Greetings to Ta-Nehisi's fans and readers. As my friend and fellow Chimay-lover warned you, I'm here as a guest-blogger to comment on the "all-out war" that Israel has launched against Hamas, which has now stretched into a second week and may drag on for a good while longer.
And so, we begin...
Rebuffing diplomatic efforts to broker a ceasefire, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni insisted yesterday that the goal of the operation was to "change the equation" in the region. Since few Israelis openly endorse a permanent reoccupation of the Gaza Strip, her assumption is presumably that a truce will eventually be reached on terms more favorable to Israel, putting a stop to Hamas' missile attacks, and that Palestinians will conclude from the latest round of carnage that they should throw their support behind new, more moderate leaders.
The first assumption is debatable, the second illogical and perverse. The 1.5 million residents of Gaza have spent the past eleven days scrambling for cover. Mosques, universities and government buildings have been destroyed. The death toll has climbed above 550 Palestinians. Unless Hamas' supporters have lost the capacity to feel enraged and insulted, feelings never in short supply among them in the past, it's hard to see how witnessing this will lead them to choose more moderate leaders. Or for that matter how it will weaken Hamas, which had seen its popularity among Palestinians decline before Israel's invasion was launched. As the Palestinian journalist Daoud Kuttab noted in the Washington Post, a survey conducted in November found that a mere 16.6 percent of Palestinians backed Hamas, due largely to the group's intransigence and unwillingness to forge a national-unity government. But that was before Israel's onslaught. To quote Kattub:
The disproportionate and heavy-handed Israeli attacks on Gaza have been a bonanza for Hamas. The movement renewed its standing in the Arab world, secured international favor further afield and succeeded in scuttling indirect Israeli-Syrian talks and direct Palestinian-Israeli negotiations. It has also greatly embarrassed Israel's strongest Arab neighbors, Egypt and Jordan.We have, of course, been here before. In July 2006, Israel launched an aerial assault on Lebanon to destroy the arsenal of Hezbollah and put a stop to its cross-border rocket attacks. As we all know, the mission failed, with Hezbollah emerging, if anything, stronger (and Israel more widely hated). This time, the usual coterie of pro-war pundits insist, it will be different. The Israeli military is better prepared, the circumstances have altered... Yet the same flawed premise is at work.
Like Hezbollah, Hamas is a religious-nationalist movement that cannot simply be expunged by force - and that did, lest we forget, win an election back in 2006. Like Hezbollah, it thrives on the very sort of conflict Israel's leaders somehow imagine will destroy it. Other than boosting the short-term political prospects of Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak and deepening the anger and misery of the Gazans, it's hard to see what this war will accomplish.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Put yourself in the Gazan's shoes. If an occupying power blew up your neighbors home accidentally or intentionally killing people you consider friends. Would that make you more likely to be open to your occupiers point of view.
I've seen a lot of people in the Press asking us to put ourselves in the Israeli's shoes. Alright simple enough. My first reaction would be to do exactly what the Israelis are doing. Hurt those who are hurting you. However it is the wrong reaction.
Even by the IDF's estimate they've killed more Civilians than they have Hamas fighters. There is no way you can consider that a success. Now they've accidentally hit another UN sanctuary. Is it any wonder the UN doesn't like Israel, they've killed more UN Peace Keepers than Hamas and Hezbollah combined.
Where is the famed Israeli counter intelligence? Why use a missile where a well aimed bullet would do. Target Hamas' leadership and avoid using high explosive in densely populated areas.
Let's assume that stated motives and actual motives diverge, a pretty safe assumption.
My guess as to what actually is the motive behind the assault is to establish "facts on the ground", or "facts on the rubble" as case may be, in an attempt to constrain the options P.E. Obama has when he takes office in two weeks.
IMO, the actions Israel are taking are immoral on their face. Yes, yes, yes, Hamas are jihadist jack-offs who deserve marginalization, if not death. But there is no way on God's Green Earth that this invasion will create an environment in which peace can flourish.
In my opinion, Judaism has much to offer the world: compassion, humility, charity, self-discipline and a respect for learning. I regret that the state of Israel no longer seems to represent these values, and has regressed to something that resembles the most greedy, barbarous and cruel characteristics of mankind. Nothing justifies the killing of children, whether accidental or not, and the use of phosphorus is an abomination. What can we say good about the theft of land, the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, the willingness to abuse and torture prisoners? Israel has done more to harm the human race and prospects for world peace than any other nation in the last 40 years. I retain a respect for Judaism as a faith, but I have none for the state that claims to defend it.
So Hamas thinks lobbing largely useless rockets at Israel and advocating for its annihilation will strengthen their hand, while Israel thinks turning Gaza into rubble, having militant settlers organize pogroms and maintaining a semi-apartheid state will lead to moderation from the Palestinians.
Do I even need to explain what's wrong here?
I honestly find your whole argument to be rubbish..just rubbish. The fact of the matter is Israel will probably loose the public relations war, Hamas will most likely emerge more popular, the moderates will most likely emerge weaker, the people of Gaza will most likely emerge angrier and more radical, Salafism will most likely become stronger in Gaza.
But what you can't just throw away is that if Israel really pummels Hamas this time, any ceasefire that emerges from the ashes of this war will most likely be sustainable. For an easy example, I point to you the case of the northern border (vis hezbollah, Nasrallah e.t.c.)
I predict that Hamas will more conscientiously prevent errant groups from firing rockets into Israel after all this is said and done. I predict that you will hear someone from Hamas say "if we had known that this was how Israel will respond...." just as Nasrallah said after 2006.
Regardless of what people might say or think, I think the 2006 campaign was an unqualified success.
Now to the callous part: where are those shouting bullseye after the solely American tragedy of 9/11. Let them stand up and be counted.
Eyal,
More historical context please....we need to get to the bottom of the history for there to be dialogue. Your absolutely right that this move by Israel will surely intensify violence in the region. People forget that Hezbolah was born out of the 1982 invasion of Lebanon as Israel tried to dismantle the then PLO, a group might I say that was headed on a direction of political moderation. Its well known that Israel hates public advocacy and peacemaking. The crucial point is that Israel is not willing to stop the occupation at the expense of its people. This will be the demise of the Israeli people as intellectuals have pointed. Today Hamas is directly elected by the people...and for two years has had a one way ceasefire. The facts are there if we care to look.
In fact this reminds me of the Simpsons episode where a biker gang takes over their house. Marge ends up doing their laundry and one of the bikers marvels at her ability to remove oil stains from clothes. He says to her: "I've tried yelling at it [referring to the stain] and punching it, but nothing worked."
