it seems inevitable that this will strengthen the political position of the right. conservatives in israel like those in the united states seem to think they need panic to operate most effectively.

when you boil all this down, for what it's worth, my primary reactions to what seems to be taking shape in gaza is despair and anger. generally, i try to maintain a certain detachment when i write things here--or i like to pretend that i do---but in this case i think that detachment's broken down.

in the microcosm of this thread, what's bothered me in particular is that it seems for alot of folk to "support israel" in what i cannot help but see as a very bad policy situation that is being compounded with a very bad decision (to ramp up military action now) means that you have to erase the situation that obtains in the ground in gaza after 18 months of siege and replace it with images of rockets being lobbed indiscrimately at israelis. this is of a piece with an insistence on shifting the relevant historical frame back to 1947. the net effect of both is the replacement of what i take to be a primary reality at play--a vast assymetry of force--and its likely consequence--the only thing preventing carnage in gaza right now is, it seems, that the information about that carnage that would get out cannot be reliably controlled.

i hope this explains the tone of many of my posts in this thread.

on to the second thing: the place that makes the breakdown in detachment most evident is in the way i've been taking swipes at folk who opt for the 47 frame--but the motivation is mostly a desire to reach through the screen and shake folk---what do you think heading in this direction is going to solve? what will it change, beyond ending the lives of alot more civilians?

i'd apologize for that if i meant it, but i wouldn't mean it.
i find it an ethical problem--a serious ethical problem--that the people of gaza can be treated in such a cavalier manner. by almost everyone. when the simple fact is, like hamas or not--and i really am not a fan---the people of gaza are every bit as much a human being as you are sitting in your chair reading this. they deserve the same respect as you demand for yourself. but too often, they are not accorded it, either in the ugly, nasty empirical situation, or in the microcosm of a teacup like this.

either way, i hope this makes some things clearer.

one more thing--it is not always the case that i direct what i say at you here, slims. it really isn't.

=======
on the egypt/gaza border pieces---i have no problem with posting information that cuts in a number of directions--i wasn't interested in cherry picking infotainment that only supported my own positions--that would be the same thing i criticize in other, but stood on it's head. i posted the background piece against powerclown's post directly above--which did a version of the 1947 frame move in it's insertion of the situations endured by palestinians since that time in various camps around the region (and within israel) and to blame those conditions entirely on the region as over against thinking of it as a combination of regional decisions and the israeli opposition to the right of return. but that's another matter.

i posted it because it gave a fairly comprehensive view of the situation on the egypt/gaza border, which included the shalit situation. we can talk about how much weight to place on that in relative terms if you like---and that could be a more interesting way to approach this sub-question than often happens here simply because close reading of texts tends to be associated with a more academic approach--which i'm entirely fine with--but this is not an academic space and so i generally do not indulge that game. but if you'd like, we can head that way.

i have to do some stuff, so will stop here in my attempt to push reset.

No worries.

I can relate to your point of view far more now that you have explained it in those terms.

What I don't see being possible is an incorporation of Palestine into Israel with full citizenship status. I think that would be disastrous for the Jews in Israel as it would make them a minority in their own country, and Muslim countries don't have a very good track record for tolerance of 'zionists.' I think for Israel to fully incorporate Palestine would mean complete and total capitulation to those who are trying to hurt it.

Likewise, I don't think Israel should control Palestine indefinitely. I am not morally opposed to Israeli occupation since those areas did pick a fight and lost the war, but I don't think it is in Israel's best interest to continue to hold onto a ticking bomb.

I agree that Israels tactics in Palestine have been, at times, appalling. However, I believe these were mostly attempts to subdue what the Israelis perceived as rogue peoples bent on the destruction of Israel. And, regardless of the past, Israel is forward looking enough to want to get rid of responsibility for Palestine as soon as possible. The main problem is that whenever they look away, the Palestinians take advantage of the situation and attack Israel.

For instance, the 'embargo' has been more or less successful at ceasing suicide bombings in Israel. Hamas will argue that they 'voluntarily' stopped using suicide bombers, but the reality is that it became impractical to smuggle them across the border.

