It’s probably time to continue the Gaza conversation on another thread. A discussion starter might be to link to some interesting thoughts from Daniel Levy, who for mine is one of the clearest thinkers about the whole morass of Israeli-Palestinian policits.
NB: Discussion on this post has now been closed, and can be continued here.
My last comment on the previous thread was chopped!
Picking up from the previous just closed thread ton this issue.
“…but I don’t know that meta-commentary is all that helpful either.”
What could possibly be helpful about discussing this topic?
Getting meta on your meta-commentary about meta-commentary, the issue of Israel and Palestine will always produce polarised threads of doom.
It’s the blogosphere’s extreme StoushGymTM where everyone’s convinced the other person is the punching bag and Godwin’s Law is rapidly trampled underfoot.
No matter how well intentioned or thoughtful the original post, it always ends up like the real estate in question. A bloody mess.
Why not just restrict LP from now on to only posts about unicorn porn?
My point is just that if you say that Rob’s a gentleman and a scholar, etc, someone else is going to come along and say “I hates Rob”. It really doesn’t get us anywhere.
Whether you think the topic itself is worthy of discussion is, of course, up to you.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/01/13/2465238.htm?section=justin
“Rice shamed over UN Gaza vote: Olmert
“He gave an order to the Secretary of State and she did not vote in favour of it, a resolution she cooked up, phrased, organised and manoeuvred for. She was left pretty shamed and abstained on a resolution she arranged,” he said.”
How can anyone honestly now say that the tail is not wagging the dog?
Making comment about Rob’s conduct and demeanour is quite different from expressing an emotional response to Rob, whether that emotion is love or hate, or any other emotion.
In the first instance the truth value of the statement can be assessed against the evidence of Rob’s conduct.
In the second instance, the reader must rely upon the statements of the person expressing the emotion. Perforce, such statements are entirely about the person making the statement, not the purported subject of the statement.
Persons making the second sort of statement immediately expose themselves as egotists.
Does LP have a rule against egotism? It should.
Yes, but about the unicorn porn? Let’s at focus on some achievable consensus here.
I’m not familiar with the genre.
Is it a genre that lends itself to consensus?
“Is it a genre that lends itself to consensus?”
Depends on how most feel about the getting the horn from a mythical creature. Which I venture to suggest is one of the underlying viral causes of the 2000 year old bloody punchup in a stony land.
smokey @ 294 on the other thread – unless in these situations the video is unambiguous (eg the video actually shows an Israeli soldier shooting at them – that would be very brave cameraman!) its inevitable that its going to be disputed.
Look at it through lens of someone who believes that Israel commonly commits war crimes and reports of atrocities by them are generally true and its pretty obvious that it was an Israeli soldier was doing the shooting.
Look at the same information through the lens of someone who believes Israel generally doesn’t commit war crimes and that Hamas would resort to acts like shooting their own people for PR purposes and its pretty obvious that it was a Hamas solder who was doing the shooting.
The Gaza area is so small I wonder if it would be feasible to put enough unmanned drones in the area to monitor for these sorts of events. Though there’s obvious security concerns and I wonder if it would be possible to find a 3rd party that both sides would allow to have that sort of information even if it wasn’t to be distributed until much later on.
At first blush, the horn of a mythical creature would be unlikely to satisfy pastoral folks who had ready access to many horned creatures, some of which would have been very well endowed in the cranial protuberances department.
But on the other hand, a mythical horn enables full exercise of the imaginination, even the religious imagination. In the hearts and minds of folks who contemplate the unicorn horn it can take on the qualities of the ideal horn, unfettered by material reality.
This quality would be particularly attractive to cultures that have evolved a singular, transcendant godhead.
“I am the Horn thy Horn. Thou shalt have no other horns before thee.”
As I said at #284 Rob:
“Chris, my initial point was to refute Rob’s assertion that it’s simply up the Egyptians what happens on the border. The fact that US soldiers are on the ground on the border helping look for tunnels and smugglers as well as making routine checks on the border crossings PLUS the threat of financial sanctions PLUS the fact that the Egyptians need to clear any change of personnel numbers with the Israeli’s show that to be an incorrect assertion.”