"the solely American tragedy of 9/11"
First of all, citizens of many nations died in 9/11, so it was NOT a solely American tragedy. Second, the dangerous and dishonest response by Bush and Co inflicted a tragedy upon the whole world. Bush has exacerbated problems that already existed, fought an unnecessary war that destabilized the Middle East further, done nothing to bring peace, and has, in sum, created a dangerous neoCrusading mentality among conservatives while destroying attempts by moderates in the Islamic world to reach a modus vivendi. Less of the sanctimonious nonsense about America's unique tragedy, please.
It is interesting that you make that point, Hassan. I was just wondering about the 8000 rockets that hit Israeli cities over the last 2 years. I honestly need you to explain to me why the ruling class in several Arab (note I use Arab i.e excluding Persian) are quite willing to see Hamas get it this time around.
A responsible government never sees the end of a ceasefire as a time to consolidate its political standing...does it? And ask yourself...where are the fruits of governance?
The pertinent question is...do you honestly see Hamas evolving from national freedom fighter status to a governing body accepted by the international community.
I am sure the answers to my questions will either include words like blame the US, blame the Israelis.
By the way...how about the issue of THE charter?
"...maintaining a semi-apartheid state..."
Tyler,
I agree with you, but can we keep it real?
Before Israel withdrew forces and began to force settlers to leave Gaza and the West Bank, it was a true apartheid state. For 50+ years.
"Bush has exacerbated problems that already existed, fought an unnecessary war that destabilized the Middle East further, done nothing to bring peace, and has, in sum, created a dangerous neoCrusading mentality among conservatives while destroying attempts by moderates in the Islamic world to reach a modus vivendi."
yazzel, you could just as easily substitute "Israeli neo-cons" for "Bush" and have the meaning unchanged.
"A responsible government never sees the end of a ceasefire as a time to consolidate its political standing...does it? And ask yourself...where are the fruits of governance?"
Alexei Wawa
So you approve of Tzipi Livni and Co starting a war and killing non-combatants in order to improve their election chances? And where are the fruits of Israel's wisdom? Illegal settlements, ethnic cleansing and state sponsored terrorism. Hardly impressive, is it?
@alexei wawa: Hamas wouldn't say "if we had only know this was going to be the Israeli reaction" because they've had the benefit of seeing it played out in 2006. Hezbollah got strengthened and Hamas figures if anything, their popularity in Gaza can only go up if Israel attacks it.
Nothing unites a people than an external enemy attacking it. Multiply that with the particular case of the Palestinians and Hamas and you end up with Eyal's point..."like Hezbollah, it (Hamas) thrives on the very sort of conflict Israel's leaders somehow imagine will destroy it"
Swervus, I can't disagree with you on the broader point, but I was specifically debunking Wawa's poisonous nonsense about America's unique tragedy. Yes, the Israeli neocons did much to urge Bush along his disastrous path, but he was an ass that needed little urging.
Here we go again...you are obviously looking at the countries of origin of those that died on 9/11. For your information regardless of the color, country of origin, gender, sexuality or defining xteristic of those that died, every single person that lost his/her life was in a way American. Wrap your head around that.
I would like to see you explain to me that the only loss in 9/11 was the loss of lives and that citizens of other nations died too.
I would so much love to be called a neoconservative. How funny? Like I said, where are those that were shouting bullseye. Do you understand that for most people in American small towns..the equation of the politics is quite simple...It goes thus...
this people don't like us, this are the people that we see in movies as terrorists, these are those that hijacked our planes........
I hope you can follow that.
And lastly regarding Bushcos action in Iraq and in the greater middle-east...you ever wonder why it was easy to sell the bogus case of Iraq to the american populace?
As a thought experiment, will it be easier to sell the iraq case (as it was then ..the fake intelligence and all) 6 years after 9/11 or 2 yrs after 9/11.
Sophia H, as a case in point, you might also add the way that Bush exploited 9/11 to push through dishonest and dangerous policies, as well as starting the War against the Man who Wanted to Kill My Daddy.
alexei
I can answer your question. Guns and money. Thats why Egypt et all ruling class aren't jumping back into the fray. WE pay them not to for one, for two we give the Israeli's bigger guns. It is what it is. What the true fear here should be is that the people in those more moderate Arab states don't take such offense to their ruling class that they vote in hardliners the next time around. That will just be another unintended negative consequence of Israel's current actions.
BTW if you are going to talk about the rockets Hamas shoots off be sure to point out how few they actually kill just for some proportion here. Hamas hasn't killed 10 Israelis in the last 2 years with those rockets. Even one Israeli killed is wrong, but 8,000 rockets shot off really isn't all that impressive when you put it in that perspective.
So far, so good. Keep it clean guys.
I am a realpolitik guy when it comes to foreign policy and believe as does Powell once you use the military you must have a set plan of accomplishment both in and out. I think here the Israeli's overplayed their hand.
The aerial assualt to destroy the arsenals of improved rockets in a city was over kill. Their intelligence is good enough to go in w/ ground troops to hunt down Hamas' leaders. The same had to be said to destroy the arsenals. The problem is that putting troops on the ground to do so could leave them in a Blackhawk Down scenario. But losses under that situation still gets the arsenals destroyed without indiscrimanted civilian casualities(when you drop a 500lb bomb on a building it isn't like a video game where nothing nearby becomes damaged). Worse since control of goods in and out is controlled by Israel there is no reason to inflame the situtation more than it already is.
As to Hamas I have seen reports that they would accept a three state situtation but would not recognize Israel in return for this deal. They woould hate but then be under real pressure to produce for the people.
Lastly I came across this on theoildrum.com. considering whom printed the article you have to put down your conspiracy glasses but I think it's valid. The conspiracy is that the Israeli's invasded to control oil and gas deposits offshore of Gaza. I say this because I remember when in the 70's and American colleges were full of Iraqi students it was readily acknowledged that Iraq was the no 2 producer and reserve holder in OPEC. And it hascome out that control of Iraqi oil resources was a very real consideration in the invasion.
http://www.daily.pk/world/middle-east/8992-hamas-holding-natural-gas-discoveriss-off-coast-of-gaza-hostage-in-2006.html
so was Nasrallah drunk when he said that after the 2006 war? or was he under the influence of a UFO-alien whatever?
I thought Eyal mentioned yesterday that both the Israeli and Palestinian leadership are corrupt and morally weak. God, I am a neocon, I am a neocon.
I don't think there's any way this conflict turns out well for Israel (or it's allies). Fortunately, the world community is having a renewed love affair with factual reality, and the facts of this new all-out war are overwhelmingly bad for the Israelis.
Why? Because labeling a group "terrorist" no longer excuses any and all actions taken against that group. Regardless of whether Hamas has been waging a guerrilla war against oppressors or committing crimes of terror is a debatable topic - the Palestinians certainly have had a right to feel a bit put out since Israel's founding. But one thing is certain: 10 random rockets a day, most hitting nothing and no-one, does not a scorched earth 200 1-ton bombs-a-day air slaughter justify.