It has completely failed it's other two objectives: Stop rocket attacks, and bring Hamas to it's knees in order to force negotiations of a truce of some kind.

The disparity of force employed by Israel is not lost on me, though I believe bomb for bomb the Palestinians are still ahead numbers wise. The Israelis are just more capable.

Like the embargo, the current Israeli campaign is two fold: Blow up Hamas fighters, rockets, tunnels, etc. And more importantly, force Hamas to negotiate a truce.

Israel has already tried the carrot, and now, unfortunately for the Palestinians, they are trying the stick. I don't agree with the scope of their attacks; however, I feel they are taking extraordinary measures to hit military targets. Unfortunately those targets are deliberately placed in population centers and it is an absolute miracle so few women and children have been killed in the attacks. Last I heard, there were about 300 dead, and only about 60 women and children.

Israel believes it can so weaken Hamas it may collapse. And here is where I think our opinions really diverge: Israel (and I, to a degree), believe that with enough force, they can compel Hamas to come to terms. I think you feel it will only enrage Hamas further and serve to strengthen them.

What I believe is lost here is that I don't think anybody is suggesting Israel's attacks are going to result in a lasting peace. Rather, they are trying to force Hamas to make some concessions in the interest of self preservation; which could then be used months or years down the line as a starting point for real peace negotiations. Also, Israel is trying to regain some of the 'face' it lost during it's war against Hezbollah. Again, it is unfortunate the Palestinians are bearing the brunt of it, but Israel needs to re-solidify it's image as a military power in the eyes of it's other neighbors or they will continue to pick away at it.

From what I understand you believe this will backfire horribly, and I agree it is a real possibility. They may accomplish their short term goals, but do far more harm than good in the long run. (i.e. Hezbollah)

The covert route probably wouldn't work at this scale. But having a few 'accidents' happen during the building of the bombs or rockets might deter people who haven't done it before. It worked in the US in the 60s, but that was a small scale movement.

I was thinking that the defense shield/large gatling gun/CIWS would fire into the air to hit the projectile as it is coming down. If the bullets get shot up high enough, they won't be as lethal when they fall back down (if they miss the rocket/mortar round). Then again, the best option might be a high powered laser type system.

Um, it would be prohibitively expensive to cover the entire border with CIWS systems, and I am not at all confident they could even engage the higher targets like mortars. American firebases that get shelled frequently don't even have them. Instead, the bigger ones have a counter battery like I described, they are more cost effective and they prevent repeat attacks.

It might not work currently, but to me, a technological solution would be the best possible one to this current skirmish. Killing people on both sides will just prolong the conflict for another 20+ years.

al jazeera has a gaza channel going on twitter:

Twitter / AJGaza

which is an interesting use of this format...

We also have to look at the complete Israel picture, you have Hamas firing daily from Gaza, you have Hezballah in the North and Iran building nukes. It is time now for security and making a very loud statement.

that's absurd. this is not security---this is massacre.
but let's think about this for a minute...in the article i posted earlier about divisions amongst israeli analysts on the question of whether this operation makes any sense, there is a series of quite strong statements that the most likely outcomes of this will be entirely counterproductive for israeli security. have a look at that.

some riffs:

a) if things go as it looks like they might and israel launches an all-out campaign to physically eliminate hamas--which is more or less the official line---by carrying out an operation in a largely civilian area against an enemy that does not necessarily wear pretty uniforms so you can see them---there will inevitably be extensive "collateral damage"---every last bit of which will (and of this i have no doubt) become rallying points for the proliferation of more anti-israeli movements and actions.

if they do not physically destroy hamas, they will function as the most important rallying point for the movement that can be imagined.

b) the consequences of this action for the mubarak government are likely to be problematic---you can already see that it is galvanizing opposition to mubarak based on the perception that the government is in bed with israel. a weakened egypt is a HUGE problem for israeli security.

what mubarak seems to be trying to do is use this fiasco to manoever fatah into some semblance of power in gaza.
this brings mubarak into direct line with israel and those nitwits from the bush administration (don't get me started about these people...)

c) this action is already a significant source of legitmation for hezbollah in southern lebanon.

