gaza redux
 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/wo...t.html?_r=1&hp

first off, this is appalling.
the policy logic behind this is a direct result of yet another disastrous choice made by the far right nutjobs in the bush administration. it embodied a number of elements particular to "democratization" in the rightwingworld--fetishizing the fact of elections so long as the group you want to win does in fact win. so the elections are "free" so long as the population "freely" agrees with what the administration understands as being american interests. in this case, those interests were: hamas should not be elected. but they were, and everyone knew they would be. once they were elected, the americans decided to back israel's response, which was to seal off gaza, lay seige to it, under the assumption that if hamas could not provide basic services to the palestinian population, their political legitimacy would collapse.

except it didn't work, mostly because it was, and is, a brutal and idiotic plan.
unless you operate with the assumption that a siege is invisible, that you can seal off an area, trap it's population, starve it out, refuse to allow medical supplies in, etc etc etc without anyone noticing that these problems follow from a siege rather than from organizational breakdowns within the governing party, the effects of siege are likely to be the opposite of what was desired. had the israelis and americans wanted to undermine hamas in this way, they should have put it in the position of having ot govern more or less normally.

this is not rocket science.

if you want to read sustained coverage of what the past 18 months have meant for the population of gaza, go here:

ei: Palestine

i emphasize the origins of this situation because it seems to me that today's raid, directed at a "terrorist infrastructure" which apparently included some children, and the rocket launches which prompted it---all follows from this idiotic policy decision.

worse, you have an extremely weak olmert government jockeying for electoral position. you have the expriation of the cease fire that egypt had negociated followed by a phase of posturing--a couple days ago, hamas signalled it's willingness to extend the cease fore--but in the interim there was an increase in the number of rocket and mortar incidents---but people in gaza do not have basic things like flour (see the ei articles on the top of the linked page, from 25 december)--they do not have basic medical supplies---who on earth would seriously expect people NOT to act independently (maybe)---but this acting is interpreted as "evidence" that hamas does not control the population--and so and so.

apart from the situation itself, what astonishes me is the relative absence of coverage of gaza in the american corporate press. i find it interesting that the boundary which separates that which is covered from that which is passed over in relative silence is coterminous with official foreign policy logic. hell, in comparison, iraq is a policy triumph for the bush administration. maybe this silence is a function of the way in which the press has come to operate relative to the state--reduced staff coupled with need for streams of information results in increased reliance on pre-packaged infotainment ("public diplomacy") such that the sequence of official talking heads not only determines the narrative logic within particular stories that are covered, but also which stories are covered at all.

but gaza represents the furthest lunatic extension of the "war on terror" the most obscene sequence of implications of it. hamas was designated a "terrorist" organization a priori--this designation is what set the policy into motion that resulted in an 18 month siege of a civilian population. it constitutes a basis for an immanent critique of this entire "logic"....

but the american press rarely gives it any attention, particularly not now in a context of crisis and christmas, elections and transition, which result in a wholesale collapse into narcissism.

but maybe this is a good moment to look forward.
what do you think the obama administration should do relative to this situation?

i think the incoming administration should immediately begin reversing the bush administration's policy toward israel with respect to gaza. it should be carried out on both human rights grounds and with arguments concerning the political damage this situation is doing to israel itself. you'll notice in the ei coverage linked above that a dominant term for referring to what israel has defaulted into by following the logic that it has been following is apartheid. this association is of great concern to many israelis, and for obvious reasons.

the siege should be ended immediately. hamas should be allowed to govern under the assumption that the exercise of power will moderate it---it is self-evident that this other tactic has not and will not work.
the quartet framework should become a centerpiece for moving negociations forward concerning a two-state solution in the region.
the political disadvantage the fact of the siege puts israel in, combined with indications coming from olmert's government over the past month or so that israel is willing to stop providing the funds it was officially not providing to settlements in the west bank may make it easier to advance a reasonable solution.

the sticking point will be jerusalem.

but what do you think should happen?

in the immediate run, what do you think should be the reaction of the americans to this escalation in explicit violence (a siege is itself obviously violence)....?

I was waiting for something like this to happen before Bush left the White House. Part of the resolve of this situation are that the expectations be that Iran will see the carnage and get involved. Israel and the Bushco are just itching for an excuse to draw the Iranians in. Unfortunately, the US inaugerations are a month away, so there is plenty of time for more. Really to bad for all the innocent people involved

what do you think the obama administration should do relative to this situation?

i think the incoming administration should immediately begin reversing the bush administration's policy toward israel with respect to gaza. it should be carried out on both human rights grounds and with arguments concerning the political damage this situation is doing to israel itself. you'll notice in the ei coverage linked above that a dominant term for referring to what israel has defaulted into by following the logic that it has been following is apartheid. this association is of great concern to many israelis, and for obvious reasons.

I think the US should go back to the neutrality that was in place when Clinton was in office. The balance between the Israelis and Palestinians was proportional. Now it is very onesided. I don't see Obama changing the aid equation that much, simply because AIPAC won't let him. And if he does significantly, no matter how good his performance as president, he will be relegated to one term because of it.

i doubt very seriously that iran can or will do anything, particularly given that the bush people have made it abundantly clear that they'd love to launch some planes.
but at the same time, the problem with that is that the american military is already overstretched---so "we" are not in a position to keep a lid on the consequences that would follow from such an action-reaction sequence. i don't see a regional conflagration--which would be the result of that---serving anyone's interests anywhere.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but what I'm hearing is that Israel should let Hamas rule in Gaza without intervening in any way, shape or form? If that's what you're saying, then I fail to see what that will solve. Hamas will continue to attack Israel as they have been doing for the past, I dunno', few years.

i have to go, but i'll write this out quickly...maybe expand (or address logic problems, which speed does not help to preclude)...

hamas is strong in gaza for several reasons:
the occupation itself
the israeli strategy for hobbling the plo/fatah so it could turn around and claim there was no point in negociating with the palestinians because there was no party with whom to negociate (remember? this only ended with the oslo accords)
the internal corruption of plo/fatah

these are general, but are arranged in both chronological and logical order.
to my mind, then, the most basic problem is the occupation itself.

if the idea behind the present siege--which violates every understanding of human rights---was to "demonstrate" that hamas could not provide basic services. the idea, such as it was, is to undermine the legitimacy of hamas in this way.
but any nitwit can figure out that by using a siege to bring about this end, israel and the united states are in fact strengthening the position of hamas because they provide a perfectly accurate outside force on which to blame the inability to provide basic services. the israelis have cut off food supplies, they've cut of fuel supplies, they've blocked medical supplies from getting in. this is barbaric.

faced with the disaster brought about by their own policies, it now seems that the israelis are preparing to mount a military operation into gaza. great stuff--a real step forward.

let's say that there was at some previous juncture something to the idea that hamas would be undermined by governing--that there was something to the ideas that (a) holding power would moderate because it would shift the source of legitimacy away from opposition to israel to the ability to provide continuity of services---because in a contemporary capitalist context, the regular functioning of infrastructure amounts to a political argument for the legitimacy of the state and, by extension, of the ruling configuration. in the degenerate depoliticized world of the united states at the moment, you can see this relationship---when continuity of capital flows is disrupted, the continuity of service delivery becomes a problem and suddenly there's action. so it would follow that (b) hamas would be in a far more vulnerable position were it allowed to actually govern because it would only be in that scenario that problems of continuity would be attributable to it. now, such problems are direct extensions of occupation, of siege.

behind this is another perfectly obvious point---the motor rounds and rockets that have been fired at israel since the cease-fire lapsed on the 19th are a RESULT of the siege itself.

from which follows a question or two--what exactly has this "strategy" accomplished? by way of trying to starve out thousands upon thousands of civilians, the israelis have insured that hamas remains both militant and legitimate. if hamas is internally weak in gaza, the israelis have propped it up.

and if you imagine that this strategy, such as it is, is a response to violence directed at israel, it's result has been more violence, a perpetuation of the logic of violence, because a siege IS violence--it is an appalling type of violence--it is a continuous violence based on attrition.

this kind of violence undermines the credibility of israel itself. it makes israel look like a brutal colonial force--which it is. it erodes ANY claims israel might have to a moral high ground in this conflict. it is a very very bad situation for israel, which stands to loose in any number of ways should this persist.

and mounting a large-scale military operation against a civilian population weakened after 18 months of siege is NOT a sane way to "resolve" the problem.

in fact, this is such a problematic action that i cannot imagine even the most hardline american likud supporter not wondering if there's an entirely different way to approach gaza simply because this is a foul type of disaster, a gift that keeps on giving, one that produces entirely the opposite effects as were built into it in the first place. israel is LESS safe because of this, israel is MORE isolated because of it.