"...regardless of the color, country of origin, gender, sexuality or defining xteristic of those that died, every single person that lost his/her life was in a way American."
Ah yes, regardless of all defining factors to the contrary, everyone who died on 9/11 was American. Such miserable logic, and such total dishonesty. Alexei, I had relatives who died that day, who were not American and never wanted to be. So keep your lies and exploitation of the dead to yourself. As for the American people, I respect them enough to remember that they have just resoundingly rejected your sort of propaganda and your attempt to sell us Bush III. They have scraped you off their collective shoe and your day is done.
Deleted. No ad hominem.
>>>>I can answer your question. Guns and money. Thats >why Egypt et all ruling class aren't jumping back >into the fray. WE pay them not to for one, for >two we give the Israeli's bigger guns. It is what >it is. What the true fear here should be is that >the people in those more moderate Arab states >don't take such offense to their ruling class >that they vote in hardliners the next time >around. That will just be another unintended >negative consequence of Israel's current actions.
I find several things frustrating about us lefties...at the end of every argument...there is always a scapegoat waiting..and it is the US foreign policy.
My question wasn't why aren't they jumping to the fray (by the way when was the last time a state army of an arabian state engaged Israel in direct combat on a battle field). That is not the question. You ever ask yourself if the egyptians, the saudis, the jordanians, the kuwaitis, qataris are worried about the spread of Iran's influence, the spread of fundamentalism?
The fact of the matter is that there is a growing wariness in the ruling classes of this country and it has gat nothing to do with whether the emir/president is living under US protection or not.
You
Dear antongorodetsky,
Lets keep this polite, shall we? Everyone that died during 9/11 was in a way american. I am not saying that they were citizens of this country. Gatsby.
Obviously 9/11 to you was simply a physical attack on this country.
Alexi's posts are venturing into troll territory; just ignore them.
Nor, in essence, does it justify the slaghteration of my syntax. Ugh.
@Tyler: I am inclined to agree.
Everything goes in cycle...just remember that. There is one simple reason why the I/P problem may never be solved. The lack of convergence in ideas.
Can any one explain what the >>> is difficult to understand in the simple statements
1) everyone that died in 9/11 was in a way american
2) 9/11 was just more that a physical attack on this country.
jaysus. H. Christ!
At least 40 people have been killed in an Israeli air strike on a United Nations-run school in the Gaza Strip
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7814054.stm
Somehow this thread has been 'jacked by a jackass name Wawa. Ignore the troll, people, and let's get back to Israel, rather than wasting time on a neocon stooge who wants to avoid the topic at all costs. As our next President would say, don't let him hoodwink and bamboozle you.
The key to all of this remains Israel's confidence that it will not be called to account by the big players on the international scene - most obviously the US. If that should change, you'll find Israel embracing a more realistic posture rapidly. That said, nothing in the last 30 years suggests that this will happen. The question then is whether Israel can either openly massacre its way to Greater Israel, which I doubt, or hang on indefinitely in no-mans-land, increasingly disliked and distrusted by the international community. True, the Arab states right now are weak, corrupt and at odds - but that may well change, and if so, the change is likely to occur through revolutions led by radical Islamists. That's not a good long-term bet for Israel, but the Israelis don't seem to have a viable third strategy. One thing is sure - you can't oppress and periodically attack a population and expect any sort of lasting peace.
alexei says
but then follows up with this
Alexei the last time I checked Egypt took a resolution before the UN Security Council asking them to condemn Israel's actions and call for a ceasefire. So unless you have some kind of insider information the only other public action they could take WOULD be to join the fray. So far publically they haven't actually been "quite willing" and the only inferences that we have tht they are is our media and the Israeli media. I DO know that there were protests all over Egypt recently and they relented and started opening their borders for the dying and wounded in Gaza.
Imma post something here and if you have the courage of your convictions I want you to read it and then try to defend it. I'll wait.
http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/palestine-report-131207
I'm watching. Just continue on, please.
It's through the direct actions of the state of Israel that much of the Palestinian population is uneducated, unemployed and dependent on the world community for most of their food and medical supplies. They've been sowing poison and discord into their oppressed population for so long that it seems to many Israelis that the Palestinian's "condition" is their own fault.
There are 50 year old men and women running around Gaza and the West Bank who have never lived outside of Israeli rule. When your local school is "accidentally" bombed to dust every 5-7 years by the imperial power next door, you hesitate to send your kids to class.
As the original poster mentioned, Hamas has plunged in popularity, suggesting they are better at creating and taking advantage of conflict than governing and that their time in charge may soon pass if everything else remained the same. Naturally, Israel is hesitant to let its citizens be bombarded, so knowing this, Hamas needs the conflict in order to stay in power.
Not sure what the resolution to this could be, possibly having third party oversight in Gaza to prevent the flow of arms and the firing of missles. It can't be an arab force or American, but the French or Germans might be trusted by the Palestinians since they are not shy about bashing Israel. Not sure if such a scenario is practical, but it might bring some security to Israel and it would force Hamas to deliver the goods to its people.
DougEMI
Needing conflict is something both sides have in common. Don't forget that these attacks coincide with a previously unscheduled election in Israel facilitated by corruption charges against their leader. Also I am going to post this line from the Army War College Report I linked to yesterday which was released right before Christmas this year.
snip
I would also like to point out agaim that the ceasefire was actually working for 5 months since late June early July so that in and of itself is proof that there CAN be peace between Israel and Hamas and if it can last for 5 months why not 5 years or 50 years? Part of the problem was even though rocket firings were few and far in between from July to November the Palestinians didn't see any better conditions coming to them. We keep looking at it from the lens of the Israelis where we say we wouldn't allow anybody to bomb us and get away with it and I mostly agree with that point. But how about for a moment looking at it through the eyes of a Palestinian. What exactly would you do if you effectively prisoned, unable to go anywhere, unable to work, unable to feed your family, and resources like electricity and water were severely rationed to you? Would you just sit there and take it? Or would you want to lash out at who you saw as your oppresors? Please remember that out of the civil rights movement we had not only MLK Jr, we also had Malcolm X.
@yazzel - I think you're right about that. But there was always divergence b/w Israeli and American right-wing thought. Especially in that Israel has no faith in the outcomes of democratizing Arab countries. The elections that brought Hamas to power? An American idea that Israelis mistrusted but Bush insisted on. Israelis also warned Bush privately that occupying Iraq would be disastrous (read: Lebanon), that US interests would be better served with a non-genocidal autocrat like Mubarak. Besides Israel's focus was always Iran, not Iraq, as the main threat.