d) this action has already prompted syria to pull out of ongoing peace negociations and will complicate needlessly the ongoing quartet process---the quartet finds itself aligning with the united nations (and against the bush administration and israel) in calling for an immediate cease fire. the lack of a process in no way serves israel's security interests.

i see this action as following much more from the discourse of "terrorism" and its debilitating consequences than from any coherent assessment of what might best serve the longer term security needs of israel. and it is, i think, also prompted by the fact that these waning days of the lame-duck bush administration may be the last period for some time wherein israel can assume automatic approval of anything and everything it does.


meanwhile, in the fog of information war, there seems to have been some bizarre decision to claim that only women and children are civilians. so there's only been 31 children killed and 140 wounded in the interests of israeli security. and there's been roughly the same number of women killed. men, who apparently are not civilians, make up the bulk of the remaining 350 dead. i haven't yet seen updated numbers of wounded. it is early still on day 4.

Instead you should just let Hamas continue to fire thousands of rockets at civilians in your own country? Hamas that runs Gaza and the minute Israel left Gaza did not sya thank you, did not consider recognizing Israel, instead continue to scream of the complete destruction of Israel. And of course there is civilian casualties they fire their rockets from civilian areas, they hide their weapons in civilian weapons, they have their tunnels under the border where they get their weapons from in civilian weapons. They chose that place not Israel.

Sorry there is no justification and this is not any sort of legitimization at all.

Where was the international outcry and yelling about the thousands of rockets fired from Hamas. Hamas wins again international outcry against israel every time they defend themselves.

It will take a long time to get true numbers and true facts, due to Pollywood where they like to bolster numbers double count and invent facts that never happen. I am not denying civilian deaths I am saying accurate count will be very hard to verify with Pollywood giving the facts.

~~

To add this year alone Hamas has sent over 3000 rockets and and mortar bombs not including what happened since Israel has replied.

i don't see that there's much in the way of common ground for dialogue between us, xazy. feel free to keep posting to the thread--i'm just not sure how much we actually have to say to each other unless there's some shift in frame of reference.

at the moment, there's a report that's just surfaced about a french proposal for an immediate cease-fire of 48 hours on humanitarian grounds. apparently, this proposal is being considered by the israelis as i write this. i hope for everyone's sake that this is agreed to and that it issues into a more lasting ceasefire.

a strange sidenote---in almost all us-press accounts, the Problem is understood to be hamas and not--for surreal reasons--the israeli siege of gaza.
one of the actual main demands that hamas has been making is that the siege be lifted.
the policy box that the americans and israelis walked into 18 months ago makes this a difficult move for israel--but i think that lifting the siege would be a fundamental step toward normalizing the situation.
of course, that would mean dealing with hamas.
that is the sticking point.

there are multiple ways out of this. any of them would be better than what is presently taking shape.

Perhaps Roachboy.

And if they currently lift the siege do you really feel Hamas would stop firing rockets (yet alone return their captive). and on a side note about the captive situation Israel released not 2 weeks ago hundreds of prisoners, and Hamas has yet to return just 1. I highly doubt it.

well, what we know from the past 18 months is that if israel does not lift the siege, the rockets are likely to continue and the prisoners will not be released. but these issues seem separate from each other, really. i do not know the extent to which hamas is in a position to exert control over anyone who is not hamas at this point BECAUSE of the siege and the policy box that prompted it---what seems likely is that rockets could be fired from any number of sources that may or may not be hamas--but it is convenient to say that everything which happens is their fault. in other words, i think that the rockets are a function of hamas not being in a position to govern. so it's a circle, i think. of course it's hard to know--but it seems worth thinking about.

the prisoners are different to the extent that they are in hamas control. i can imagine an exchange being part of an agreement that would involve lifting the siege.

i don't think you adequately appreciate what this siege has been, what it has done, and the extent to which it has been counterproductive. in this particular case, i think the onus really is on israel to alter their position. which they're doing, but in an insane direction (i see this as taking all the counterproductive aspects of the previous 18 months and raising it exponentially...)

on a side note---i tried above on this page to outline where i'm coming from politically on this question...i did it to try to change the tone of the thread and open up more space for dialogue. you could maybe do the same--maybe there's room within your position more than there is in expressions based on your position for dialogue. if you're interested. your choice, obviously.