Hamas attacks Israel for the simple fact that Israel exists, not because of what Israel might have done to Hamas.

Israel to Hamas: Stop shooting rockets at us.

Hamas to Israel: No

Israel to Hamas: Check out our air force.



I don't see the problem. Israel has repeatedly tried to disengage from Gaza, even allowing Palestinian Governance, but the Palestineans keep trying to kill israelis.

Hamas supported those attacks and refused to police them internally, which makes them a sponsor of terrorism.

Israel attacked valid military targets, to include a graduation of Hamas fighters (Hamas didn't think Israel had the balls to attack during a workday with everybody out and about).

And Roachboy, if Israel was laying siege to Gaza, everybody in Gaza would be dead by now. Every time the Israelis open up Gaza and loosen restrictions, the Palestinians use the opportunity to kill Israelis'.
-----Added 27/12/2008 at 06 : 55 : 31-----
Oh, and in case anybody really thinks that the Palestinians and Hamas just want to be left alone and that Israel is the agressor, check out these quotes from the Hamas Charter:

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."

"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. "

"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."

Personally, I think Israel has been fairly restrained by not simply emptying the area of every single non-israeli and claiming the land as part of Israel, permanently.
-----Added 27/12/2008 at 07 : 02 : 29-----
Oops, forgot this, which is included in the charter as a quote from (I believe) the Koran:

The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).






So the Hamas Charter makes it pretty clear that they won't be content until they kill all the Jews. Can you show me anything similar on the Israeli side? Does the Israeli constitution have similar language? NO? Then maybe they really are being attacked by the people who swore to kill them.

nice dodging of the central question.
but maybe i blab too much and it gets obscured.
so this way:
what has this strategy gained anyone?

i would argue that it hasn't gained anyone shit. i mean nothing,
it's a stupid strategy. period.

let's not play the game of pretending that this conflict is written in stone. it isn't. the starting point is not text 2000 years old nor is it texts that are 800 years old--this conflict dates from 1967. it dates from the start of the israeli occupation of the west bank and gaza. unless we agree on this, we aren't talking about the same thing.

the problem with linking this back to some imaginary intractable conflict is that intractable is a byword for passivity. there are definite, concrete reasons for the present situation in gaza.

my argument is that those reasons are fucking stupid, based on the sort of assessment of the situation that only stupid people buy into, and that chief amongst those people are american conservatives. so far as i am concerned, this is basically just another example of the catastrophic consequences of allowing the american right any power at all anywhere ever.

that clear?
i hope it's clear.
i want this to be clear.
let me say it another way: american conservatives are delusional both in general (look around you) and in particular when it comes to politics involving israel. the policies of the bush administration with respect to gaza are evidence of this. the result of them is that alot of people end up dead for nothing.

there is not question but that israel is laying siege to gaza, and has for 18 months. read some actual information about what reality looks like and take the trouble to interpret it. if you rely on american conservative talking points, you'll never know anything. read through the material i linked to from electronic intifada above. you might not like it, but much of it is reality, deal with it, then we'll talk.

so i didn't think i'd have to do this, but it appears that i do.
because i started this thread, i insist upon two points:

(s) the starting point of this conflict is 1967
(b) israel is laying siege to gaza.

there is no argument about either of these that makes any sense.
so consider both constraints from this point out.
if you do not agree, then start another thread.
with that option available, i'll not hesitate to vaporize posts that do not conform to these constraints.
consider if an occupational hazard.

So, lemme get this straight: You'll use your powers as a moderator to censor the opinions of those who do not agree with your premises, you who have made it your distinctive Modus Operandi on this board to simply brush aside any arguement or viewpoing with which you don't agree with saying "i don't buy your premeses" and "you no longer interest me."

I argue that, say, "The root of this problem is in 1947 because that's whn Israel was created" and "They're not beseiging it because, if they were beseiging it (see Stalingrad, Leninggrad, Sevastopol, etc)) they'd be leveling the joint, block by block, with mass artillary fire in an attempt to occupy the city militarily." You then use your power as a Moderator, calmly backed up with typical leftist smugness, to censor me.

Even if we disagree with someone's viewpoint or the parameters they set for their post, we do not call them an asshole, or spend an entire paragraph berating them with foul and abusive language. That's why this paragraph has been removed.

Left-wingers, champions of free speech my stinkin' asshole.

Ok, perhaps I missed what you were getting at.

To address your points: my quotes came from the Hamas Charter, which is a modern document written in 1988, well past your 1967 cutoff.

I am also not concerned about who, in the distant past, may have instigated the conflict.

Israel is only laying siege to Gaza in the sense that everytime they open their borders to Gaza, Palestinians blow themselves up in Israel, so they have restricted them. Shortly before this current air campaign, Israel did start to reopen it's border crossings into Gaza but were thanked with continued rocket and mortar attacks.

Second, Gaza has a lot of coastline, and it is by no means completely surrounded by Israel and they are not under a 'Blockade'


I get tired of these discussions because it seems to be a classic case of a little guy picking on a bigger guy until he gets pissed off and kicks the crap out of the little guy. Of course, then the big guy gets in trouble.

Israel, IMHO, has every right to do what they have been doing. The Palestinians are deliberately agitating, and have made absolutely no attempt to police their own people. If Gaza went quiet, and there were no more attacks, rockets, suicide bombers, bulldozers driving over Israelis, etc. how long do you think it would take before Israel opened it's borders? Instead, every time Israel tries to back off, something else happens and Hamas refuses to even attempt to prevent future attacks. It would be a lot easier for Israel to tolerate the occasional attack if Hamas was actively pursuing those who conduct those attacks.


Gaza is basically under self rule (because Israel agreed to let the Palestinians Self-Govern in a peace attempt) and is thus basically autonomous. Israel has no obligation to support Palestine, and it is in no way a human rights violation to simply remove what support was being offered and wall itself off from the people who are trying to destroy Israel.


How am I delusional? I am far from perfectly informed, but I try to put forward reasoned opinions. If you explain where I went wrong in this post I will listen.
-----Added 28/12/2008 at 12 : 41 : 38-----
I also agree with your statement that Gaza is only trouble for Israel, both physically and politically.

What would happen if Israel let the Palestinians form their own state? Wouldn't those attacks then be an act of war between two nations? If Palestine wants to become it's own state, they need to start taking responsibility for both the well being of their people, and attacks launched against Israel from within Palestine.

With Hamas' current, continued refusal to recognize the right of Jews to life, or the right of Israel to exist, where could Israel even begin to negotiate? How can Hamas make a deal with a state they dont' recognize, regardless of how many concessions Israel makes? If you remove the Carrot as a negotiating tool, you are only going to get the stick.
-----Added 28/12/2008 at 12 : 58 : 29-----
I just reread your last post, and I apologize for missing your mention of the link to Electronic Intifada.

