Israel vs Hamas, Round 5,672,341,566,125

[DrP]

Just a quick question - How many adult Palasinians are native to Gaza? Also - how many migrated there from other Arab countries to wage war/jihad on Isreal?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Also - I've noticed this: This has got to be the longest running war in history no? Also, with the exeption of the introductions thread, who wants to bet that this turns into one of the longest threads on the site..... WE'VE HEARD IT ALL BEFORE FROM BOTH SIDES!! It just goes round in circles. It's none of our business what they do to each other in the middle east - It's just very sad to see as an observer.

[mooeypoo]

ParanoiA, considering the fact the Palestinians are backed up by the Arab countries (that waged full blown, 3-front wars 5 times during recent history against Israel), It might not be as simple as deciding who the "little" and who the "big" guy is.

 

Of course, that's not what you hear in the media. I wonder why.

 

P.S: As someone who has family in the region, and friends on "the other side", I am TRULY hoping that by 2080 (and hopefully before that) the Palestinians would have their own *BLOSSOMING, SUCCESSFUL* state alongside Israel - in Peace...

[Pangloss]

Says you. I disagree.

 

Lets not beat about the bush here. If you want to get at one or two bad guys but are willing to kill tens of civilians including small children to do so, you are a bad guy too.

 

Most of the 'bad guys' being targetted are not even actively fighting at the time, so there is no clear and present danger being stopped here. It is mostly pre-emptive. Surely you'd agree that killing children as a direct consequence of pre-emptive action is unethical?

 

Israel's action is not pre-emptive, it's self-defense.

 

I don't have issue with the larger point you're making, but I think you undermined it with such an absolutist position as to say that it's always wrong if any civilians are killed whatsoever. That position never allows defense. But your point that we need to behave like adults and bring parties to the table is fine, I agree with that.

 

But you're more persuasive (at least with me) when you set aside the conspiracy theories and the war-is-always-wrong absolutism, IMO.

[bombus]

Well maybe pictures speak a thousand words so why not see this 2 min video and tell me that Israelis actions are proportionate and justified.

 

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21673.htm

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Israel's action is not pre-emptive, it's self-defense.

 

I don't think Israel being a nuclear armed state with modern weapons is really at threat from a bunch of desperates with crappy missiles.

 

I don't have issue with the larger point you're making, but I think you undermined it with such an absolutist position as to say that it's always wrong if any civilians are killed whatsoever. That position never allows defense. But your point that we need to behave like adults and bring parties to the table is fine, I agree with that.

 

The word proportionate is often used. Israels response is not proportionate to the threat.

 

But you're more persuasive (at least with me) when you set aside the conspiracy theories and the war-is-always-wrong absolutism, IMO.

 

I don't really think conspiracy theories are needed here!

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

P.S: As someone who has family in the region, and friends on "the other side", I am TRULY hoping that by 2080 (and hopefully before that) the Palestinians would have their own *BLOSSOMING, SUCCESSFUL* state alongside Israel - in Peace...

 

How can they with Israel having ceased most of the fertile lands and 4/5ths of the water supplies? Anyway, Israel was created by force - stealing land that already belonged to the Palestinians.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

So in addition to denying any justification for any military actions (by Israel), you also deny the possibility that they'll accomplish anything? Makes you wonder why Israel even has a military!

 

Well presumably to fend off Arab States - not kill Palestinians.

Edited January 7, 2009 by bombus
Consecutive post/s merged.

[ParanoiA]

ParanoiA, considering the fact the Palestinians are backed up by the Arab countries (that waged full blown, 3-front wars 5 times during recent history against Israel), It might not be as simple as deciding who the "little" and who the "big" guy is.

 

Of course, that's not what you hear in the media. I wonder why.

 

P.S: As someone who has family in the region, and friends on "the other side", I am TRULY hoping that by 2080 (and hopefully before that) the Palestinians would have their own *BLOSSOMING, SUCCESSFUL* state alongside Israel - in Peace...