==========================
added later as another post, but merged:



this from today's haaretz.

if this is true, then the bracketing of the siege as a factor in what's happening now cannot be other than disengenuous (in general) and emphasis on hamas as responsible for the breakdown of the truce cannot be true.

UN official says Israel responsible for breaking truce with Gaza - Haaretz - Israel News

needless to say, the comments posted below this article on the haaretz page are divided and quite heated.

i don't have any outside/independent information that would confirm or deny this either way, but it sure seems more logical than any of the stuff that i've read, here or elsewhere, from the israeli side.

once again, back to the debilitating consequences of the bush-rhetoric of terrorism and yet another shockingly bad decision on the part of the bush administration to back themselves and israel into this stupid policy box. because it is that box--the refusal to deal with hamas--that explains all of this.

at the same time---what the hell is hosni mubarak doing?

Mubarak: We'll open Gaza crossing only if PA takes control - Haaretz - Israel News

the piece i linked yesterday--above somewhere---that provides background on the egypt-israel relation relative to the border with gaza is relevant here.
but even so, mubarak's line is a bit of a mystery to me.

he seems to be saying, basically: if you, population of gaza, do not erase the last election, you will be trapped in gaza and will die there.

Can you provide a source saying that Iran is building nukes? I have often heard this but have not been able to find any reliable sources. All that I have found is that they are enriching uranium, but that is allowed for domestic use of creating energy. Thanks in advance.

I'm not sure what your sources are, but I just read a WashingtonPost article that quoted the Israeli Military spokeswoman saying that anything affiliated with Hamas (which is the current government of Palestine) is a legitimate target. This includes mosques, and even Universities.

See above, the mosques were intentionally targeted (according to an Israeli spokeswoman. I hope that you accept this information.


My take in the situation is that the Palestinians in Gaza either need to get rid of Hamas, or Hamas has to accept the right of Israel to exist. This needs to be accompanied with a total cessation of rocket fire into Israel.

Israel needs to allow medical access to Gaza (instead of ramming humanitarian boats trying to reach Gaza). Finally Israel needs to stop targeting civilian buildings where there is no military presence.

There is more that both sides need to do, however I think this is the minimum platform to get these two parties at the table to talk.

Ok, I was pointing out the disparity between men and women killed, not because none of the men were 'civilians', but because it shows target discrimination. According to the list of targets I have seen in the popular press, it seems as though Israel is targeting Tunnels, Caches, Rocket and Mortar positions, etc. There is a lot of activity around these sites now as militants are trying to employ those weapons and are being blown up for their efforts. If Israel were 'randomly' bombing civilian targets, they would have killed roughly an equal number of men and women. Additionally, Hamas has renewed it's vows to destroy Israel, which makes it's members and assets valid military targets, and like it or not, Israel is going after them.

Israel has shown a willingness to lift the embargo. They have asked in return for Hamas to return Galil Shalit, stop trying to kill Israelis, and police the people of Gaza so they won't launch rockets either. Since Hamas, as the elected mouthpiece for Gaza has refused, the embargo remains.

At the core of it, I really don't understand the difficulty here. Sure there is a lot of violence on both sides to distract from the main issue, but the bottom line is Hamas has sworn to destroy Israel and has refused to back off on it's position of total destruction.

I feel Israel has been provoked, and has every right to kill until Hamas either surrenders or the people of Gaza capitulate. That's how warfare typically works. Instead, you have an enemy who pokes you with a stick until you retaliate and then cries foul to the international community...