I don’t think it matters how you define “patrolling” vs. “being on the ground, giving tactical and technological help, making routine checks, and putting economic and diplomatic pressure on the Egyptian government” the point still stands. You’re arguing a semantic point that’s completely irrelevant to the question of how much control Egypt has of its own border. You implied 100%. I’ve demonstrated that by a continued and regular US presence on the border as well as the threats of economic sanctions, the fact that Israel has a veto power over how many people Egypt has policing the border and that they seem to have no qualms about killing the odd border policeman, your assertion is simply not true
I’ve followed over 300 posts on first thread andth few todate here
THREE striking things emerge from pro israeli suporters that Israeli’s whole pretext for attacking Gaza is Hamas (Palestinien) aggression , yet that Palestinien agression is BECAUSE Israel ilegaly occupies th Palestinien lands of th West Bank
So what israel is saying is 1/ its OK for us to ilegaly occupy th West Bank , 2/ we want th occuped peoples th Palestiniens to FIRST stop resisting our ilegal occupation AND 3/ we will thereafter decide th peace terms of what part of West Bank we keep , of what part IF ANY of Arab East Jurulesm that we ilegaly occupy we will hand back and we will control th sea lanes and air space of a New Palestinien State among other controls on that State israel wishs to exercise per its Cabinet docs BEFORE WE LEAVE th ilegal land we occupy
1/ and 2/ ar pretexts for Israel to remain as occupiers , thats why after 42 years they ar still there because th Paelestiniens ar not going to stiop resisiting this ocupation And even if they defied human histary and did so , they know point 3/ being israel’s “peace terms” is also a pretext to continue to occupy as those “peace terms” ar israeli arab land annexation and israeli domination of new Palestinien State ….and unacceptble to any peoples on Earth anyway , again a pretext for Israel to keep occupying
These 2 Israeli pretexts ar fake excuses to occupy , not for withdrawal or peace ilooked at Rob’s aleged ‘peace plan’and its a similar fake , with most of th unacceptable elements of 3/ abov (AFTER his plan provides for future cast iron Israeli security) israeli’s pretexts guarantee continued Palestinien resistance and no realitic peace plan , and only due to US support (gained from th powerful US based jewish loby)
Of course simple simon can see IF israel was guenuine it would pblicly put an unambigous peaceplan on table inclusive of withdrawaing from all 1967 wars borders and listing its “security requirements in detail ” …after all Israel’s “security requirements in detail ” AR Israel’s ALEGED total argument isn’t it….now seeing they hav not makes israelis claimed “security” argument obviusly false
I do NOT dimish posters quite valid hooror at Israel’s misudse of forse on Gaza innocent civilians and children , but rob Israeli suports and Israel ar happy to keep argument at this level , because they can spam non defensible red gherrings and more importantly obscure th 2 aover riding false pretexts Israel uses to actualt retain an illegal West Bank occupation & a fake peace plan that reely includes Israeli domination of a new Palestine State and West Bank & arab East Jurulesm land annexation
An excerpt from Guy Rundle’s Crikey article yesterday (which, since it was subscriber only, I hope they don’t mind me quoting from):
Thanks for the link Mark. Very good. I haven’t read anything (that I recall) from Levy before.
Pretty sensible and perceptive stuff.
He makes a couple of points worth emphasizing – that Hamas have to be ‘at the table’ in some form, that the current action won’t, and can’t, give security to southern Israeli towns.
On the former point, recall that Hamas and Fatah had actually come to agreement on a National Unity Govt before the Bush Admin. pressured them to back out and then hatched the Gaza coup idea.
Bush and his band of idiots have a lot to answer for. Can anyone suggest a single constructive thing that they have done with regard to I-P over the past 8 years?
And a special thanks again to Mark for having the courage, and patience to keep running with this topic, despite the occasional testiness and tendency of the various key-board warriors to make it ground-hog day. This is a vitally important topic and putting it in the too-hard basket or suggesting it is insolvable won’t do.