 

And I do too, actually. But I thought the Arab countries treated them like illegitimate children. While I appreciate the Arab support for Palestine, your stab at the media is a good point, and probably feeds the "poor little Palestinians being victimized by the rich machine of Israel" notion.

 

We see the same thing with the US and terrorism. Of course, that's perverted with illegal war issues and torture and so on, but the sentiment of affluence = ignoble and poor = noble is codified in that din.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

How can they with Israel having ceased most of the fertile lands and 4/5ths of the water supplies? Anyway, Israel was created by force - stealing land that already belonged to the Palestinians.

 

Stealing? How did the Palestinians earn that land? How do countries claim land, Bombus? Who decides how much land to claim? Couldn't the first humans to conjure up silly notions of ownership just have claimed the earth as their land? Aren't we all stealing?

 

No matter what people claim land, there's always people before them. Like I said, borders are negotiable by force and very rarely, if at all, by any philosophical justice. The earth's resources are for us to divide and nature chose competition as the method. Humans have thus far complied gloriously with nature's rules.

 

Sorry, but land and borders are one of those subjects that nobody is really in any position to judge in terms of right and wrong - we're all living on somebody else's home.

[Pangloss]

I don't think Israel being a nuclear armed state with modern weapons is really at threat from a bunch of desperates with crappy missiles.

 

The families of the people killed by those missiles would seem to suggest otherwise.

 

 

The word proportionate is often used. Israels response is not proportionate to the threat.

 

That seems inconsistent with your message. I thought you wanted peace at all costs? Anyway I don't know why proportionality is important. Murder is murder. Is there a specific number of murders that's okay?

[mooeypoo]

Whether or not Israel has nuclear capabilities has no bearing on this discussion; Israel is obviously not using any, nor is it threatening to use any, nor will it be wise to use any - politically, humanely or practically. It might be "emotionally appealing" (like well edited videos with one-sided casualties and lots of bloody shots) but that doesn't make it factually relevant.

 

How can they with Israel having ceased most of the fertile lands and 4/5ths of the water supplies? Anyway, Israel was created by force - stealing land that already belonged to the Palestinians.

Excuse me? Palestinian authority is recieving HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS per year from the European Union, United States, Israel (you don't hear of that in the news, do you) and other countries around the world.

Where does that money go?

 

In the 90s, Israel along with the US and Jordan suggested (and began!) a project to restore some of Gaza's harbor and build a better pwer station. The plans were submitted, approved, and were in the initial stages.

 

Half of the workers were shot dead in Gaza, by Terrorists.

The plan for a new Gaza harbor stopped for lack of willing participants.

 

In 2005 Israel decided to evacuate *ALL* of its settlments in the Gaza strip as a sign of willingness for Peace. Hundreds of homes, mostly agricultural businesses, were abandoned as-is or destroyed (to the request of the owners). The fields were left plowed. Within 24 hours of Hamas take over, the evacuated region was a garbage dump and the "warriors" of Hamas started shooting *MORE* rockets from it.

 

I am not quite sure what you mean when you say the Palestinians had this land before the Israelis, but that, too, is historically inaccurate. I suggest you go read up on the war of 1948 (initiated by the Arab states), 1956 (same), 1967 (same) and 1973 (same), and a bit about the historical significance of the PLO and Fatah, and how the Palestinian people came to be where they are. The *FACT* is Jews and Arabs lived in Israel in relative peace for generations, and even after 1948 there was peace among the Arabs that were inside Israel.

 

What you seem to be doing in your claims, bombus, is ignoring the VAST history and political decisions of two nations, not just one. I think you'll do yourself justice if you read up a bit about history and who was where and when.

 

That said, the "who was where when" is irrelevant. You can look at all the countries around the world - none of them was "there first". All of them took their place using force, and some (like the USA and South America with the Spaniards and English) with more force than others. If you choose the "just side" or "deserving" side according to historical placing, then you'll need to decide how far in history you're supposed to go, and then completely rearrange the world map as we know it.