Incriminator: It is common knowledge how reluctant Israel and the West are to destroy Mosques. For that reason, they are frequently used to stage weapons, hide fighters, and as a base from which to conduct attacks. I have seen it first hand in Afghanistan, where Taliban will hide large caches in Mosques because they don't believe you will search them, or will flat out conduct mortar/rocket attacks from within the Mosque because they believe you will not blow it up. I am sure that Israel did not make that decision lightly because of the outcry they knew would follow.

slims--the problem seems to me to be the logical and political circle that resulted in the siege in the first place.

the speculative aspect of my take on this is something i wrote earlier--that power would have moderated hamas. in the present context, however, they've no reason to drop the refusal to recognize israel---but at the point the policy decision was made not to deal with hamas, an opportunity went away to negociate this point.

my impression--but in this case it's no more than that---is that the decision not to dreal with hamas was unilateral and was not preceded by any negociations which did not work out.

the issue of shalit et al seems to me to be tied up with the lifting of the siege.
that israel did not lift it is a problem. and i think that the only way to have "shown willingness" to lift it would have been to lift it.

again, had they not boxed themselves in up front, maybe things would be otherwise now.
what is sure is that the bush administration fucked up policy wise when they decided that this was a good way to go.

i continue to connect that decision to all of this chaos. a bad move.

The Israeli spokeswoman said that it can destroy a civilian building which is affiliated with Hamas. Israel thinks it can do so because one branch of Hamas is violent, and that therefore anything affiliated with Hamas is a military target. The are not differentiating between military and civilians.

That is the same line of idiotic reasoning that Hamas employs to send Qassam rockets indiscriminately into Israel. Again, and I'm repeating myself just so that I'm clear. Israel is not destroying some of these civilian building because they have fighters or munitions in them, but only because they have "Hamas affiliation" which is almost meaningless when it is applied to a University built before Hamas had control.

This is a far cry from "collateral damage" as this is intentional targeting of acknowledged civilians.


The issue as I see it is this, Hamas [not Palestinians] needs to stop attacking Israel and Israel needs to have respect for Palestinian life. Israel should retaliate against Hamas militants who kill innocent civilians, but Israel MAY NOT indiscriminately kill civilians in order to do so.

Ultimately Slims, you seem to be arguing that I believe Israel shouldn't act. That is not the case. In this conflict you are trying to make everything black and white, when there is much gray. It is important to know where the facts truly lie, to be able to see when the gray fades into black. In this case, it is important to understand the validity of Israel's actions, as well as the invalidity. It would be an injustice to do otherwise. Of course, at the same time we must point out the invalidity of the Hamas actions, to not do so would also be an injustice.


RoachBoy's. If Israel were more circumspect with its use of force, there would be less Palestinian support for Hamas. However Hamas does, along with its military activities, also provide humanitarian support which garners it a lot of support so I don't know how much Israel can do to change the Palestinian government.

slims---i mentioned the surreal distinction between civilians and other because i happened to catch a press conference last night involving someone or another from the united nations (it was late, i was tired so didn't catch who it was) on c-span in the context of which this question---so what you're saying is that men cannot be civilians?---came up and the response was basically a punt---we exclude men simply in order to be able to say something about casualties, but make no claim that the number of women and children killed and wounded is equal to the number of civilians killed and wounded.

which sounds like a disinformation victory for israel.

ink: have a look at this article, which i posted earlier:

Gaza tactics and long-term goals divide Israeli military analysts | World news | guardian.co.uk

the israelis have assumed repeatedly that violence coming from israel would delegitimate the political structure amongst palestinians. it is by this point self-evident that this is not only absurd in principle, but is demonstrably wrong in fact. it is precisely the opposite of what i think they should be doing. this is a consequence of the israeli right being in power, and nothing else.

what the israelis were trying to get at was the capacity of hamas--and the plo before that--to maintain solidarity by providing some basic services. it didn't work, it won't work.

I would suggest that in searching for a solution to the problem, a possible starting point would be to recognize that a "two state solution" has already been (poorly) implemented, and that rather than demanding the creation of a third (inherently weak and unstable) state, it might be more productive to look at integrating the displaced Palestinian population into the state that was originally intended for them, which could include things like Jordan assuming control of the West Bank, having some Palestinians absorbed into the larger Jordanian population as a whole, along with Egypt doing the same with the Gaza Strip. I noticed today that the Send-a-Pizza website has reopened, to which we have sent a few pops and pizzas to families in Sderot.