The Israelis are violating the cardinal rule of effective counterinsurgency - isolate the insurgents from the civil population before attacking. Obviously, then there's the death toll...
@Robert M - I seriously doubt the three-state solution is tenable. Egypt said thanks but no thanks to Gaza in 1979. The Jordanians - despite being mostly ethnic Palestinian themselves - killed more Palestinians during a week of Black September than Israel has in the past 20 years. Israel, now that its made peace with both countries, would probably love to transfer the job of controlling Hamas to the Jordanian and Egyptian governments - its much easier to have an actual country to blame. Plus, for Hamas, it wouldn't be an endgame, but a hudna so they can prep for the next battle.
Eyal:
Thanks for accepting TNCs invitation to come here.
I would be interested for those of us whose knowledge is, frankly, based more from headlines than history books elaborate further on the internal Israeli politics and calculus that are shaping the current military action. I think the perception is to view this as an Israeli action thus we ascribe a monolithic position to the country, when it seems there is not unity on this action, evidenced by your thoughts. What forces are leading to this event, are those factors waxing (thus we could see more aggressive actions) or wanting (ie this is some 'last gasp' before Israeli would not have the domestic political support to do this in the future).
@sgwhiteinfla - "effectively prisoned, unable to go anywhere, unable to work, unable to feed your family, and resources like electricity and water were severely rationed"
I get your point, but these measures didn't emerge from outer space. Most of them came after and in direct response to the intifada. Many, many Palestinians used to work in Israel. The intifada - and particularly the fighters' habit of masquerading as civilians and slipping dynamite onto kids - led to mobility restrictions. That said, the blockade was both foolish and reprehensible.
Sg, I also made that point about the proximaty of the Israeli elections in another thread. As for what I would do, I have no clue. Try to get the hell out and emigrate to the US or EU. I guess it depends upon my motivations. If I were in search of an independent Palestine that exists along side Israel, I would be more inclined towards the MLK approach. If I wanted the Israelis driven out of the capital and to the sea, militancy might be my reaction.
DougEMI
LOL How would you go anywhere else? All borders are locked down. They have no airport. They are prisoners in every since of the word.
I wish I could post this whole conversation here. I am for sure about to post about it on my blog. But Glenn Greenwald for all his faults is one of the coldest cats out right now. For him to go on Hugh Hewitts show and drop knowledge like this is just fucking incredible. I am damn near speechless right not that the cat pulled it off. Now I am sure that Hewitt probably pooh poohed him when he got off. But the depth of his argument and the facts he was hitting him with was just FLAWLESS VICTORY. I encourage everybody to click this link and see how its done.
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/7effa77f-6679-4f3c-b1ba-419feb4cbb50
If the borders as so effectively locked down, how the hell to all those missles make it in there?
Uhmm Doug, the rockets FLY. What are you going to do strap one on your back like Wile E Coyote?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Upt7ZTvcriY
Doug, I may be wrong about this, but I suspect that many of the missiles are essentially homemade, and it's much easier to move their components around than a population. Those that are ready for instant use are probably shipped in via tunnels, or else via the sea during periods of ceasefire.
TNC, I have to point out that you slammed Anton for an ad hominem, but allowed Alexei Wawa to say things that were far worse, including the lie about how everyone who died on 9/11 was an American. Compared to that, a terse response that Alexei is more accurately described as a neomoron than a neocon seems relatively.. ahem .. proportional.
The actual answer to "How do those missles make it into gaza?" is that they are smuggled through tunnels dug under the Gaza-Egypt border. Very small, very cramped, very dangerous tunnels.
And as anyone who has any knowledge at all of capitalism should know: the black market finds a way. How do you think prisoners in maximum security can basically buy whatever they want - if they have the money?
Regardless of how "effectively" the borders are locked down, they are locked down. That is beyond dispute. But what was an overreaction to a terrorist threat has become a very, very bad policy of defacto imprisonment. Is what I think sgwhiteinfla's point is.
And yes - I'm sure people flee that situation every day. By the dozens. Which means to empty gaza of it's population would take... 31,250 days about. Or 86 years.
That is if they aren't killed by a 1-ton bomb first. Bombs expedite the process of emptying gaza.
Sg,
I'm not talking about how missiles exit Gaza, I am talking about their enterance. A secure border would make the inflow of weapons and outflow of people to be equally impenetrable.
"TNC, I have to point out that you slammed Anton for an ad hominem, but allowed Alexei Wawa to say things that were far worse, including the lie about how everyone who died on 9/11 was an American. Compared to that, a terse response that Alexei is more accurately described as a neomoron than a neocon seems relatively.. ahem .. proportional."
Funny how Alexei mysteriously stopped posting. I wonder why that would be...
We have ways of dealing with trolls. Proportional enough?
TNC, it works for me. Thank you.
Doug
I know but I just wanted to post that Wile E Coyote clip.
But seriously a lot of the rockets were stockpiled from before the borders were closed. But mostly they are just parts anyway and Hamas puts them together with crude materials. They actually showed one of the rocket makers on CNN a week or two ago. Thats why now the rockets are going further into Israel. They aren't standardized so the rocket makers can play with the proportions of the make up of the rocket to make them go father or be somewhat more powerful. There are a few smuggled in still through tunnels like John said but considering the fact that the Israelis bomb those tunnels when they find them on a regular I don't think you would be trying to use those tunnels to get away. And thats not even taking into account the fact that the actual Hamas guys who use them for smuggling probably wouldn't allow you to use them to leave.
Eyal,
Beware of overly facile analogies. This isn't simply a reprise of 2006, and I suspect you know that.
It's certainly true that an assault on a militant group which is heavily entrenched and supported by the local population is likely, at least in the short term, to bolster support for that group. So yes, Hamas will be more popular in February than it was in December. On the other hand, if Israel had re-opened the border crossings, Hamas would have claimed credit for forcing a change in policy through rocket fire, and been strengthened. If Israel had simply maintained the status quo, Hamas would have continued to point to itself as the prime resister of Israeli oppression, and been strengthened. The group already enjoyed the support of a majority of residents of Gaza in a free and fair election. It has spent the two years since systematically breaking up organized opposition. (Just since the present fighting broke out, it has kneecapped dozens of Fatah activists as a purely preemptive measure, and turned dozens of suspected collaborators over to the families of those killed in recent days for lynching.) That's a long-winded way of saying that whatever had happened, Hamas' control of the Gaza Strip, at least in the short term, was bound to be enhanced.