 

Israel supports a 2 state solution. Israel does not WANT to control Gaza, nor do the Israeli citizens want to be the chaperons of the Palestinian people. Let them have their state; Israel was (and is) willing to support the creation of it, as it stated MANY times before. Arafat has signed agreements with Rabin to that effect, and Israel has been sending 8000 trucks a year into Gaza (under constant fire) filled with humanitarian aid and supplies. The drivers are shot at, and yet they still go in.

 

There is a difference between Hamas (who took a position in the palestinian parliament through election, but took over the entire government through a bloody civil war against the Fatah) and the Palestinian people. As was said here before, if the war was against the Palestinians, it would take Israel (the "technologically advanced" Israel) about 48 hours to carpet-bomb and completely obliterate the region.

 

Why is this not done, if Israel is such a non-caring murderous entity? Why is Israel risking its soldier's lives INSIDE Gaza in a confined-space combat (which is one of the most dangerous!) if Israel cares nothing for the lives of citizens? How is it that in a week-and-a-half of fighting in such a densly populated area, "ONLY" 500 Palestinians - 80% of which are Hamas militants (according to Hamas themselves!) - are dead? Wouldn't you think that if Israel wanted a "quick end" without caring for consequences, you would have many more civilians, many more dead, and a much quicker ending?

 

It's very comfortable to take the bloody pictures and claim a one sided view of things. The question is - is that REALLY what happens, or is that just what the "blood thirsty" rating-hungry media cares to show.

 

 

 

(sorry it cut off the following, I'm re-writing it now:)

I don't think there's any discussion about the fact that the Palestinian people are poor and miserable in Gaza; but Israel is not the sole blame for that. Hamas is a terrorist organization who VIOLENTLY took control over the government, killing off Fatah opposition and using the population as hostages in their fights a few months ago. The money that comes from western countries goes somewhere - and not to the palestinian people themselves. Peace requires compromise from both sides. You can't compromise with a group that vows to kill you and refuses to talk.

Edited January 7, 2009 by mooeypoo

[bascule]

That seems inconsistent with your message. I thought you wanted peace at all costs? Anyway I don't know why proportionality is important. Murder is murder. Is there a specific number of murders that's okay?

 

I think his point echoes one I was trying to make earlier: Israel is, at the very least, escalating the conflict considerably.

[Pangloss]

I think his point echoes one I was trying to make earlier: Israel is, at the very least, escalating the conflict considerably.

 

Yes it is. And it's working. Not physically, but rather politically. The problem is that people actually found the previous situation acceptable. It wasn't acceptable, but that's international politics for you -- if it's not dramatic, nothing will be done about it.

 

So is the real fault for those children's deaths yesterday Israel's, or is it Hamas's, and perhaps the UN's, yours, and mine, for not doing anything about the situation?

 

---

 

BTW, I have to say, that proportionality argument (see Bombus's post above, and plenty of news stories) really irks me. What a frustrating line of reasoning that is. That's actually saying that as long as both sides kill the same number of each other, everything is okay! What kind of freaky argument is that? How can that possibly be okay?

[padren]

Yes it is. And it's working. Not physically, but rather politically. The problem is that people actually found the previous situation acceptable. It wasn't acceptable, but that's international politics for you -- if it's not dramatic, nothing will be done about it.

 

So is the real fault for those children's deaths yesterday Israel's, or is it Hamas's, and perhaps the UN's, yours, and mine, for not doing anything about the situation?

 

I think that's a really good point, and if tomorrow there was a cease fire without talks, just a general cease fire, how long it would take before the reduced weekly death toll because ignorable again.

 

 

The only thing I can think of at this point that would have a chance of helping, would be if some Palestinians could play the "exiled authority" card, with some claim of authority in Gaza (whether grass roots or pre-coup status) that can exist outside Gaza and advocate a sensible moderate viewpoint that could lead to long standing peace and raised quality of life there.

 

If the citizens in Gaza were to see the world pretty much united against Hamas, but very supportive of a different, exiled group of Palestinians that had the political clout to bring rebuilding and investment to Gaza should peace be restored, it would have the potential to erode support for Hamas.