Did you really, seriously, say that I was delusional because I get my talking points from the mainstream media and then suggest that I read an activist website in order to get an accurate picture of things?

rb....you and I have major differences on this one, and you know I am not a conservative.

You suggest the Gaza problem started in 67. I would agree that the current Palestinian problem was exacerbated at that date. But what caused it? I would suggest it was the combined attacks against Israel by Egypt, Syria and Jordan.

The starting point was 1947 with the partition of Palestine. The Israelis accepted the partition, the Palestinians and the neighboring Arab nations did not and declared their intent to remove every drop of Jewish blood from the Middle East and drive Israel into the sea.

Every conflict since then, including the 6-day war in 1967, was initiated by the Arab nations, in massive numbers against a nation surrounded by its enemies. Over time, Egypt and then Jordan, recognized the senselessness of further aggression and made peace with Israel.

As late as the 90s, the Israelis and Palestinians had negotiated a two state solution, with Israel trading land for peace....only to have it fail at the last minute at the hands of Arrafat.

And yet, Israel continued to make concessions. In 2003, in a further attempt at peace, Israel unilaterally dismantled all of its settlements in Gaza and withdrew, giving Gaza political autonomy and a pledge to continue peace talks.

The response....the election of Hamas on a counter pledge to continue its aggression against Israel.

The current situation in Gaza is as much a conflict between Hamas and Fatah as it is between Palestinians and Israel.

Hamas' priority is not governing in Gaza, but maintaining the instability to secure its position by blaming it on Israel.

The Israeli siege was a response to the continuous firing of rockets into Israel for the last 5 years. An over-reaction? perhaps. What would you suggest they have done to stop the rocket attacks against Israeli civilian populations?

The solution is in the hands of the Palestinians......put peace above terrorism and they will find a willing partner in Israel.

Until such time, I support Israel's right to defend itself.

Where we do agree is on the failed Bush policy and its refusal to negotiate with Hamas.

I am hopeful that Obama will pursue a policy that will bring all parties, inlcuding Hamas, to the table and perhaps the peace deal that Clinton brokered may finally be achieved.

But make no mistake about it, it will require Hamas recognition of the right of Israel to exist, or short of that, the Palestinian people turning their backs on Hamas and electing a government that makes peace its number one priority.
-----Added 28/12/2008 at 01 : 00 : 45-----
Totally uncalled for. If I was a mod, I would have booted your ass for this personal attack.

i tend not to get involved in these sort of debates, partly because i try and stay partial.

However, sometimes im really irritated and irked by some comments that i just have to reply. This time is one of them.

slim do you mean clearing out of gaza militarily? or are you talking of a diaspora?

are you talking for real or is your diatribe utter nonsense and sarcastic?

lets look at it realistcally..

militarily the israelis can do it, but will be condemned.

politcally they will be condemned whichever option you take

historically, with the holocaust being a direct catalyst of the european dispora, they will be condemned again.

there is no easy way out of this, but rampant bombings isnt a solution. even the ardent rightwinger will agree to the fact that every war is settled politically eventually.

one thing is for certain though, they just created another 1000 suicide bombers in the last 24 hours.

On this, I agree.

Only to add that Hamas and its the ardent supporters also need to agree to the fact that every war is settled politically.

More suicide bombers and rocket attacks will only result in more Israeli strikes.

Ok, my computer just decided to stop showing quotes, so I am not sure exactly what you quoted, Dlish, but I will try to respond.

I am not advocating genocide, nor am I advocating that Israel try to 'push the Palestinians to the Sea'. The blockade comment was meant to illustrate the foreign nations can still import into Gaza, and the Palestinians can still export goods (if any) via the sea, without Israels involvement.

I was trying to say that should Israel decide to wage all out war on Palestine, they are more than capable of doing it, and that such a position is more or less equivalent to the Israelis sitting back and doing nothing as they are both untenable for the Israelis.

Instead, Israel has taken the middle path and, after repeated warnings, retaliated against Israel. I believe I said in my post pretty much exactly what you put forward in your rebuttal of me.

I feel that Israel is in the unique position of being pressured to help (through humanitarian aid) the very same people who are trying to kill them.

With regard to a two state solution, I am all for that. The point I made was intended to illustrate that such a solution would not work unless Hamas was able, or at least willing to police it's own people and pursue political solutions that are less than perfect.



I understand if you don't agree with me, but I don't intend to be incendiary, and if there is something in my post that continues to upset you, please let me know and I will address it as it was likely not intentional. I have reread all my posts, and I am hoping it was a simple misunderstanding as I don't see anything even suggesting something so horrible as a diaspora being appropriate.

The only group dumber than hamas in this situation are the Israelis, and Im pro-Israel. Every time they do something like this, they play right into the hands of every nutjob islamic religious extremist organization in the region. By bombing gaza, Israel are perpetuating everything they claim they want to see an end to, no matter how justified they may be in their attacks. They can't go in and destroy hamas (hezbollah et al) outright, which is what I would like to see happen...so hamas wins a propaganda victory claiming more "disproportionate violence" from those occupying bullies in tel-aviv. Of course everyone knows hamas' goal is the destruction of Israel...so anything short of their own destruction, preferably by Palestinian moderates, is a win for hamas et al.

i think last night i misinterpreted an aspect of slim's post and tried to head off attribution of the conflict around gaza to some "eternal religious conflict"---so i tried to cut that option off by limiting the time frame. my apologies if i was maladroit in how i said it.

as to the question of siege, i really no other way to look at what the israelis are doing to gaza. i've been following non-american press coverage of it for the entire time--the consequences of the siege are not only a grotesque violation of human rights but are also very bad policy. a military action--a ground action--against gaza seems to me entirely outrageous.

to clarify one other point--i am neither pro nor anti-israel. israel is simply a fact. there seems to me no reason in principle why a flourishing israel and a viable, functioning palestine cannot coexist. i see some reason to be hopeful about this in medium term when i think about the direction the quartet seems to be moving in--and there has been some important progress in that context despite gaza. there was some movement on the question of settlements in the west bank for example. there was at least some reason to imagine that a rethink of the self-defeating dynamics of recents years is possible...a prospect that might bring better lives for palestinians and a more secure situation for israelis. this action dashes that.


dc: on the question of hamas' "maintaining instability" rather than governing--the direct motivation for the siege is to prevent hamas from governing. so the argument is circular.
my main argument so far in this thread is that this action is self-defeating, that it props hamas up, legitimates it---so much so that you have to wonder if there's a way in which hamas is functional for the israeli right...i would have preferred exactly the opposite response 18 months ago, and exactly the opposite set of events that we've seen unfold over the past 24 hours.

rb....the reason "in principle why a flourishing Israel and a viable functioning Palestine cannot exist" can be traced to one indisputable fact.....Hamas' unwillingness to recognize Israel's right to exist.

Don't underestimate the role of internal Palestinian politics in this latest conflict. The Palestinian PM Abbas laid the blame directly on Hamas, and not Israel.

dc--and i think, as i've said, that hamas would have moderated by necessity had the policy choices been otherwise on the part of israel and the united states--and it is in abbas interest to say that about hamas given the internal political rivalry between fatah and the plo. personally, i think it was entirely the fatah's fault that they lost in gaza.

hamas positioned itself as a left opposition. the central rhetorical move that enabled that positioning is the statements about israel. if hamas is kept in this kind of fragmented, untenable situation and has to maintain its own legitimacy at the same time, there's no motivation to abandon that posture---which as i recall (and i could be wrong about this one) there's been indications they'd have been willing to do.

we'll not know for sure because the situation was defined otherwise and now we're watching things slide down the toilet following the logic that followed from that.

would any options have been taken off the table had israel and the united states engaged with hamas? i don't see it. i really don't.

what's sure is this sure as hell hasn't worked.

this really is a debacle.

rb....what other policy choice could Israel have made beyond what they did in 2003-04....unilaterally dismantling all settlements in Gaza, withdrawing all IDF forces and giving autonomy to the residents of Gaza?