So the question becomes, if it's bound to grow stronger in the short-term, how does one diminish Hamas' control over the long term? The answer, most observers agree, is to create a situation of enhanced economic opportunity tied to growing stability. That, in turn, requires reopening Gaza's borders. And here's the tricky part - that was never going to happen while Hamas continued to enhance its offensive capabilities, and launch rockets. So long as its arsenal of medium-range rockets was growing, and so long as sporadic mortar and rocket fire from Hamas continued, Israel was not going to take steps to broaden economic opportunity within Gaza. No democracy can say to its citizenry, "Stay in your shelters, and duck every now and again. In a decade or two, the spread of prosperity will undermine support for militancy, and the rockets will stop." It simply can't happen.
But that's not an affirmative case for the incursion, merely an explanation of its inevitability. The affirmative case rests upon the terms of the proposed ceasefire that are starting to emerge. What we're hearing, from Blair and the EU, is that there would be a new arrangement along the southern border of Gaza. It's through the dozens of tunnels under that border that the parts for Hamas' long-range rockets flow. Hamas can build Qassams in its own workshops, but it needs to import that Grad, Katyusha, and other longer-range weapons from elsewhere. Moreover, much of its revenue comes from taxing the smuggling that takes place through these tunnels. They are the basis for its control of Gaza, and for its ability to continue offensive operations.
So what does the new deal look like? It will reportedly involve an EU-led force along the southern border, jointly operating checkpoints with the PA. And the reasons that the ceasefire hasn't yet been enacted are apparently (a) Hamas' reluctance to allow its rivals to control the crossings (b) Israeli insistence that the force do more than watch, that it be empowered to proactively close and destroy tunnels and (c) continuing discussions as to whether it could patrol both sides of the border, or only the Egyptian side.
All of a sudden, the incomprehensible assault on Gaza starts to look a little bit more rational. Israel bombed stockpiles of weaponry, and then went in on the ground to take out the launch sites. It has succeeded in putting a serious dent in Hamas' long-range capabilities. Now, it's negotiating to ensure that Hamas can't restock. And that's the key difference between 2006 and the present situation. In 2006, new missiles flooded across the border with Syria, despite the presence of international monitors and the Lebanese Army, and in short order, Hezbollah had a larger arsenal than it had before the war broke out. But Hamas doesn't share a long, porous, mountainous border with a friendly state. Its supplies come through Sinai, and then through the tunnels in Rafah. So the re-armament can be halted.
In other words, the whole bloody mess will halt just as soon as the EU agrees to allow its monitors to destroy the tunnels they find on the Egyptian side of the border. It doesn't involve exposing EU monitors to gunfire, nor sending them into Rafah. All they'll have to do is what Egypt ought to have been doing all along. This is why I have little patience for European hand-wringing; if they're genuinely distressed, they have it within their power to halt the bloodshed almost immediately. All they have to do is put a small contingent of troops and engineers down on the ground, and shoulder a small degree of risk. The reason for their reluctance is simple - criticizing Israeli operations brings large political rewards, having their troops photographed destroying tunnels through which supplies are brought to Palestinians will bring them hostility. But isn't that a price worth paying to help the people of Gaza, and cheap, at that?
There's a final element here. Once the rockets stop, Israel will have to enormously increase the flow of goods to and from Gaza. It has clearly been hoping to simply sever Gaza, and turn the whole mess over to Egypt. The Egyptians are unwilling to directly supply Gaza and assume responsibility for its welfare, but also unwilling to be blamed for its isolation, so they turn a blind eye to rampant smuggling. That game of chicken has got to end. Either Egypt will agree to allow the southern checkpoints to be the primary passageways to and from Gaza, or Israel will have to reopen its own checkpoints. Sealing off the Strip turns out to have been a mistake; the smuggling that occurred through the checkpoints pales in comparison with what now takes place through the Rafah tunnels, and the attacks on the checkpoints have simply been replaced by more rocket fire.
So there you have it. In a few months, we'll see the humanitarian situation on the ground improving along with an increased flow of goods. If all parties live up to their commitments, the smuggling through Rafah will slow to a trickle. Hamas will lack enough long-range weapons to threaten the heart of Israel, but will retain its short-range capabilities. It's likely to be a little more measured in its provocations, lest it again reap the whirlwind. Its popularity will be enhanced over the short term, but the conditions will be in place for the long term development that will be necessary to moderate or oust the group.
So why, exactly, is this operation necessarily futile?
Cynic
Who do you work for?
I just wanted to thank SG for the Greenwald/Hewitt conversation. Brilliant.
Also, I wanted to thank and commend TNC for knowing his limits, and to thank Eyal for the commentary.
Finally, Greenwald only mentions this briefly, but I do think it's important to understand Gazans' support of Hamas. Like Hezbollah, Hamas is not simply committed to the destruction of Israel. They provide a lot of social services (hospitals, schools, after-school activities, charities, etc), just as Hezbollah does. So a Gazan voting for Hamas is not necessarily voting purely on the question of Israel. I think this is important to note b/c yes, Hamas was voted in democratically but no, that doesn't mean all Palestinians are committed to the destruction of Israel, EVEN the ones who voted for Hamas. (On that note, the argument that the Muslim Brotherhood, and MB-influenced movements, and Al-Quaeda are somehow coeval, an argument often made in the MSM, shows a stunning ignorance of religious-political movements in the Middle East.)
Sg, sorry, I didn't click to the youtube thing, I assumed it was a newsclip and not a Wile E Coyote, otherwise I would have clicked on it earlier.
I don't know the ease of getting out of Gaza, which is why I used "try" in my original post. Ho Chi Mihn won a war based partly on tunnels that were tiny. I am six foot and 208, I would probably need another month on the treadmill to fit through any tunnel.
My evidence is anecdotal, but I think I might be seeing that people in the US are more interested in (and horrified by) Gaza 2008/9 than Lebanon 2006.
Because what needs to happen is that the people of this country need to debate the merits of our current policy of unquestioning and unconditional support for the actions of Israel. Israel COULD NOT POSSIBLY do what it does without the support of the US.
This support is bound to wane with time, given that the US is going to have to decrease it's dependence on oil. Without oil, the Mideast will be far less interesting to the American people and the financial burden of Israel will be questioned by younger Americans. I fully believe this could happen, but not soon enough.
However, hearing our government leaders constantly repeating the "Israel has a right to defend itself" mantra in response to these massacres is not in the best interest of this country. Whatever hope we have for peace, prosperity, and a respectful position in the world commnunity (that is not based on military superiority) will always elude us until we are willing to put this unconditional support on the table and have the debate. We simply cannot have this as a permanent fixture in our foreign policy and then hide behind the mantras and the propaganda and wait for the whole thing to blow over (as we did in Lebanon 2006) so we can get back to issues that we are not afraid of.
Cynic,
I think you should spend the rest of the day reading the Geneva Conventions.
Liza and SGW:
TNC set up this thread in the hope that it might lead to a substantive, meaningful exchange of ideas. I've done my best to give voice to a perspective I found absent from the conversation, presenting an argument backed by evidence and detail. I invite you to respond in kind.