Is this ever going to end? As long as the other side keeps killing people on either side, there will always be extremists who what revenge for the death of a family member.

And I think there have been a lot of stories of Palestinian suffering at the hands of the Israelis that haven't been reported on in our media. And while I don't agree with the rocket tactics used, it seems like Israel would have to kill all of them to prevent terrorism. Waging war with far superior weapons every few months isn't the right way to stop terrorism. It might slow it down for a while, but in 5, 10, 20 years we will be in the same situation.

And why are we giving so much tax money to Israel still?

434 dead, 2,230 wounded as of two hours ago.
and it looks as though some kind of ground action is going to happen soon.

good god.

i saw a guy on cspan whose name sadly eludes me. he is a correspondent for an egyptian paper i think. he said: at the human level, there's no aristocracy of pain. neither the suffering of israeli civilians under rocket attacks or palestinian civilians under aerial bombardment (with ground assault to follow it seems) is better than the other. they're the same.
this seems self-evident, but apparently it isn't.

so the only appropriate response would have been firing 100 rockets back...without any particular target so Hamas could sign another treaty to recover, wait for it to expire, and blow their load again?

Fuck that. Go Israel.
-----Added 2/1/2009 at 11 : 16 : 30-----
There is only one side capable of stopping this madness RB. Hint: It's the side that didn't start it. We need to let them do their job. The palestinians will be better off.

the side who started it?
you must mean the imposition of the siege 18 months ago.



i would prefer that there be more clips of regular people living through this out there.
i put up a link to electronic intifada early in the thread, which is full of descriptions of conditions there.
of course, one can dismiss such information as "activist"

you can erase the civilian population, it's concentration.
you can't erase 18 months of siege.
and given the geography of gaza and the fact that there is no way out for the civilian population, a ground offensive is unconscionable.

or I can dismiss it as aljazeera.net, where I'm directed to go for more information.

What's your take on Hamas? What would have Israel's appropriate response have been?

to start with, i'll say that i am not at all sure that i'd be as appalled as i am about hamas being taken on militarily if the siege was not in place, were the borders around gaza not entirely sealed off, were the civilian population not sitting ducks, waiting to be massacred.

i've said this several times in this thread, but i think that israel, with the full support of those policy geniuses in the bush administration, made a fundamental error in refusing to acknowledge that hamas won the last elections in gaza. because i think hamas is not run by the sharpest forks in the drawer, i think that allowing them to govern would have been more problematic politically for them than has been the siege.

the siege has been a brutal, unnecessary failure. hamas is stronger at the moment than they would have been had they been placed in a position of having to deal with more or less routine aspects of power--they're an oppositional group, a horizontal military organization which is not particularly organized as a political party--i think they would have had difficult transitioning into conventional politics and that those difficulties would have done more to undermine support for it than anything else.

hamas as a direct result of the myopic and often brutal occupation since 1967. that israel finds itself in this position is then a function of it's own policy choices--you could say that the assumption that you can brutalize the palestinian population with the expectation that they will blame not the military superpower which is doing the brutalization, but their own political leadership for what's happening is already entirely falsified by the fact the present situation exists at all. the period through the 80s into the early 90s during which the israelis would pulverize the plo, make their situation impossible and then claim that there was no point in negociation because there was no-one to negociate with...the more recent period during which the israelis had arafat trapped in a building for months....

what's more, hamas repeats some of the pattern that you see with the iranian revolution if you look into how it came about and why the revolution ended up adopting the language of extreme religious conservatism to articulate it's politics.

so hamas is an expression of the incoherence of the israeli approach to the political consequences of the post-67 occupation.--they are an expression of the failure of the peace processes--an expression of the failure of the international community---an expression of the failure of american policy. hamas is also an expression of the failure of the region---many states in the area will not be exactly disappointed to see hamas crushed, just as they would not be exactly disappointed to see hezbollah crushed because both represent non-state military organizations and so both represent organizational and ideological threats to state power and to those who hold it.