The Hamas response in their successful campaign to win in the political arena in Gaza in 2006 was to continue to pursue its aganda of attacks against Israel.

At some point, the Palestinian people in Gaza must make a choice.....peace and stability or the continuation of the hatred spewed by the extremists with a self-serving agenda.
-----Added 28/12/2008 at 11 : 32 : 59-----
rb.....would you accept the Charter of Hamas as a governing document if you were in the Israeli government?

Article 28 is particularly vitriolic:

Article Twenty-Eight
The Zionist invasion is a mischievous one. It does not hesitate to take any road, or to pursue all despicable and repulsive means to fulfill its desires. It relies to a great extent, for its meddling and spying activities, on the clandestine organizations which it has established, such as the Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, Lions, and other spying associations. All those secret organizations, some which are overt, act for the interests of Zionism and under its directions, strive to demolish societies, to destroy values, to wreck answerableness, to totter virtues and to wipe out Islam. It stands behind the diffusion of drugs and toxics of all kinds in order to facilitate its control and expansion. The Arab states surrounding Israel are required to open their borders to the Jihad fighters, the sons of the Arab and Islamic peoples, to enable them to play their role and to join their efforts to those of their brothers among the Muslim Brothers in Palestine. The other Arab and Islamic states are required, at the very least, to facilitate the movement of the Jihad fighters from and to them. We cannot fail to remind every Muslim that when the Jews occupied Holy Jerusalem in 1967 and stood at the doorstep of the Blessed Aqsa Mosque, they shouted with joy: “Muhammad is dead, he left daughters behind.” Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims. “Let the eyes of the cowards not fall asleep.”

Should moderate Palestinians accept it? That is their choice

here's part of my rationale for thinking that the us/israeli response to jan 06 was a bad idea--if you look at, o i dunno, almost any us "radical" interest group from the 1970s (i am thinking in particular of the cases that manuel castells wrote about in books like "city and the grassroots") a pattern surfaces that actually gaining access to power presents oppositional groups with a real problem, one that they typically are not prepared for as their politics are oriented otherwise--this problem has to do with making the transition into acting in the context of an administrative apparatus. you're no longer outside at that point, so it makes little sense to continue pretending that you are outside---with that change comes an undercutting of the rhetoric of opposition. this lay behind my argument that it would have made far more sense had hamas been allowed to assume power in gaza. and i don't think that this initial move would have taken any options off the table---i can for example imagine easily (as i am sure you can) a scenario in which we collectively would land in this sport anyway, but from a different origin---and others in which things could look very different at this point.

a second question has to do with political language, but from a different angle--if the above is basically a footnote that i'd stick underneath the claims about about the moderating effects of holding actual power, this is more about what claims like "israel has no right to exist" actually do. i see it as a positioning move. if fatah is weak for other reasons and you want to run against that organization, you need to stake out a position in relation to them rhetorically--i see the opposition to israel as a whole to be such a positioning move.

and i see the siege as freezing hamas in that rhetorical space, as enabling hamas to distance itself from power and as if anything legitimating hamas by enabling it to point to the siege to explain everything that's gone south in gaza over the past 18 months. in other words, it is (as i've said) an entirely self-defeating policy.

where i really disagree with you is in putting responsibility for this on the people of gaza--particularly not 18 months into a siege at the point where the shit is about to hit the fan, by all appearances. first because it obviates the consequences of the siege itself---which it does not take a rocket science to see as solidifying and intensifying opposition to israel rather than the opposite, and solidifying support for hamas at the same time. second, i thought that elections were supposed to be a good thing, and that the expression of the will of the people an important act, something that should be respected. what you're suggesting---i think---is that it's ok for the united states and israel to react to the elections in gaza by saying WRONG ANSWER.

by that logic, you'd have half expected an international embargo of the united states in 2004 after bush was elected a second time. WRONG ANSWER. if it's legit in the case of gaza, it'd have been legit then. in the way it was "legit" in 1972 chile. that kind of thing. it's a strange position to adopt.

This is a two sided coin though. Many people in Israel, especially those who favour the opinions of Benjamin Netayuhu also believe that the Palestinian's do not have the right to a homeland, therefore not the right to exist as well.

The Israeli's have every right to protect themselves, there should be absolutely no discussion about that, but often go above and beyond international law in their attacks.

The biggest problem with the entire situation is why on earth are the Israeli's still left in charge of the Palestinian's. Anyone with half a brain would realize this is a recipe for disaster. Kind of like asking an alcoholic to watch over the bar at a wedding so that no one swipes the booze.

Israel controls the water, food, electricity supply and demand,...decides who goes where and when, when people can mill freely or under curfew, controls foreign moneys earmarked for Palestinian's, conduct raids that leave women and children in prisons without charge, etc, etc. Shouldn't this area have international peacekeepers?

the internationalization of the gaza situation is among the things that the quartet has been talking about---and over the past 24 hours, i have found myself wondering about whether the incoming obama administration, the sense that this will result in a change in american policy that would--i think--make the quartet process more central and end the witless unilateral support for the israeli right characteristic of the bush people, is a proximate explanation for israel's actions. the immediate causes are outlined in the ny times article in the op--the expiration of the ceasefire and space between agreements coupled with a spate of mortar and rocket attacks. i wonder the extent to which the lapse of agreement/inability to put a new one in place has provided israel with an excuse to act during a phase of political weakness in the states, a hamstrung lame duck incumbent, and before the new administration comes in to maybe change the rules of the game.


i just found this article and think it's funny given the way the thread's been unfolding


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008...ael-gaza-hamas

I would ask the Palestinians this question, who voted in a group of religious fanatics unfit to administer to the needs of the civilian population in Gaza. The squalor and desperation of the Palestinians is deliberately maintained and perpetuated by Iran, Syria, Egypt, Hizballah/Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Jordan...because doing the right thing by truly helping the Palestinians improve their living conditions would by definition necessitate an end to hostilities toward Israel.

The foundation that has built the rally of defense because "they want to push us into the ocean" holds no more water today than what little it did. To see any innocent life taken is a terrible thing regardless of which side. It would be a completely different issue if continued settlements were not still being built and exsisting ones expanding.


Its not really complex or complicated. Lets say your family lived in the neighborhood for about 200+ years and the property was handed down you.
http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m...titled-1-4.jpg


Your neighbors, who moved in a year ago from another country, move the fence line over and absorb your property. Their justification is a story claiming the ancestors were here first thousands of years ago and the land was given to them by God.
http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m...shwhip/2-1.jpg

What would you do to dispute this land? The courts follow the same philosophy as the "neighbors". Any move on your part will have you labeled as a terrorist and be dealt with accordingly.
http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m...shwhip/3-2.jpg


When what little property you have left is absorbed and you find yourself surrounded by these new "neighbors" and they want you out, what now?
http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m...shwhip/4-1.jpg

You are harassed every time you leave your house. Your family is threated by your neighbors on a daily basis. Your children's school is closed on a regular basis. You are prevented from seeking medical attention most of the time. The list goes on.

There is plenty of footage of what is going on now. Investigate.

What would anyone do? Fire rockets? Throw stones if you had to?


Results of what could be a peaceful two state solution will never be realized until the settlements are stopped and dismantled in the West Bank and Golan Heights. Gaza is an absurd excuse for what some may see as being generous.