 

From what it appears, Hamas is poison to the Palestinians, but they are the only serious game in town left to rally around.

[mooeypoo]

I agree with almost everything you say, padren, just on this point-

From what it appears, Hamas is poison to the Palestinians, but they are the only serious game in town left to rally around.

I disagree, but mainly I *hope* you're wrong and that there IS an alternative.

 

Hamas openly calls for the distruction of Israel in their manifesto.. it's quite hard to conduct talks with an organization like that.

 

On the other hand, I think the Fatah (an extension/continuation of the PLO, led previously by Arafat) is a bit more open to talks. We've seen a few agreements between the Palestinian authority and Israel when Fatah was in power.

 

I don't think Hamas is the only serious game in town, I think they're just the most violent. Fatah is ready to take their place, they just lost the "terf war", but they still exist.

[Mr Skeptic]

I don't think Israel being a nuclear armed state with modern weapons is really at threat from a bunch of desperates with crappy missiles.

 

So you're advocating that Israel use nuclear weapons against the Palestinians? If not, then why does it matter whether Israel has nuclear weapons? For my part, I am glad that the Palestinians don't have nuclear weapons, as they would most likely use them if they had them.

[doG]

I am glad that the Palestinians don't have nuclear weapons, as they would most likely use them if they had them.

 

Likely? Is there any doubt as to whether a suicide bomber cares if his/her bomb is nuclear or not? I don't think it would be likely, it would be certain,

[bascule]

Yes it is. And it's working. Not physically, but rather politically.

 

Is it? Apparently you missed Hamas's response which I linked earlier.

 

If that was the purpose of this exercise it's failing:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/...aza/index.html

 

On Monday Hamas militants fired dozens of rockets into southern Israel despite a 10-day Israeli military campaign that reportedly has left more than 500 Palestinians dead.

 

Abu Obeida' date=' a spokesman for Hamas' military wing, warned Israel that Izzedine al Qassam Brigades will continue rocket strikes "for many months" and vowed to strike deeper into Israeli territory. He spoke on Hamas' Al-Aqsa TV.

[/quote']

 

I don't see this exercise helping Israel politically at all. Hamas isn't going to back down and their excessive use of force makes them look bad in the eyes of others.

 

That's not to say I'm sympathetic to Hamas... I'm not, but I don't see this invasion helping Israel politically.

[mooeypoo]

I don't think it's helping Israel politically, specifically not with a public outcry.

 

But the question remains: What is the alternative? For eight years Israel kept its soldiers tight and its airforce tighter and got missile after missile targetting CIVILIANS in its area, killing civilians and keeping other civilians in bomb shelters and out of work and regular life.

 

What is the alternative to a response that intends to *make sure* no more rockets are fired? And how would you make sure such a thing never happens again when Hamas is unwilling to talk and unwilling to stop, and keeps arming itself heavier and heavier, and is *increasing* the range of its missiles as weeks go by?

 

What's the alternative?

[Mr Skeptic]

What's the alternative?

 

Technically, it may be possible to shoot the missiles out of the sky before they hit. However, to my knowledge the best the US can do is sometimes hit a missile in a carefully controlled trial, and they are not likely to want to share even that. Shooting the missiles down with lasers might be viable eventually. However, if Hamas can't shoot missiles, they will likely do more suicide bombing. At least suicide bombers don't get to bomb twice though

[mooeypoo]

Actually, I'm not sure, but I'm pretty sure I heard that these only work on relatively long-range missiles. Hamas' rockets are crude (but effective) and I am very doubtful anything like that would help.

 

Regardless, I agree. If such a device existed, we should use it. And about suicide bombers, well.. bigger problem. But then, Gaza passageways to and from Israel *WERE OPEN* continously within the past years ('till Hamas came to power) with the exception of when they sent out terrorists, at which point Israel closed the border to prevent that. And even that only helped by 80%. Israel Intelligence is quite good, too, but that, too is not 100% accurate.

 

Which is why sometimes, sadly, they're successful.

[padren]

I don't think it's helping Israel politically, specifically not with a public outcry.