Ron, for an alternate view of this (and I believe a rational and accurate analysis), here are some comments from Douglas Davis, former senior editor of the Jerusalem Post, published in this week’s Spectator, p.16:
AC,
I don’t think that Davis’s opinion holds much water in the light of the comments of Sharons senior advisor who stated that the purpose of the Gaaza disengagement was the “freezing of the peace plan” and to “prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state“. If that wasn’t clear enough – “Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda“
For those that accept the usual Israeli narrative that they take every precaution to prevent civilian casualties it was interesting to note Tzipi Livni’s comment that the IDF was “going wild” in Gaza to restore that old chestnut, “Israel’s deterrence”.
Oz @ 11 – I think its a lot more than a semantic difference, especially to the Egyptian people. From news reports the proposed presence of any foreign troops to do patrols of the border with Gaza has been a sticking point.
Though don’t misunderstand me – I don’t support the Egypt/Gaza border being closed. Its reasonable that it should be filtered for arms trafficking, but especially at the moment I think it should be open for civilians to leave Gaza and humanitarian aid to enter.
I’m assuming there’s a very good historical reason for this. What happened last time Egypt gathered a large bunch of troops on the Israeli border? This is the sort of communication that helps avoids conflict.
btw I don’t doubt that the Egyptian government is under strong diplomatic pressure from many countries as to what to do – wouldn’t like to be in their shoes either because whatever they do they’re going to seriously upset quite a few countries.
Which, Chris, is my only point.
There’s a story today in the SMH about an Israeli reservist who was called up to go into Gaza and fight but refused out of protest at the high civilian death toll. He’s been given two weeks solitary confinement.
Bravest one of the bunch.
Chris @ 9,
Yes an entirely predictable response to the ambulance incident. The assertion that the vid was just a propaganda thing was rather extreme IMO though, have been reading that blog for a while now and unless there’s a Hollywood writer employed full time for it I don’t see how it’s not genuine. I did find Peter Kemp’s comments highly interesting (thank you Peter Kemp).
BTW there was another ambulance incident as well before, also posted there, where the driver was killed after it was hit by a shell;
http://ingaza.wordpress.com/2009/01/05/i%E2%80%99ll-tell-you-how-he-died/
After this bloodshed is over, I do hope these things are thoroughly investigated independently of both the IDF and Hamas. Whoever committed them should be tried and convicted of the war crimes committed.
That said, it’s does appear to be quite extreme what Israel is doing there even quite apart from the ambulance happenings. The reports of large amount of civilian lives lost is in itself something that needs investigation, and not by the IDF.
Smokey – Robert Fisk in Great War for Civilisation records an eyewitness account of a Lebanese ambulance full of wounded civilians being blown up by an Israeli helicopter in the 2006 war. The back doors of the ambulance were opened so the helicopter crew could see it was full of children etc. He took a good long look from close range, backed off a bit and then fired rockets into the ambulance. Fisk kept a piece of the rocket casing, showing serial numbers, and asked the president of the American manufacturer how he could morally justify making weapons used to massacre wounded children. Blowing up ambulances, killing paramedics and allowing the sick and wounded to die without assistance are standard operating procedures for ‘the most moral army in the world’. It’s easy when you define your enemy as a whole subhuman race.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/clinton-rules-out-negotiations-with-hamas/2009/01/14/1231608743657.html
“US secretary of state-designate Hillary Clinton on Tuesday ruled out negotiations with the Hamas militant group until it recognises Israel and abandons violence, saying her position is “absolute”.
“On Israel, you cannot negotiate with Hamas until it renounces violence, recognises Israel and agrees to abide by past agreements,” Clinton told a Senate confirmation hearing. “That is just for me an absolute.”"
I think it really is time to accept that Obama’s middle-east stance is not going to be markedly different from any of the previous administrations.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24909263-2703,00.html
“But as part of a clear change of rhetoric directed at its own public, the leading military spokesperson said the objective of the offensive had been to “minimise” rocket attacks into southern Israel. Major Avital Leibovich made the comment in response to a question yesterday about whether the fact Hamas continued to fire rockets into southern Israel meant the offensive had not been successful.
“That was not the aim of the operation,” she said.
“We said we wanted to minimise those rockets.”
Fighting was heavy yesterday, including in Gaza City, with Israel reported to have hit as many as 60 targets in Gaza. Hamas fired 10 rockets into Israel.”