The other way of looking at this is taking morality out of it. The one with the biggest guns is correct. Ofcourse it means a dark future for all of us.

Does US debt to China outweigh Chinese intervention if Iran is attacked?

What new settlements have been built or expanded in Gaza?

All settlements were dismantled in 2005....alll Israeli troops were withdrawn in 2005.....governing power was ceded to the Palestinian people......

...and the rocket attacks continued.

Hamas cannot "push" Israel into the ocean. They can and have continued to attack civilians and its the obligation of any government to protect its civilians from unprovoked attacks.
-----Added 28/12/2008 at 12 : 55 : 48-----
I concur.

The Palestinian people have been a pawn.....not of Israel but of the neighboring Arab nations.

so wait....the latest rounds of mortar and rocket attacks destroyed a few buildings but didn't hurt anyone. in the past 24 hours, the israelis have killed 280 and wounded 600. there are tanks moving in southern israel, reserves have been called up. this certainly looks like ground war getting ready, don't you think?

the occupation itself--how it has been administered, how the israelis have chosen to proceed--explains the rocket attacks. i would imagine that were any of us living in gaza, that the thought of launching something against an overwhelming and oppressive enemy would cross your mind.

within this cycle, there is no hope. the reason i keep referencing the quartet is that they appear to be nearing a way to step out of that cycle. i really think that there needs to be international peacekeepers in gaza. the siege needs to end. and not the way the israelis appear to have planned.

The occupation you speak of (dating back to 1967) was the direct result of an unprovoked attack on Israel by Egypt, Syria and Jordan. Again, the Palestinians were made the pawns by the action of their Arab brothers not by the Israelis.

Explain to me how the closing of all settlements, withdrawal of all IDF troops, and autonomy to the Palestinians explains the rocket attacks.

Was there a better way? Perhaps....but only if both sides were willing to discuss a peaceful settlement and that has never been the case with Hamas.

i'm aware of how the occupation started. i'm also aware of the fact that since 67 the situation has fundamentally changed--israel is now a regional military superpower and the idea that any combination of forces in the region can push it into the sea is a pipe dream. it isn't gonna happen. if you connect the gaza situation back to 1947, what it primarily enables is the erasure of the post-67 state of affairs.

that the occupation came about as it did says and explains nothing about how israel has chosen to deal with the west bank/golan (which i've not talked about here--because for the time being, it's separate) and gaza. in the west bank, for example, the massive israeli settlement program did not follow logically or inevitably from the nature of the 67 war.

if you look at the guardian article i posted above, it's curious to note that what we're talking about traces the outline of the public relations fight that's presently happening. blurring out the post-67 situation, downplaying occupation, blaming hamas as if they fall under the conventional bush administration category "terrorist"--you know, snippy but otherwise unmotivated people who just want to blow stuff up. i think the fact that these arguments are being repeated in this conversation is interesting because the article is pretty good about pointing out what's at stake in the positions.

this is not just about hamas. it really isn't.

rb....focusing on Gaza, what more should Israel have done beyond dismantling all settlements, removing all forces and giving autonomy to the Palestinian people as a step towards Palestinian statehood...with only one pre-condition in return, the right of Israel to exist peaceably among its neighbors?

i supported the israeli decision to remove gaza settlements (they should do the same in the west bank)...that constituted a real concession on israel's part.

the problems we are now experiencing at a remove follow from the refusal to recognize the election results. this is a simple empirical reality.

and while i understand the desire to live peacefully amongst one's neighbors, and am all for it----how exactly does refusing to recognize an election and imposing a state of siege for 18 months reflect a desire to live peaceably?

the refusal to recognize the election of Hamas is a direct response to the refusal to of Hamas to recognize Israel's right to exist and a willingness to continue to call for suicide bombings of Israeli civilians.

The security of Israel is not threatened by Hamas; the safety of its civilian population is.

Don't knock the Israeli's for being competent.

Hitting a mosque--among other targets, including a greenhouse--and having women and children among the dead: I hardly think rb's statement was a question of competence. He was hinting at the disparity in demonstrated force.

Despite any disagreement we may have on the causes and continuing problems of the situation in this region, Israel should be expected to demonstrate reasonable management of any situation that arises out of it. I've said it before in other threads, but regardless of any action of Hamas or other militant group, Israel does not ever get an "exempt-from-human-rights-standards" card. They need to be held to the same standard as any other nation, especially considering their military capabilities.

I don't have much else to say on this situation at this point, except that I tend to have a problem with responses to this that suggest Hamas is to blame for the deaths caused by Israel. It would be irresponsible of Israel to accept that claim or to endorse it. On the same note, I tend to get frustrated when heads of state do not either condemn such military action or at least suggest restraint or balanced force. I'm not sure we're seeing balance here, especially if you look at what the Israeli military is gearing up for.

As far as the Palestinian rocket attacks are concerned, I sincerely hope they aren't using them just to get a rise out of Israel as a way to garner international sympathy in the wake of heavy-handed Israeli military action. There are better ways.

The bottom line: There is no military solution in Gaza. Any military action should be considered a failure on some level, and often on more than one.

this is, in fact, this bad.

Peter Beaumont on what the latest attacks mean for the citizens of Gaza | World news | guardian.co.uk

in the end, there are mutually exclusive claims from both sides that one can latch onto in order to evade what is happening on the ground.
but the Problem is what has been happening on the ground, and even more what seems about to happen.

it seems that in order to support this action you have to substitute very general rationales and avoid looking to hard on what the siege has already meant. i posted a link to a large collection of articles above from electronic intifada which is replete with descriptions from people who are in gaza. ignore the editorials and read the descriptions if you like. call it activist if you want--i see in that evasion.
through these descriptions you get a glimpse of reality.
and that reality is not pretty.
at all.

and if the israelis launch a large-scale ground assault on gaza, there will be no rationalizing away the result will be a massacre.
it is self-evident that this will be a masscre.
the conflict is hopelessly assymetrical: a military superpower bringing its air and ground forces to bear on a densely populated civilian area the ruling party of which israel does not like, a population that has been deprived of economic wherewithal, food and medical supplies for 18 months.

i do not understand on what grounds that can be understood to be ok.

obviously, neither side is composed of angels.
but nothing, and i mean nothing, justifies 18 months of siege followed by one of a radically assymetrical military action like this.

and frankly i do not understand the desirability of this action from the israeli side either---they will not be able to control information entirely, and sooner or later the world will see fragments at least of what they will put into motion. i don't see how israel can possibly benefit from the ongoing human rights disaster accelerated into god knows what. i don't see anything good coming from this for israel, except perhaps the fake sense of security to be derived from moving against hamas. it will radicalize and add solidarity behind the types of actions that it is supposed to prevent. it will intensify the conflicts is it supposed to end. it will throw any hope of a peace process out the window. and alot of civilians will end up dead.

I agree that human rights standards should apply to all.

That includes:

Hamas suicide bombing on bus in Jerusalem, June 2003 - 17 dead

Hamas suicide bombing on bus in Jersusalem, August 2003 - 23 dead

Hamas suicide bombing attack in cafe in Hillel, Sept 2003 - 7 dead

Hamas suicide bombing attack in Asdod, March 2004 - 10 dead

Hamas suicide bombing in Beersheba, August 2004 - 17 dead

Total number of Israeli civilians killed in Hamas suicide bombing attacks (from '95- '05)- 480

And yet, Israel still took the unilateral action to withdraw from Gaza in 2005 and give the Palestinians autonomy in the region. With tougher border control, the suicide attacks have been fairly well controlled.

The rocket attacks...not so much.

To put in perspective, Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005:

Qassam rocket attacks launched by Hamas from Gaza (note what happened after the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in 05):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...2-2007.svg.png

Again, I agree.