 

But the question remains: What is the alternative? For eight years Israel kept its soldiers tight and its airforce tighter and got missile after missile targetting CIVILIANS in its area, killing civilians and keeping other civilians in bomb shelters and out of work and regular life.

 

What is the alternative to a response that intends to *make sure* no more rockets are fired? And how would you make sure such a thing never happens again when Hamas is unwilling to talk and unwilling to stop, and keeps arming itself heavier and heavier, and is *increasing* the range of its missiles as weeks go by?

 

What's the alternative?

 

If they can stop the missiles even for a month by decimating their production and methods of deployment, it could be a good political victory.

 

Nothing else has stopped the missiles, and if this does, it lends credibility to it as a "last resort" action. It doesn't change anything morally, just the perception, same as if Iraq had turned into a shining democracy the day after the "Mission Accomplished" banner was hung on the aircraft carrier would have impacted perception.

 

Mooey, you mentioned Hamas not being the only player - I didn't mean there aren't other ideological factions, but Hamas really seems to be running the show. Are there any other strong groups that are more moderate within Gaza at this time?

If there could be any other group that challenge Hamas with international support that the palestinian people would actually rally around (if free from Hamas retributions) they could end up playing an important role at some point.

[doG]

Now rockets are coming from Lebanon in the North. How many years should Israel allow this to go on before responding since they obviously didn't allow Hamas enough time to avoid the cries that it is defending itself unfairly?

[CaptainPanic]

I wish Israel good luck with stopping terrorism... I don't know any example in the history of mankind where any power has actually succeeded in stopping terrorism (which does not mean that the terrorists are right).

 

Also, the amount of energy you have to spend to stop 1 man from firing 1 rocket is mindboggling... (And our society seems willing to pay for it).

[mooeypoo]

If they can stop the missiles even for a month by decimating their production and methods of deployment, it could be a good political victory.

 

Nothing else has stopped the missiles, and if this does, it lends credibility to it as a "last resort" action. It doesn't change anything morally, just the perception, same as if Iraq had turned into a shining democracy the day after the "Mission Accomplished" banner was hung on the aircraft carrier would have impacted perception.

I agree.

 

Not only that, I have a vested interest to agree with you. I actually know the soldiers who risk their lives there. The people of Israel want to avoid battle as much as the next guy, and if we see that the lives lost were in vain, it will have the same impact as Iraq war currently has on the American people.

That's also why Israel is *not* stopping the operation before its completion and decided to launch the ground assault. Since it can't really (morally and politically, not 'ability-wise' -- it *can* physically if that was 'worth it') solve the situation with an air strike by just bombing everywhere without distinction, it sent ground forces.

 

Mooey, you mentioned Hamas not being the only player - I didn't mean there aren't other ideological factions, but Hamas really seems to be running the show. Are there any other strong groups that are more moderate within Gaza at this time?

If there could be any other group that challenge Hamas with international support that the palestinian people would actually rally around (if free from Hamas retributions) they could end up playing an important role at some point.

 

I don't know.

 

I hope so.

 

It's a bit weird to call Fatah (Arafat's party) "moderate", but it is, relatively. It was just thrown off and sent into hiding (when the ground-forces started to go into Gaza, Hamas rounded up Fatah people and Fatah "helpers" and either shot them in the legs or killed them), everyone is hoping that Abu Mazen (Palestinian prime minister) would rise back up and stop being a puppet of Hamas (he was talking to Israel before) so the Peace process can go on.

 

 

One of the most frustrating things is to have no solution, or not "better" solution. As someone who grew up in that area (and lost friends to terror attacks), you can trust me when I tell you my biggest aspiration is for peace... and this realization that it's so complicated plus the frustration over the lack of cooperation on the other side (and sometimes Israel government and factions in the parliament) is not something I'm enjoying.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Now rockets are coming from Lebanon in the North. How many years should Israel allow this to go on before responding since they obviously didn't allow Hamas enough time to avoid the cries that it is defending itself unfairly?