Liza
Cynic is an insider who knows all about the negotiations for a truce that haven't been released publically and he/she are also psychics who can see the future and how the slaughter of innocent civilians military actions of Israel will result in peace and prosperity for all in the Middle East. Whatever they are paying him/her it isn't enough.
sgw:
I claim no inside knowledge, nor talent for prognostication. My intent was simply to sketch what current media reports are painting as the most probable denouement of the present impasse - and, in so doing, to give the lie to the notion that we're simply watching "the same flawed premise" at work two years later.
Recent reports indicate that the broad outlines of this deal were proposed by Sarkozy to Olmert yesterday; Tony Blair said today that "strong, clear, definitive action" to "cut off the supply of arms and money from the tunnels that go from Egypt into Gaza" could bring "an immediate ceasefire," and sketched the broad contours of a similar deal; and anonymous "European diplomats" told Reuters that "Israel is taking seriously an international proposal for a Gaza ceasefire that would involve a pledge of foreign forces to prevent Hamas from rearming." Other media reports abound, and help to fill in the details.
Why is it necessary to attack my motives and credibility instead of simply responding to my ideas?
I think Goldberg did a better job of explaining things, but there are some good points here.
However, in the end, If someone says they're going to kill me, and keeps trying to kill me, and keeps hiding behind his children while still trying to kill me. I'll try my best to not shoot the kid, but since I seem to be in a room and he's covering the only way out.
The sorta good news, the guy's shooting at me with a pellet gun, they can hurt, and it's possible, if they hit me in the right spot, he could kill me, but I don't have to react right away. My gun is a Desert Eagle. Mine will kill. I can wait a while to use it, but eventually, if I value my life I will have to.
Chicago Rules are in effect. If he ignores my efforts and keeps shooting at me, I'll use the Desert Eagle.
The point I'm trying to make is, rightly or wrongly Israel feels that they're in a room with one exit and they're being shot at. Bunker Mentality takes over and you stop negotiating, and start preparing.
Plus, Next time Hamas, don't use a school to fire your mortars from!
Ok Cynic I take you up on the offer
you said
That's a totally none factually supported statement. The truth is the borders were supposed to be opened with the signing of the ceasefire in June/July
you said
You forgot to point out that this was a two way street with Fatah who tried to retake the Gaza strip by force. Hmmmm I wonder why.
you said
Again the impetus for the ceasefire on Hamas' side was the opening of the borders. For Israel to renege on reopening the borders even in the face of a precipitious drop in rocket fire evidencing Hamas' enforcement of the ceasefire wasn't tricky, it was diabolical
you said
Actually no it doesn't. If anything this makes the likely hood of Hamas agreeing to those conditions LESS likely than more likely. What was rational would have been to actually try to negotiate the truce BEFORE they took military action.
you said
Again do you think that will be more likely now that the Israelis have gone into Gaza? I really don't see how anyone could believe that.
you said
If its so easy why aren't WE doing it? After all hasn't Condeleeza Rice been telling us for months if not years how the US was leading the way to peace in the middle east. Its funny how "easy" it is but you think it took a military incursion to bring it about.
you said
Really? Clearly? Please quantify that statement because I have found NOTHING to suggest this.
you said
Thanks for the heads up. Now can you tell me the powerball numbers for this week?
you said
In your fantasy world its not. Unfortunately we live in the real word where Hamas will not get more moderate behind these actions, they will get more radical. They have already called for suicide bombings as redress. Do you think that's an idle threat? Its funny because I would bet that you believe their charter which calls for the destruction of Israel just on GP but you don't believe they will look for revenge after many of their wives and children have been killed by bombs with "made in the USA" on the side.
If this is your fact based argument for the military action I would hate to see what your dreams look like. Unfortunately this is all probably going to turn out to be a nightmare.
Lauren
While I share your skepticism on Hamas with a state of their own they then have responsiblities that go beyond ideology. Right now Gaza is a rump state being played by NGO's, governments, religious fannatics, et al. If it 's theirs then acts of war can be anwered w/o handwringing and consideration of what others think(anybody hear of Georgia). So the decision lies with them responsbility or annihilation(think Iran).
Reading this whole thread from start to finish, I have to say that I'm amazed that Alexei Wawa was regarded as a troll and that TNC apparently booted him. If he was more ad hominem than his detractors (who called him, e.g., a "jackass" because he was apparently diverting the dialogue from the "Israel bad" point they wanted to make), there's nothing evident from TNC's "so far, so good" posts on to the present..
Reflects badly on TNC, IMO -- and you can feel free to boot me for saying so...
Somehow, some people seem to excuse thousands of Hamas missiles because they haven't killed a lot of people. A reminder: the point of terrorism isn't simply to kill; it's to *terrorize*. Thousands -- thousands! -- of missiles. Thousands of sirens going off, each one giving as little as 15 seconds to get into a bomb shelter. Often, several times a day. Is the missiles' lack of accuracy really an issue? Is the small death toll somehow a mitigating factor? Tell you what: I'll stand in your backyard firing machine guns at you and your kids, but I'll do it blindfolded so that I'll probably miss them. That wouldn't bother you, right? Because chances are, your kids probably won't get killed. Right? I'll shoot at them every day, at random, thousands of times. No problem? And since your kids probably won't die, you won't feel any need to respond, right? No reason to try to get me out of your yard, or take away my gun?
OK, I have serious issues with Israel's heavy hand in Gaza. I'm a good, lefty peacenik. But the way people characterize Hamas' relentless missile attacks makes it sound like they're nothing at all, like they're just toy rockets.
And while I'm not sure I support the current operation in Gaza either, let me ask: How *should* Israel respond? If you don't like *this* response, what would you find acceptable? If your answer is: "Israel should simply sit there and take it, forever, and who cares because hardly anyone dies in those thousands of missile attacks," then I'm afraid I can't take you seriously at all. So again: If not this operation, then what, exactly? What? I don't have an answer myself...but it's an honest question.
If you want to be "proportional" about it, the Israeli government should be giving its citizens thousands of missiles and telling them to fire at random at people's homes in Gaza. Proportional, right? Fair, right? And anyway, those missiles hardly ever kill people, right? That would seem to answer the (serious -- as opposed to knee-jerk anti-Israel) complaints -- but it would also seem patently ridiculous.
So: what, then? No response isn't a realistic option. A strictly tit-for-tat response is absurd. A heavy-handed response seems morally problematic. But what else is a realistic alternative?
PSA: It was Israel that broke the ceasefire with Hamas on November 4th, when Israeli troops went into Gaza and killed six militants. Only then did Hamas begin firing rockets.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/05/israelandthepalestinians
I'm surprised no one here has interrogated the Israeli PR machine's assertion that the current invasion is supposed to be a response to *Hamas* ending the peace. Israeli media has been reporting that this invasion has been planned for months.