Surely that means they failed in even that objective of “minimising rocket attacks” when more rockets were launched in one day then in the months leading up to the conflict.
It seems to me more attention should be given to the role of the Egyptian Government in enforcing the blockade on Gaza, for example by closing the Rafah Crossing. Given the antipathy of the Mubarak dictatorship to the Muslim Brotherhood, who are close to Hamas, it might be more plausibly suggested that Israel is acting in a way consistent with the interest of Mubarak, or at least create suspicions of peace initiatives from that quarter. The Hamas government was beleaguered from all sides, which made the blockade total.
The President of the UN General Assembly as called the conflict a “genocide”.
smokey @ 21 – I too doubt its just a propaganda exercise. What I did find missing from the report (maybe I just missed it) was the witnesses saying they saw it was an Israeli who was shooting at them, rather than they being shot at by *someone*. Its entirely reasonable, especially from their perspective and given the context to assume it was an Israeli, but that doesn’t mean it was.
I’ve heard news reports that at the start of the war they were firing about 70 rockets per day into Israel so if they’re down to 10 the Israeli government could claim that they have reduced Hamas’s capability. If nothing else they’re simply going to run out of rockets to fire eventually….
They serve no military purpose so I wonder if they’d be better off stopping the firing of rockets and has been reported in news articles just bury them for later. This would remove one excuse from Israel for continuing the war and they have a store of rockets to use after the cease fire is established.
A post on the IDF’s use of cluster bombs and white phosphorous:
http://firedoglake.com/2009/01/13/gaza-update-israel-whitewashing-white-phosphorous/
Gideon Levy in Ha’aretz:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1054578.html
The US and Israel have a loyal stooge in the torturing dictator Mubarak. After Israel, Egypt is the second biggest recipient of American foreign aid. Mubarak wants to destroy Hamas because he is terrified of the Islamic opposition in his own country. I’ve heard it said that many Arab radicals believe “the road to Jerusalem lies through Cairo”.
White phosphorous are used for two purposes: to illuminate the battle space at night to reveal the enemy from height, and to generate smoke at ground level in daytime to conceal own forces’ locations and movements.
It is not illegal and the Red Cross has indicated there is no evidence of improper usage.
Sorry, “white phosphorous munitions are used…..”
“I’ve heard news reports that at the start of the war they were firing about 70 rockets per day into Israel so if they’re down to 10 the Israeli government could claim that they have reduced Hamas’s capability. If nothing else they’re simply going to run out of rockets to fire eventually…”
You misunderstood my point. I was talking about the level of rocket fire prior to the latest Israeli invasion, the rocket fire that was used as justification for the invasion and the rocket fire was down to a level of one a month.
To make it more clear:
Rocket fire pre-invasion, 1 per month -> Rocket fire immediately after invasion, 60-70 a day -> Rocket fire currently, 10-20 a day.
And if the IDF is using the benchmark of “Minimising rocket fire” to determine success of the invasion then you should be comparing levels of rocket fire now to pre-invasion levels. Doing so shows how pointless the attack was.
Fatah is keeping the West Bank quiet.
But on the other hand, the Arab Street in Egypt is beginning to stir.
I don’t think it’s a surprise that there isn’t much hard evidence for some claims from what the Israeli’s would call independent sources when they aren’t actually letting them in.
I’m yet to hear the Israeli line on why they aren’t letting journalists in. Anyone?
“They serve no military purpose so I wonder if they’d be better off stopping the firing of rockets”
Yeah, remind me how that worked out last time?
Hint – We’re seeing it on the news everyday.
“…Rocket fire immediately after invasion, 60-70 a day …”
That should read before the airstrikes commenced, and after Hamas unilaterally terminated the hudna, and was thus the trigger for the current war, as I’ve pointed out on previous threads in this series.
Well, that story sounds completely credible.
wmmbb: I agree – it’s an aspect that hasn’t been focused on enough.
“White phosphorous are used for two purposes: to illuminate the battle space at night to reveal the enemy from height, and to generate smoke at ground level in daytime to conceal own forces’ locations and movements.”
Rob @ 30, you’re being wilfully naive. White phosphorous has always, always had more than two known purposes. It’s a populated city, not some remote battlefield, so even if used squarely for illumination or cover, the risk of civilian casualty is too high and the phosporous levels contained are utterly irrelevant.