But it takes two to make peace.
-----Added 28/12/2008 at 05 : 59 : 51-----
What happens when rocket attacks fail:

Gaza rocket kills Palestinian girls

well, dc, at the rate israel is going so far, they should equal that 10 year fatality total from rocket attacks by like...tomorrow. 290 so far. one day.
how many people have died in gaza so far from, for example, not being able to recieve medical care because basic supplies were blockaded?

but hey, who's counting that?


further, you act as though rocket attacks and a full military assault on a largely civilian population after 18 months of siege pits equivalent forces against each other because you can construct sentences that make that equivalence. there is no such equivalence.

again, this is why i think the post 67 context is the relevant one--israel is a regional military superpower.

this action pits a regional military superpower against a largely civilian population already weakened from 18 months of siege. it will be a massacre: nothing more nothing less.

you also overlook a point made in the last article i posted about the origin of hamas. it came out of the sharon period strategy of attempting to undermine the plo so israel could then claim there was no point in negociation because there's no party to negociate with.

to be clear, this is in no way an excuse of the rocket attacks--they are obviously not helpful, they obviously should not happen, and the casualties are obviously unacceptable.

but it is somewhere between problematic and disengenuous to move from this to justifying this kind of absolutely assymterical action.

particularly if you factor out the consequences of the last 18 months, which you do not seem to like addressing.
on the other hand, the only angle from which these consequences look good is one rooted in what appears about to happen to gaza.


added a moment later:
it appears that egypt is trying to broker another cease-fire. let's hope that works. i'll post a link to an article (in french--sorry)
http://www.lemonde.fr/proche-orient/...ens_id=1106055

rb....perhaps there would have been NO siege if not for the suicide bombings and escalation of rockets attacks since Israel's withdraw fro Gaza and the Hamas declared threat to Israeli civilians (not to suggest that there is a threat to Israel's existence)...but I guess you cant accept that.

And perhaps there would have been fewer Palestinian civilian casualties if Hamas had not used them as human shields (a human rights violation) by placing rocket launchers in civilian neighborhoods and military command posts next to hospitals and mosques.

We obviously look at the cause of the current crisis, the actions and reactions over the last few years (or last 40 years) from different perspectives.

We share one common hope...that cooler heads will prevail.

And I'm done here.

Israel really doesn't care who or how many they massacre because no one in the world will stand up to them for that and those who think about, refrain since they will labelled as something they are not.

Israel is really pushing buttons here and taking serious advantage politically. They know Bush is powerless during the transition and Obama's hands are tied since he has not been sworn in yet. So it is extended hannakah for the Israeli's.

And besides I have to wonder what Obama would achieve anyway. His first post democratic nomination speech was for AIPAC,...err, I mean audition, and he had to tell them Israel is the USA's number 1 priority. So he passed the audition for AIPAC, now he has to get used to the strings that attached.

Imagine if rockets were being fired Tigugna in to San Diego, hundreds, how long would until it would be occupied by the US?

Since Israel left 3 years ago the violence has not left, Hamas has refused to recognize Israel right to even exist, and one of the main negotiating points of the truce was for the release of Galit, which has yet to occur. Since then Hamas has continued to rearm, attacks even during the truce did not die, last week they fired over 170 missle, rockets, at civilians, killing a 30 year old resident of Netivot and wounding 4.

And I do feel for the Palestenian people, the problem is Hamas fires from heavily civilized areas and literally use human shields for their military facitilities.

At some point Israel has to defend itself, Obama & Clinton has said this both during their campaign this past year, and I hope they will continue the view that a nation has the right to defend itself when they are being fired upon daily by a nation being run by a terrorist group which will not recognize its neighbors right to even exist.

the key phrase here being 'defend itself'. what the israelis are doing now is not self defence. the disproportionate use of force can never be self defence.

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.

Not until the forming of new illegal settlements stops and the current expanding ones are dismantled. Any attacks from that situation would show a clearer picture. Anything short of that (as a majority of the world seems to agree) the phrase: Israel "defending" itself, is questionable.

A search has not revealed the launch of planes by "Bushco." Link to said slaughter of innocents by the US?


Five more years of Hamas lobbing rockets at Israeli civilians? YES WE CAN!


Your statement indicates that Bush's policies have accomplished their goal of preventing conflict from Iran. "Diplomacy," on the part of Israel, has resulted in the rockets launched by Hamas.

Hamas will laugh at negotiation attempts by Obama. They will scorn overtures from Hillary. Bill MIGHT achieve some success with them (because they are not going to listen to Hillary), but only if he has the authority to give them "the farm," a la N. Korea.

edited a bit later for clarity:

nonsense.

first off, like other folk who seem to find this offensive into gaza like a thrilling off-tackle run in a game and are cheering the israelis for their impressive offensive line play, you leave out everything that makes an assessment of the actual situation coherent.

for example in sporting events, both sides wear the same equipment. so there's a basic parity. one team may be better than another, but at least they're playing the same game.
in this situation, that's simply not the case.


[[aside: i've often wondered over the years about why exactly it is that the israeli military is such an object of attachment and projection on the part of americans who tend to like military action instead of diplomacy---i think they find something admirable in the fact that israel's military has operated with such impunity, that they have done so much in violation of international law, treaties and other such namby-pamby conventions of modernity, which these folk wish the american military was free of as well. this is speculative, of course, because this position is so far from anything i think that i can only approach it this way, by filling in blanks that seem to hold logically. and i don't know how to present this as a question without entailing a donnybrook. so i'll leave it at that]]

hamas is in itself an expression of the failure of the entire us/israeli right approach to palestine, to occupation---all of it. the only way forward is to treat this as a political problem that requires an international solution. and israel really has to be seen as a state like any other. enough of the projection of the illusion of "american exceptionalism" onto it. it is a political agent that has made a series of stupid decisions that have resulted in countless unnecessary deaths. unless you think that the palestinian people are somehow less than the israelis---which is an ugly correlate of much cheerleading for the idf in this context---it's clear that the rhetoric of "terrorism" has the effect of enabling massacre--look at what's happening right now. i mean rationally, not as if it were some sporting event.



the claims you make about iran as circular. "iran hasn't done anything therefore the bush policies toward it hare coherent" is like saying that a meteor has not hit the earth so you're rituals that you do before bed to ward off meteors are effective.

ahmanjiad's administration is politically weak and reactionary and has used its anti-israeli rhetoric in particular to legitimate itself publically. sound familiar?

behind the scenes, iran has offered repeatedly to help the united states in the context of the iraq debacle--had the bush people been less simple-minded, a regional solution to iraq might have been possible--if you accept the american action as given--that would have opened very different possibilities for disengagement--with all the political complexities that would pose within iraq in place--one thing is sure, though: iran has no interest in a destabilized iraq. this is self-evident.

have you ever wondered about this iran-syria-muslim brotherhood alliance and whether and how it makes sense?
what do these folk have in common?
a political solution to the palestine-israel problem undercuts the rationale for all of it.
continued brutality props it up, perpetuates it, justifies it.

latest casualty count: 500 palestinians killed. no update on the number of wounded yet today. (following the titter channel posted earlier in the thread---it's most interesting and desparately sad)

the paradox--which is obvious to most of the planet, though apparently not to the marketing machinery that has accompanied this sickening action on israel's part: all hamas has to do is survive at all and the ambient brutality of this action will hand them a political victory.

no-one, however, is laughing.

uh, q.e.d.

Israel needs to be a little careful though because to date it has actually had tacit acceptance, if not approval, from other countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia who both denounced hamas publicly over this latest situation. If it treats the Palestinians with too heavy a hand, it will lose that. I imagine those aforementioned Arab countries wouldn't mind seeing Israel destroy hamas outright, establish law and order in Gaza and stabilize what is essentially Egypt's eastern border. The idea of giving up hard-fought land only to have it hijacked by terrorists has proven to be nonproductive for all involved.