so from a distance, hamas is both the result of failed policies, failed actions and a condemnation of the entire logic that has resulted in this present state of affairs--and it's strangely consistent because i find them to be opportunistic, one-dimensional and frankly stupid. i can understand in theory why they've adopted the line of refusing to recognize israel at all--it's a tactic that responds to the actual effects of occupation--those effects in themselves pose problems for the israelis because they--again--represent the failure of their main policy logic.

but my biggest problem with hamas is that they decided it was a good idea to play chicken with israel at the end of this past cease fire. their main claim is that the continuation of the siege of gaza was in itself a violation of the cease-fire agreement. fine--i actually accept that premise functionally--i think the siege has been a violation of fundamental human rights from the outset---but knowing that hamas is facing elections soon--and knowing that the bush administration is vanishing, so the window of spinelessly unconditional support for anything and everything done by the israeli right from the united states is about to change---knowing that there are soon to be elections in israel, knowing the weak position kadima is in after the scandals that have come up about the olmert government---weak governements facing significant political change at teh same time--weak governments that have shown that they will use military action to prop up themselves, to compensate for their own stupidity and weakness--to decide that this is a good time to start lobbing rockets as a demonstration that you can act in order to attempt to put yourself (hamas--sorry about the pronoun shift) in a stronger position for negociating another cease fire--that's just idiotic. i would maybe have understood had this started in, say, october--but that this started in december, after the american elections, so after it was clear that a change in american policy--of some kind--was coming...it's just stupid.

so i see this as one of those horrible everybody sucks moments. egypt for example--mubarak would not doubt not loose a wink of sleep were hamas to be crushed because of the relations between hamas and political opposition within egypt. israel and the united states---hamas itself----total failure.

so now, like i said at the beginning, the civilian population finds itself trapped in gaza, unable to get out, unable to flee, after 18 months of siege, confronting a situation that is the expression of wholesale failure of conventional politics.

that's more or less what i think about hamas---and that's why i have such a hard time not getting angry when i post about this.

washingtonpost.com

Well, it looks like Israel has started a ground campaign. This is going to get ugly.

Agree with your all round perspective of this situation.

Further, this will go on forever. Sure it's easy to blame Hamas for not accepting Israel's right to exist, suicide bombers, rockets flying,..but what I find more disturbing is Israel's willingness to remain in conflict in order for the Palestinian's to further be relegated to the slums they have been in for 60 years.

I've said it before and I will say it again. For the Palestinian's to be granted anytype of statehood in that area will be viewed as a colossal failure to the Jews of the world. Israeli's being see in the same light as Palestinian's? A people with a country like Israel and recognized as such? Equals? Never will happen.

Israel said when Arafat was out of the way-the Palestinian's could begin the processes of statehood- did it happen, no,...conflict instead. Israel said vote in a democratic government and the processes for statehood would be initiated. Nope, Hamas elected,..further conflict. Israel now saying statehood can only happen if Hamas is removed. Anyone believe that for a second?

Quite ironic also that Israel will say that only when the Palestinian's accept Israel's right to exist that they will become a people within their own country yet Israel has been instrumental in denying the Palestinian's their right to exist for 60 years.

At least we know how our billions of tax dollars sent to Israel are being spent.

it should be self-evident that the jewish population of the world is not of a single mind about much of anything, that there is a huge diversity of views, that it makes no sense--at all---to allow oneself to fall into a goofball essentialist game and make opposing the particular actions of the israeli right in that direction. this is secondarily about religion--religion has been instrumentalized by all sides to make a political conflict appear to be something other than it is--but the fact is that this is a political matter.

i see israel as a modern nation-state that should be understood and judged as a modern nation-state.

=============

this ground offensive really is obscene.
even as i am not surprised, i am still stunned that this is happening--i just found out about it as i am writing this.

against my better judgment i'm watching the one-sided idiotic coverage on cnn.

i feel sick.

Thank you for saying this. There is a tendency to talk about this conflict as if it were a football game - one team against another with a unifying goal and means of getting there.

These are people we are talking about. People, oh I don't know, just like Americans with all sorts of viewpoints and opinions. Many of whom are watching helplessly while all their world goes to shit.

Myself, I am not watching, but I know it is shit all the same.