Can the IDF possibly claim that civilian casualties caused by cluster bombing and white phosphorous were due to Hamas using civilians as human shields?
Of course not, so they didn’t.
They claimed it was ‘legal’, as you’ve claimed much of what they’ve done is ‘legal’.
I want to simply hand you that argument on a platter (ignore that cluster bombing – again, in a populated city! – certainly isn’t ‘legal’ either) – because especially right now, it’s nothing but incredibly petty justification for a calculated, violent and extremely tragic, ongoing bloodbath.
Given the sheer amount of death and destruction in Gaza these last 11 days, are you aware of how post after post after post of ‘It’s legal, it’s legal, it’s legal, it’s legal…’ reads?
The more you keep saying it, the sillier it sounds.
You honestly think when this is ‘over’, so to speak, Israel will be judged by the world solely on legalities?
Nick, I was going by the Red Cross reports.
“You honestly think when this is ‘over’, so to speak, Israel will be judged by the world solely on legalities?”
Will Hamas?
Fighting a war on the legalities would seem to be as good a way of fighting a war as any.
“and after Hamas unilaterally terminated the hudna,”
Blatant factual inaccuracies like that demean everything else you post.
If one, hypothetically, believes that it was Hamas who terminated the ceasefire by firing one rocket in all of November, and then the Israeli’s invaded with their primary goal to either “stop rocket attacks” or “minimise” them, and now there are more rockets being fired every day then in the months of the ceasefire, does that not show the invasion failed its primary aim, and in fact was counter-productive as there are more Israeli’s dead than in the last few years of rocket attacks and there’s been a significant upsurge?
after Hamas unilaterally terminated the hudna
unilaterally?
No, no. Hamas publicly announced on 19 December that the hudna was over and immediately recommenced the rocket barrage into southern Israel. We’ve been over this -and over, and over.
and to say nothing of Nov 4th, you know the hudna had always been conditional on the blockade being lifted, which didn’t happen.
PAJAMAS MEDIA is really getting their money’s worth.
Joe The Plumber Exposes Blatantly Pro-Hamas Israeli Reporter
The official word from teh Ministry on the November 4th incident.
Rob your back still running the same line the Israelis can do no wrong the IDF is the whitest bunch in the world,please give it a rest,you spin might work among the converted but anyone with eyes and a brain can see through it.
As I said you might win the battle but you have lost the war fairly comprehensively I think.
HAMAS are not going away,by the way Rob who created HAMAS it was not Israel was it as a counter to the PLO, talk about being bitten on the bum,someone asked the blond headed Israeli lady how many Palestinians the IDF had to kill before they were happy,and her party would win the election,they are up near a 1000 now Rob only 1 million four hundred and ninety nine thousand to go
Indeed, since the battle appears to be in the cause of rational analysis, while the war is in the cause partisan emotion.
“…by the way Rob who created HAMAS it was not Israel was it as a counter to the PLO, ….”
I’ve dealt with this canard before. Hamas was legally registered in Israel as an Islamic association in 1978. It was allowed to operate because it primary mission, at that time, appeared to be charitable. It did not announce its terrorist credentials until the outbreak of the first intifada in 1987, the publication of its charter in 1988, and its active involvement in terrorism since that time.
that MFA link establishes that Israel unilaterally broke the ceasefire. thank you for confirming that you were wrong about who broke it.
building a tunnel does not break a ceasefire, even if it used to smuggle weapons.
if the IDF imports weapons intended to be used in an attack, does that break a ceasefire? No it doesn’t.
so the facts are not in dispute – unless your definition of a “ceasefire” includes Israel attacking at will.
this particular ceasefire also happened to involve the blockade being lifted. Israel reneged.
Thanks for accepting the veracity of teh Ministry’s report, yeti.
I assume you also accepted this:
“During the operation, armed terrorists inside the structure opened fire at the IDF forces. The forces returned fire and identified positively hitting a number of them.”
Who broke the hudna again?