The Middle East is changing. There are now Arab countries that are trying to join the global economy, and are becoming more tolerant of Israel. Iran is starting to be seen as a more dangerous force against Arabs than is Israel. Hamas and Hezbollah are now discovering that they are not getting the automatic support of other Middle Eastern nations when they screw with Israel.

This is a great opportunity for Israel to build more bridges into the Arab world and to gain acceptance. So it must walk a very careful line in Gaza. On the one hand, indiscriminate rocket attacks cannot be tolerated and should not be, but on the other hand there is such a great disparity of power between Israel and the Palestinians that it must respond with measured force. I just hope Israel finishes off hamas before people start to forget exactly why they attacked in the first place and criticism against them builds up again. It sucks to be Israel, knowing you only have 3 or 4 months to find and eradicate the group who shoots rockets at random civilians before the world decides you're not allowed to chase them anymore.

I will concede this up front: it has been wildly irresponsible of Hamas to fire rockets, or allow them to be fired. To some extent they have brought this calamity upon the people of Gaza, and I hope (but do not expect) that Gazans will understand this. The natural psychological response, of course, will be to rally behind the besieged government. Already there are reports that the remnants of Fatah military elements in Gaza have linked up with Hamas forces to confront the Israeli ground invasion. Anyone who has seen 'War of the Worlds' or 'Independence Day' or any alien film could have predicted that much.

I don't have time to do this in depth right now, but I will throw my weight behind roachboy - in his assessment of how we got here, his insistence that people acknowledge what conditions in gaza actually look like, and his belief that this operation is futile, and will do no good to anyone - except in terms of the Israeli electoral calculus.

One thing I feel compelled to respond to: the idea that Gaza was 'freed' in 2005. No. The settlements were evacuated - and I maintain that this was a good step. But Israel still maintained control of entry and exit into the strip, and especially since the election of Hamas, has used that power to systematically deprive Gazans of basic necessities - including, at times, power, water, technology, and medical supplies. You don't have to go to oppositional sources for this. Official, stated Israeli policy with the Hamas government has been to turn the population against Hamas through slow deprivation, without provoking a 'humanitarian crisis'. In practice this has meant sealing Gaza as tightly as possible without actually causing, say, mass starvation.

Remember that we are talking about a tiny, tiny region - the Gaza strip is less than 8 miles across at its widest point, with a total area of less than 140 square miles. Combine that with an absolutely devastated economy and infrastructure and one of the highest population densities on earth, and it becomes clearer why gazans are so dependent on neighboring areas for very basic things - food production, and medical care, for example. This is why the siege, as roachboy rightly calls it, is such a Big Deal.

To get a better idea of what life is really like for these people (and if you care), check out the link below from a Gaza blogger. His experiences, and worse, aren't outliers - these are routine in the Palestinian experience. These are the practical, mundane ways in which the complex system of closures, embargoes, harassment, and occupational bureaucracy destroy the lives and livelihoods of Palestinians in the territories, even without taking into account the effects of these occasionally devastating Israeli incursions.

From Gaza, with Love: The siege -closure- and my personal story

I'm confused Roachboy, you used the word Siege for the last 18 months...but from what I know a "Siege" has only been in place the last few days. From what I read (and I read about 80% of what's up...you guys took like 2 hours of my life tonight) there was an embargo/cutoff

A siege suggest aggression and attacking and raiding
while the cut off was more a "Lets not help these people are trying to kill us".

When you say Siege, do you think Israel is actively attacking Gaza for the last 18 months?



My opinion of this is 2 things

Slims is a genius and downright scholar and gentleman. All you other cats are also of course, but I had to call him out.

and 2 Roachboy it sounds like a major thing for you is that palestine/gaza and it's people is a tiny broken little thing that is now being picked on by a massive megapower. I can appreciate the Chivalry in your reaction. I dont' exactly agree with you. I think the Palestinians have been given too many chances, and I really hope the people there will rat out the Hamas people and recognize that peace talks will happen faster when Hamas is out of power or recognizes Israel.

A siege does not require raids or attacks. To besiege someone is to surround them with forces that allow you to control (i.e. cut off) the supplies that come in and out of the area, usually with the hope of garnering capitulation through deprivation. Sieges often do have assaults, but they can go for months without direct aggression, as we've seen here. For some perspective, it was reported last year that the humanitarian situation in the area has hit a 40-year low. The lowest since Israel occupied the area in 1967. (Up to 80% were relying on humanitarian aid and more than 1/4 had no running water. I say were and had because I'm assuming the situation is worse now.)

What Israel has conducted upon Gaza over the past 18 months is nothing short of a siege, and as you can clearly see now, here is the assault aspect of it. From a humanitarian standpoint, this is an atrocity.

Clearly Israel should just deal with the rockets being launched into their country.

Just a couple people die per rocket attack, what's the big deal?

Indeed, thank you for the clear up

[qoute]Clearly Israel should just deal with the rockets being launched into their country.

Just a couple people die per rocket attack, what's the big deal? [/qoute]

Dude, if someone shot a gun at me, and they miss...they still just shot at me. You better believe I wouldn't ask what the big deal was.

TheNasty: To be clear, the median rocket causes exactly zero casualties, so the actual number is far lower than what you cite.

Konichiwa: To extend your metaphor of the Palestinians and Israelis each as a single human being, think of it this way: someone shoots a spitball at you, and in return, you bash in his left knee with a sledgehammer. This is more suitable than your original analogy to describe Israel's killing of over 500 palestinians (reportedly 40% women and children, to say nothing of any innocent men) in reaction to rockets that, taken together, have killed and injured handfuls. When speaking of nations, the equivalent of a loaded gun would have to be something on the order of a nuclear weapon - something capable of delivering a death-blow. Hamas rockets are awful, inexcusable, morally reprehensible, and must be stopped - but let's not pretend that they are the equivalent of a loaded gun facing Israel as a society.

And all of this about proportionality is really a side-note, a moral dimension to what is essentially a practical question: what could Israel possibly hope to accomplish here?

Once force becomes lethal, you can't use things like spitballs as a analogy.

Are people actually justifying lethal force is excusable? All lethal force is lethal as it has one goal...to kill people.

Yeah Israel is using a lot of force here, but 6 years of small bombings is pretty substantial isn't it?

Sorry guys, I can see both sides but the people who are saying "Israel should just suck up these rocket attacks as everyday standard fare" should really analyze what they are saying.


On the reverse side, yeah I wish Israel didn't use as much force...but really what can they do? Just as much as Hamas is using psychology with the palestinians to win their support, Israel has to use the psychology of action to help their side. I would assume there's a bunch of Israeli's who are on the inside happy about this, because their government is finally doing something about the cloud of fear growing because of the constant rocket firing

it's really not so simple.
you can make it simple if you want, but that's to leave real life behind. do it if it's pleasing, for whatever reason, but at least acknowledge that you're doing it.
no-one is saying that israel should just suck it up and deal with anything--what i've been saying all along is that everything about this situation follows from a stupid, ill-advised policy choice that olmert's government made with the nitwits in the bush administration giving full support--the decision to not recognize the results of the last elections in gaza and instead to impose a state of siege on the civilian population, as if imposing a siege was going to turn the population against hamas.

a siege is an act of war.

that there was a cease fire is certainly preferable to the appalling situation that's happening now--and that hamas chose to gamble with the civilian population of gaza at the end of that cease fire an inexcusable mistake--but the fact is that this is a POLITICAL problem, the result of stupid choices made by israel and the united states for which they must take primary responsibility.

of course in the period just before elections, it's hardly plausible that the weak reactionary government in israel is going to admit anything--it suits the purposes of the right to push this to the limit---and it is justified by repeated statements about rockets.

this is not to condone what hamas chose to do in any way--but it is la-la land to assume that the rockets are all that's prompted this, all that's at stake in this. the fact is that the cease fire was violated by BOTH sides---and the central, structuring fact is that the israelis and americans fucked up when they decided to head down this road in the first place.

i'm not going to repeat the rest of the information that's already in the thread to back this up---read it if you want the arguments.

there is no justification i can imagine for what's happening in gaza right now. no justification at all.

and there was a report earlier this afternoon which said that there is no infrastructure in gaza to protect civilians from bombs--no shelters, no bunkers. there's no electricity. in many places, there's no water. the hospitals have been seriously short of basic medical supplies for much of the past 18 months of siege and now they have to cope with the casualties of the israeli incursion. today's casualties--the numbers of which i have not yet seen, are reportedly 60% women and children.

http://twitter.com/ajgaza

four bits of information.
this is a bit long. mea culpa.
point two is very short, however. short and sickening.