Wayne,
I sincerely doubt your "peacenik" bonafides.
Israel's "heavy hand" is the hammer that sees every problem as a nail. It's the same mentality that led us to 2 unwinnable wars in countries known to be quagmires. It has one answer to seemingly intractable problems: war.
This whole thing is a chinese fingercuffs problem.
Of course the gut reaction (and wrong reaction) to a dehumanized population attacking your citizens is to rain holy fire on them. But that's just pulling the fingers apart; you accomplish nothing and are still trapped (and you can in fact hurt yourself too).
The correct reaction is to look at the abject poverty, dystopia, imprisonment and lack of resources that Palestinians have to deal with every day, essentially living in a refugee camp. You look at these conditions and correct them, because an irrefutable fact of human nature is WHEN YOU CAN SEE A BRIGHTER FUTURE, YOU'RE LESS LIKELY TO SHOOT A ROCKET AT YOUR NUCLEAR POWER NEIGHBOR.
It's the simplistic thinking of human animals, giving in to their wrath and righteousness, that leads us to the idea of responding to violence with violence, even if that's the least wise action. "Eye for an eye" was a message of moderation, not vengeance. Israelis need to accept that they are an apartheid power as awful as South Africa and take steps to reconcile.
That is, and always has been, the only end to this conflict.
Wayne,
How should Israel respond? Who broke the truce?
http://www.hagada.org.il/eng/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=248
Safia,
I didn't see your comment before I posted.
Gaza 2008 was six months in the planning. The news reports indicate that Israel provoked Hamas on the border in early November, Hamas sends rockets, Israel provoked again in late December, Hamas sends rockets and this time the Hamas response is propagandized into the provoking event, at least in the US where it counts.
Wayne
Let me give you a better analogy. You come to my house and throw rocks at the windows every single day for a week. They don't kill anybody but they for damn sure scare us. And of course we all know that rocks can put your eye out or give you a concussion if they happen to make it through the window with suffient force and hitting someone in the head. Mind you I have already gotten you fired from your job, repossessed your car and have you living at a tent under a bridge with your whole family because I had the bank foreclose on your home. So then after a week I come to said tent with an AK47 and slaughter your whole family. I was well within my rights don't you think? I mean you WERE throwing rocks at me.
Some people are just dumbasses all of their own accord.
I think we entering an era in which so called progressive people start seeing our support of israel and the entity of israel as evil and the palestinians as the ultimate pure souls/or at least people whose methods are justified [note I say methods, not goals]
A. Wawa was apparently hounded out of the comment list. I mostly disagree with him but its stupid and naive to think that 9/11 was just a physical attack on this country. Obviously there were nationals of other country that died on 9/11 but..just forget it..
@Sgwhiteinfla -
Stop calling people names, would you? This isn't Kindergarten. Here are some supplements to your analogy:
The rocks are actually weapons that DO kill.
The rocks also destroy homes and businesses, forcing you to construct very expensive shield structures that are still penetrable.
You have no police to call who will stop the attacks.
The culprit hides behind his wife and kids.
If you try to "arrest" the culprit yourself, he will greet you with booby traps, gunfire, and all the hell of urban warfare. He will deliberately mingle among his wife and kids to prevent you from fighting back for fear of hurting them.
It's impossible to target the culprit accurately when attacking him, as he hides behind his wife and kids.
The culprit will not negotiate because he maintains that you do not have the right to exist.
@ Robert M -
I agree. I think Hamas should have been allowed to sink or swim on its own. As it's much easier to destroy than to create, it's much easier to fight a guerrilla war than actually govern.
Everyone here should read this:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/06/opinion/main4702513.shtml
It is the letter from Uri Avnery to President Obama that was published in "The Nation."
It is definitely worth reading, if you have not already seen it.
SGW:
You’ve taken issue with particular statements, and I’ll defend them, but I don’t want other readers to miss the forest for the trees. My post made an argument – that there is a plausible outcome to the current round of fighting which would lead to long-term improvement in the situation for all involved (save Hamas). That, in fact, precisely such an outcome is currently being negotiated, and seems increasingly likely to be implemented.
Eyal wrote that “it's hard to see what this war will accomplish,” and suggested it was being waged either because Israel had not learned the lessons of the recent past, or to advance the careers of leading politicians. I found that take to be facile. It’s perfectly reasonable to suggest that the toll in human life of the present incursion exceeds the benefits it will deliver, but one must first take honest account of those potential benefits. Israel is fighting for some very concrete objectives, in large part because it did learn the lessons of Lebanon. It seeks to deter Hamas from firing at its civilians, and to cut off the flow of increasingly sophisticated rockets to the group. That, in turn, will create the degree of stability necessary to reopen the border crossings and improve the situation on the ground in Gaza. And it is the Egyptian-Gazan border that serves as the fulcrum of these efforts. If this campaign leads to a ceasefire arrangement that includes honest policing of that border, it will have accomplished something lasting and meaningful, and significantly improved the cause of peace.
-----
Well, there you have the core of the disagreement that led to the breakdown of the ceasefire. Israel promised to lift its blockade; Hamas promised to halt the rocket attacks, and not to smuggle weapons. The attacks never stopped, the smuggling accelerated, and the blockade wasn’t lifted. We can go around in circles arguing about who was supposed to act first, and which side’s failure to live up to the terms of the agreement was more egregious. But in the end, it simply drives home my core point – until the rocket attacks and weapons smuggling stop, the blockade will continue.
I’ll happily acknowledge that both Fatah and Hamas have conducted themselves deplorably, and readily resorted to violence. But blaming Fatah for the violence doesn’t change the outcome. Hamas won. It drove out hundreds of Fatah activists, and has since killed, maimed, or tortured hundreds more. I’m not leveling accusations; I’m just trying to point out why there’s no viable opposition within Gaza, and unlikely to be any for some time to come.
The agreement wasn’t for a ‘precipitous drop,’ it was for a total cessation. And for a halt to weapons smuggling. Whether or not we credit Hamas with taking sufficient measures to halt rocket fire, there can no longer be any doubt that it spent the last six months massively stockpiling enormous numbers of rockets, and smuggling in weapons that exceed in range and capability anything it possessed prior to the ceasefire. We know this because it has now been firing them, by the score, at Israel. Using a ceasefire to upgrade your arsenal is at best dishonest. And that, in turn, is why Israel refused to lift the blockade.