Oh dear, Rob. That was brutal.
yeah – it was an operation inside Gaza!! IDF broke the ceasefire by entering Gaza without permission. You think that if a brigade of Hamas troops suddenly entered Israel to destroy Israeli supply lines, and the IDF fired at them INSIDE ISRAEL – that you would be saying that the IDF had broken the ceasefire?
Israeli parliament bans Arab-Israeli parties from contesting the next election .
I’ll say it: APARTHEID regime.
I aint gonna play Sun City, people.
“You think that if a brigade of Hamas troops suddenly entered Israel….”
A ‘brigade’ is probably a bit strong, but obviously that was the purpose of the tunnel. Just think, the IDF denied Hamas the opportunity of breaking the hudna. Hamas ought to have been grateful. Instead, they went and fired on the IDF who were doing them such a favour.
Lefty E: was this apartheid?
“If the ban is upheld by the Supreme Court, then the two Arab parties would be the first to be banned since Rabbi Meir Kahane’s Kach party in the 1980s, which advocated expelling Arabs from Israel.”
Good move, I’d say.
When are those terrorists gunna stop firing on Israeli troops in Gaza??
Smokey re:
You’re welcome. I won’t be sending you a bill, but I’d love to send one to Rob, if only to imagine the look on his face when he got it.
(Difference between a lawyer and a hooker in the USA: the hooker will stop screwing you when you’re dead.)
Yes, how far they’ve come Rob. From a state demanding respect and political rights for all citizens – to a racist, authoritarian ethnie posing as a democracy. And removing political rights from their former citizens, now Arab denizens, it seems.
Better contact Regev for how to spin the turn to Apartheid Rob. Might even be beyond your considerable capabilities.
sure – the IDF denied Hamas the opportunity of breaking the ceasefire, by breaking it themselves. If Hamas went into Israel to blow up Israeli military supply lines, that would break the ceasefire wouldn’t it? Not the Israeli troops firing back at Hamas forces on Israeli territory, clearly.
are you saying that banning these Arab parties is a good move, Rob?
Lefty E @46: Reading the Age article, if this is proved to be true:
Then who could blame Israel for wanting to ban them? To do otherwise would be like allowing Abu Bakar Bashir to run for Australian office as a representative of the “Bali Bomber Party”.
This isn’t the firsz time that the Israeli CEC has voted to ban Balad – it did so in 2003 as well.
The real issue with Balad is that it’s official policy platfrom is equality for all citizens of Israel, and a constitution that reflects that.
No, yeti, I’m saying banning Meir Kahane’s party was a good move.
@58: Peter, while you could certainly send Rob a bill for your soliciting, he could reciprocate by sending you a bill for his providing educational services.
As a citizen of Indonesia only AC, he’d have some initial and major problems with the Australian Electoral Commission.
you should both be billing the MFA, AC. although not for very much.
Be that as it may AC, my letterhead would be much more convincing!
Things one sees from The Hague (Gideon Levy, Haaretz)
Nowhere safe to go in Gaza, says Oxfam as staff member’s refuge gets hit
“..following repeated phone calls and leaflets from the Israeli army warning of an imminent attack..”
God, those IDF are just bastards, aren’t they?
What a shame for you that proffering a solicitor’s letterhead does not cut it as “argument from authority”!
That’s the way, Yeti. Accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being in the pay of the Israelis. In the meantime, keep polishing your provocative Gravatar.
Peter Kemp @66:
Good point. I hadn’t thought of that. (Slaps forehead).
Oh yes it does AC in relation to unpaid bills and “authority”: best advice I ever received from a colleague:
Ahem, anyway, again regarding @66: what is your view of the main point, discarding my facetious comparison which seems to have conveniently distracted you? If the comments in the Age article are found to be true – how could you blame Israel for such an action?
Peter? Yeti?
“God, those IDF are just bastards, aren’t they?”
Yeah what she should have done was move into a house the IDF had designated as a safe haven.
Oh wait…
I didn’t get a response to this from the belligerents earlier so I’ll try again:
If one, hypothetically, believes that it was Hamas who terminated the ceasefire by firing one rocket in all of November, and then the Israeli’s invaded with their primary goal to either “stop rocket attacks” or “minimise” them, and now there are more rockets being fired every day then in the months of the ceasefire, does that not show the invasion failed its primary aim, and in fact was counter-productive as there are more Israeli’s dead than in the last few years of rocket attacks and there’s been a significant upsurge?