 

I hope not long, but Lebanon is *entirely* different than Gaza - politically wise (Hizbullah is not the actual government, it's a terror organization with ties in the government and lots of power in the land) and in terms of the terrain (not the same to try and control southern lebanon as it is to try and control Gaza and stop missile attacks).

 

This is very depressing.

I don't know what to say. On the one hand, we now have almost two million civilians uinder thread of missile attacks. On the other, our soldiers are our civilians. They're our familes, they're us... I don't think anyone wishes for a war that risks their lives (I hope not).

 

But how do you solve such situation, when diplomacy is not even an option..

[Pangloss]

On Monday Hamas militants fired dozens of rockets into southern Israel despite a 10-day Israeli military campaign that reportedly has left more than 500 Palestinians dead.

 

I don't see this exercise helping Israel politically at all. Hamas isn't going to back down and their excessive use of force makes them look bad in the eyes of others.

 

That's not to say I'm sympathetic to Hamas... I'm not, but I don't see this invasion helping Israel politically.

 

It already has. Governmental leaders around the world are setting aside the initial UN condemnation and coming around to at least an "equal support" position on this issue. The article below talks about European leaders rallying around Israeli officials last week.

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0108/p01s02-woeu.html

 

European Union leaders this week flanked Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni as she told the world's news media, "We are all opposed to terrorism."

 

The same thing happened here in the US -- initially we voted with the UN Security Council to condemn Israel's response. Now we're putting them on equal footing, and Obama has made a similar statement.

 

 

Also, I have to say that their response is clearly not "excessive", because as you point out above, the rocket attacks haven't stopped. Modern warfare isn't magic and Hamas is deliberately putting civilians in harm's way, so in my opinion the "excessive" adjective is being aimed in the wrong direction there.

 

I think that the idea that a return to the previous status quo is an acceptable thing to do because the rocket attacks are less severe than the Israeli response is a very dangerous one. If diplomacy cannot resolve the current situation then it surely cannot stop the rocket attacks either. But it CERTAINLY can't stop them without international attention, and now that attention exists.

Edited January 8, 2009 by Pangloss

[iNow]

Nice point, Pangloss. I think it was raised early in the thread as well by a few other posters, but you did a nice job of tying it together succinctly. People around the globe ARE listening now. Any future actions (actions which were previously ignored) will now be viewed in context and (hopefully) with a better appreciation for the history. I do have hope that things will change for the better. I do believe it will happen. I am just unsure of how and I am unsure of when.

[doG]

I think that the idea that a return to the previous status quo is an acceptable thing to do because the rocket attacks are less severe than the Israeli response is a very dangerous one. If diplomacy cannot resolve the current situation then it surely cannot stop the rocket attacks either. But it CERTAINLY can't stop them without international attention, and now that attention exists.

 

The previous status quo? Daily rockets lobbed at Israel while Israel sits on its hands and the Palestinians do nothing to police their own? That's acceptable? Do you really think those Israelis within the range of those rockets think that's the acceptable thing to do?

[ParanoiA]

This unresolved, never ending conflict always gets me wondering about the moral dilemma: Is it better to string out combat across generations, incrementally piling up dead? Or would it be better to "have it out" in one big fight? Peace is not an option, obviously.

 

Sometimes I wonder if it wouldn't be better for Israel to just wipe out the opposition and nuke every country that militarily objects to it. Sounds like warmongering insanity, but is there no moral disgust in indefinite historical conflicts that slowly kill off humans decade after decade? It's like we expect Israel to behave as if there is a viable pretense for peace one day.

 

I suppose that wouldn't stop anything and perhaps there's no way to truly end the fighting until either Israel doesn't exist or everything within a hundred miles of their border is smoldering. But to "accept" intermittent missle strikes as a way of life is nonsense and antithetical to human instinct for survival. How can we truly expect a people to comply with that kind of slow suicidal compromise? Yet they do. How sad. Then we have the nerve to imply their retaliation is disproportionate? As if war is supposed to be fair.

 

I suppose next they're going to suggest it all be done by computer and have equal numbers of each side reporting to "disintegration chambers".