1) this is one of several reports today on the actions of the idf relative to journalists who are trying to cover the situation in gaza, which explains to some extent why the cnn talking heads stand in fields near the border hoping to have authentic-looking explosions happening in the distance as they repeat the press pool line on the invasion. only al jazeera has correspondents actually in gaza. this despite the israeli supreme court ruling of last week.

of course, as you'll see, the idf is more than happy to allow access to sites inside israel where rockets have hit.

figure out for yourself what this means for many of the views expressed here and elsewhere about what's happening.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/wo...7media.html?hp

2. earlier today the united states blocked a un security council resolution demanding a cease fire....

3. the israelis bombed a united nations school today, killing 50, mostly refugees.
this is the kind of thing that seemed to me almost inevitable, and is something that undercuts any plausible benefit that israel might have argued it would get from this action.

of course, the idf claims there were mortars being fired from there.
but this is transparently a lie.
like livni's claim that there is no humanitarian crisis in gaza is a lie.

Al Jazeera English - Middle East - Scores killed as Gaza school hit

4. this link

Democracy Now! | A Debate on Israel's Invasion of Gaza: UNRWA's Christopher Gunness v. Israel Project's Meagan Buren

takes you to a transcript of a debate on democracy now between christopher guiness of the un high commision on refugees who has been working in gaza over the past months, and megan buren of the israel project in washington. it is too long to post, but is really quite interesting. notice the centrality of foregrounding what is actually happening on the ground in gaza--and what has been happening over the past 18 months---in the way this debate unfolds.

it speaks for itself.


660 killed, 2950 injured according to the latest figures.
read what guiness has to say about the situation in the hospitals in gaza in the above to get a sense of what injured might mean.

It is substantial, but so is 18 months of near-starvation due to the closure of the borders. For that matter, 40 years of occupation, dispossession, brutalization, and settlement-building are pretty substantial too. Let's not strip away all context until the thing we are looking at stops resembling reality.

Are you really going to be this dense? OK, fine. Someone murders your sister. You figure out that it's someone from the 8th floor of a 20-level apartment building. You decide to place an enormous bomb on that floor, killing all dozen inhabitants of the 8th floor, killing 6 others, and injuring dozens more throughout the building.

The point of either analogy is to illustrate the utterly disproportionate nature of the response. Models by necessity do not capture every aspect of reality, but the criticism that you leveled doesn't even make any sense. Are you trying to say that once your life is threatened, you can kill just as many innocent people as you please?

Yes Hired Gun, you more buoyant than me.

So what if that person who was trying to kill my sister thought the best way to do it was to carpet bomb a high school she may be at?

Isn't that what they are doing also with the rocket attacks?

Why yes, I'm saying kill all the innocent people in the world (no sarcasm here).

Hiredgun, give me more credit than you do. I don't think any of us are happy with innocent people dying.

Ok, you are right. I should explain my objection more clearly.

To begin with, I am not saying that rockets are excusable, and I am also not saying that Israel must stand by and do nothing. What I am saying is that what Israel is currently doing is inexcusable because it is a reaction completely disproportionate to the original provocation.

You began by saying you would react if someone shot at you, even if they missed. That is perfectly reasonable. You might shoot back, and that seems reasonable too. But if someone shot at you from a building populated by lots of innocent people in addition to your attacker, it would be extreme to knock down the whole building, yes? Certainly you are within your rights to act, but at some theoretical point, I think you would admit that the repercussions of your action on the innocent must be factored in, yes? Perhaps you think that many of the victims are not so innocent, or perhaps you regret what happens to them but feel that there is no other available course of action that might mitigate the loss of life. We could debate either of those points, but since they were never made explicit, all that came across to me was: "Israeli civilians are the victims of potentially lethal rocket fire, and therefore Israel's reaction is justified"-- without any reference at all to what that reaction actually is, what it looks like, what its human costs are, and what its impact will be on the continuing conflict.

I don't even actually think that the argument from proportionality is the best argument that what Israel is doing is wrong, nor an unassailable one. But I was so confused by your initial objection ('you can't use spitballs as an analogy for anything lethal') that I felt compelled to explain myself better.

This isn't unusual for Israel or other countries in the mid east. But Israel and her friends are very good at it.

Canadian journalist Neil MacDonald was an expert in that region. Very balanced and professional. If the Israeli's deemed harsh criticism, he let them have it. If it was the Palestinian's or their Arab neighbours that warranted scorn, he was just as cutting. Once he was standing in a crowded marketplace when an Israeli warship fired in his area. A few minutes later he gave the report with part of a young boys brains in his hands.

Unfortunately he wasn't allowed to be truthful regarding Israel and left the mid east for Washington, but not before Israel barred him from the country and applied enough pressure that the Canadian Jewish Congress, Simon Weisenthal Centre and B'Nai Brith tried to paint him as a hate mongerer and threatened to sue his employer, the Canadian Broadcast Corporation(CBC)

Ben Wedeman of CNN was in the West Bank when an Israeli tank pulled up. As he was giving his report, the tank fired 5 times and killed an Italian photojournalist who was wearing his press flack jacket. The tank rolled away. The IDF later said it was a Palestinian sniper on the roof. I was watching live.The shots came from the tank. CNN showed that clip live once, never again.

At the same time a group of Americans were protesting in Palestinian terroritory when a tank rode up and opened fire. One killed, 11 injured as they were a peaceful protest, holding up their passports. IDF excuse,..the tank was fired on. Aired live,..never to be seen again.

It's no wonder the Israeli's don't want reporters there because it is business as usual. They do what they want because no one can stop them for fear of persecution. Anyone in Washington going to ruin their career for speaking out against whatever Israel feels like doing? Not on anyones lives.

Even our Prime Minister in Canada stood by Israel as they blew up a UN command post in Lebanon in 2006, killing a Canadian peacekeeper. And then the Israeli's went back to blow up the huge UN sign to cover their tracks, long after they had information that peacekeepers were present.

But like I said. The IDF doesn't care who or how many they kill. Because it's either an unfortunate mistake or a human shield. Any excuse really. One would expect more from a people whose entire history is mapped in persecution and genocide.

Is it really a lie, or do you just want to believe everything you read critical of Israel?

You didn't mention that the video you posted is from 2007 and is ostensibly of a school in the south of Gaza, whereas the school recently hit (the U.N. one for refugees) is in the north.

Please refrain from issuing misinformation. It isn't helpful. If you have evidence that there was indeed mortar fire coming from the school in question, then please present that instead.

Maybe start with this: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/wo...07mideast.html It's a little more two-thousand-and-niney and far more geographically relevant as well.

Spectacular video, by the way. What's the source?