Israel was perfectly willing to extend the truce; it said so on December 13. Hamas, on the other hand, announced that the truce had “exhausted itself, since the enemy has not honored its commitments.” But Hamas was not the only party which would have to make significant suggestions, as your next remark points out…
Here’s the thing. It’s seems that it’s going to happen now. There’s going to be an international force (probably EU) deployed to the Gaza-Egypt border. Given that it wasn’t going to happen before, yes, I’d say it has become more likely. But the broader point is that Egypt was failing to honor its commitments or to police its own border. It felt domestic political pressure not to do so. Since the incursion, it feels vastly greater domestic pressure to bring an end to the violence; since policing the border can do that, it probably will. Similarly, the EU has conspicuously little appetite for deploying its troops anywhere they might actually be useful. But it has even less desire to see the situation continue to spiral downwards, and so it is being shamed into action.
I’m sure the Israelis would be happy to have American soldiers deployed along the Gaza-Egypt border, with a mandate to police it. Egypt, on the other hand, would feel humiliated. The troops would be ready targets for Hamas and other radical groups. As a general rule, deploying American soldiers to Arab lands hasn’t helped anyone. The EU, ironically, has come to be seen as more of a neutral power, despite the colonial histories of its member states.
Well, don’t take my word for it. Try Hosni Mubarak, who recently rejected the prospect of Egypt reassuming responsibility for Gaza by declaring, “Egypt will not fall into this Israeli trap.”
When has Hamas not promised or attempted violence against civilians? The problem it faces is that, with the border crossings closed, it can’t get the suicide bombers into Israel. There’s irony for you – Hamas demands the crossings be opened with one breath, and promises renewed suicide attacks with the next.
I don’t doubt that many in Gaza will be radicalized by the current violence. There’s no denying the tragedy of civilian casualties, or their embittering effect on the general population. And yes, I’m certain that Hamas will feel the need to redeem its pride. But all of that could be said of Hezbollah, which has been conspicuously quiet for the past two years. The reason that Israeli forces have gone in on the ground is to raise the price of rocket attacks. If Hamas winds up with its forces diminished and its long-range weapons depleted, it will be less capable of carrying out attacks. And if the border can be policed, it can’t easily rebuild those capabilities. I expect it to accept a ceasefire. I expect that peace to hold for some time, as it rebuilds. And I hope and pray that both sides will seize the resulting opportunity, and take concrete steps to improve the situation.
"Reflects badly on TNC, IMO -- and you can feel free to boot me for saying so..."
Meh, you'll have to come harder. I suggest Jew-hater, or fascist Zionist. Those always get a rise.
Lauren
I realize its late and you might not get to read this but I will give it a shot anyway. You have your facts mixed up. Its Israel who refuses to negotiate with Hamas in any situation. They don't care that Hamas was democratically elected. They don't even care that they used to funnel money to Hamas when they wanted to agitate against Arafat. All they care about is the fact that Hamas now runs the Gaza strip and they have been labeled terrorists so Israel can effectively do anything they want to them without being taken to task. You talk about the rocks that CAN kill but how many have they killed? Do you even know? Do you have an idea? A ball park figure? If you note in my analogy I give myself the same odds of being hurt by a rock as the average Israeli has of being hurt by a rocket. The analogy exactly reflects the situation as it stands. You might wish it were not so but it is what it is. Let me post this again for you.
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/summary.cfm?q=894
That is from the US Army War College report. Not some pro palestinian think tank, the US Army. Cynic says that the palestinians were smuggling weapons in during the cease fire but doesn't point out that Israel was drawing up war plans the whole time as well. People keep acting as if the two are on equal footing, they simply and unequivicolly are not. Israel doesn't have to smuggle in weapons, we hand them over to them willingly. Hamas shoots rockets into Sderot and we call it terrorism, Israel bombs a school killing dozens of children and we call it collateral damage. Of course its anybody's prerogative to ignore all the facts involved in the situation and pledge to "stand with Israel" but that to me is willful ignorance which means you WANT to be a dumb ass.
I take back nothing I have said because I meant it with all of my heart. When we get to the point where we dehumanize a whole swath of people just because of our allegiance to a nation/state/country then we have lost our own humanity. I call both parties wrong, but Israel has all of the power in this situation. They control the resources the weapons and the freedom of the people of the Gaza strip. If anyone has the onus to take the moral high road it is them. Nothing about these military actions is right or just and it won't accomplish anything except for the slaughter of many innocent civilians and the further radicalization of the people of the Gaza strip.
So keep on dismissing those people as collateral damage and keep on standing with Israel no matter what. Just don't be surprised when the world is a much more dangerous place at the end of all of this.
Fair enough; allow me to rephrase - the culprit has explicitly stated that he will only negotiate a temporary truce for the purpose of enabling him to prepare for the final battle. While the professor rightly notes the inadequacy of Olmert's "peace plan" for compromising so little, she omits the fact that Hamas has no plan whatsoever other than a temporary hudna so they can rearm. So your neighbor agrees to temporarily stop throwing rocks, so he can use that time to acquire a missile. He will not negotiate any terms amenable to your continued existence; the negotiation will serve to undermine your existence.
This is not a bargaining chip for Hamas. It is not a position they maintain because they believe it best serves the Palestinian people. It is a theological conviction. They are labeled a terrorist organization because they have orchestrated many of terrorist acts - deliberate targeting for death of Israeli civilians at restaurants, bus stops, and markets. Arafat did too, but the Israelis still negotiated with him after he renounced those tactics for diplomacy, acknowledged Israel's right to exist and agreed to the concept of a two-state solution. Hamas has done none of the above.
You have little trouble putting yourself in Palestinian shoes. Try a moment of putting yourself in Israeli shoes - your analogy certainly did not do that, which is why I added some elements to it.
Hamas rockets TARGET (as best they can) and INTEND to kill civilians. Civilian deaths are a great success. Israeli strikes target rocket-launching sites and rocket-launchers - see my previous post for why accurate targeting is nearly impossible in many cases. Incidents like Qana in Lebanon and the school just the other day are considered failures. That's why Israel sent ground troops into, say, Jenin - to target more accurately and minimize civilian deaths.
Have the Israelis done so well? God no. Have they conducted themselves ethically through this whole campaign? No, I don't see them accomplishing anything worth the risks they're taking. Airstrikes are always very risky - the allied airstrikes killed 10,000 Frenchmen in the months before D-Day, despite targeting military hardware and infrastructure. I agree that Israel has an imperative to act ethically, and I haven't dehumanized anyone. Nor do I "stand with Israel no matter what" - you assume a great deal. I'm pointing out that the Israeli quandary is much more difficult than you acknowledged.
TNC:
"Meh, you'll have to come harder. I suggest Jew-hater, or fascist Zionist. Those always get a rise."
Actually, I'd rather not. I'll just assume you put Alexei into the "fascist Zionist" bucket...
so true. In all these attacks, only the innocent die. Hamas will be in hiding and will emerge once again once the conflict is over