Anyone else find it ironic that the Israeli’s seem to take more and more military and political cues from the Nazi’s every day?
And I don’t give a @!#$ about Godwin.
2 Medical Clinics have been destroyed by Israeli bombimg in the last few days.
AC, in a democracy, parties are not banned for holding political positions that the government doesn’t like. these politicians are Israeli citizens who have never been involved in a violent act. to compare them with Abu Bakr Bashir running for Australian office is pathetic beyond words. Honestly people, lay off the accusations that these people are being paid, the MFA wouldn’t pay for such low-quality efforts.
In fact, I’ve been a bit strapped for cash lately. So if the MFA is reading this, I would like to offer them my services at a reasonable price. I wouldn’t believe what I’d be writing, but I’m sure I’d do a better job than the people you’ve got now.
Contact me at g.qingdao@yahoo.com
Yeti, read that excerpt from your post a few times. Slosh it around your palate a few times before expectorating so there’s no question you’ve absorbed its heady aroma. Now reread what I quoted from the Age article:
Now go back and reread your comment again. ‘Cognitive dissonance’ mean anything to you?
If and I repeat if that accusation from the Age article were true, no reasonable person would deny that Israel might have a point.
Re: Yeti @81.
There, there. Have a Bex and a lie down. Leave the witty rejoinders and the intellectual heavy lifting to the adults.
Nick #14
Which leads to the obvious question — if the rockets represent an existential threat, why not do what is being done now three, four, five years ago? Yet if they can be tolerated for six years, how can the wantonness of the current attack possibly be justified?
Comment: How does this comment make sense? It’s on public record that the Israeli’s used every combination of sanction and negotiation short of war to get them to stop. For the author to actually believe this to be valid, he’d have to be OK with the idea that the Israeli’s should have invaded Gaza when the first rocket was fired. That was what, 90 minutes after the Israeli’s pulled out of Gaza?
By the very fact of six years of inaction, Israel has shown what everyone knows: that these attacks are no threat to the country at all.
Comment: Again, how does this comment make sense? If the Israeli sanctions against Gaza (and how people have howled about the ‘Zionist blockade’!) was not ‘action’, then the word has no meaning. This is a false argument as it inherently redefines action as major military action. Israeli action has been intense – the author appears to have missed it, or to be ignoring it as it does not fit his narrative.
But it is to point out that of all the people who really haven’t given a damn about what was happening to southern Israel, Tel Aviv has been uppermost.
Comment: What about the formation of an entirely new Military Command (Southern Command within the Home Front Command structure) in the area and hundreds of millions of dollars in public shelters built so everyone is within 15 seconds of a shelter? What about installation of a state-of-the-art raid warning system (Colour Red) using seriously expensive ballistic tracking radars? This statement is simply false. The author has no idea what he is talking about.
/the Gaza attack/ / is being conducted almost entirely for domestic political purposes/
Comment: No evidence offered, just a WAG.
/ Lipni has repeatedly said that the attack won’t stop the rockets, merely lessen their number. How on earth can such a pitiful aim even on its own terms, be presented as a justification for the carnage currently underway?
Comment: because something has changed, and the author has missed it entirely.
Within this cynical process /loads more meaningless yadda/
Comment: What the author has missed completely is what has changed. ‘Qassam’ rockets have increased in range since the first known firing into Israel on 5 March 2002:
Qassam-1, first used in October 2001, maximum range of approximately 3-4.5km. The rocket was approximately 60mm in diameter and weighed about 5.5kg. Warhead ~0.75kg
Qassam-2, used primarily from 2002-2005 approximately 180cm long, maximum range of 8-9.5km, warhead 5-9kg.
Qassam-3 developed ~2004, used early 2005, maximum range of 10-12km and warhead 10-20kg.
The trend was clear – then Iran upped the ante by supplying BM-21 and WS-1E bombardment rockets (smuggled into Egypt then to Gaza via the tunnels – which is one good reason for the Egyptian government to be ticked off).
See here for details: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/hamas-qassam.htm
Now, with Qassam 1-3, the largest town within range was Sderot (20,000) with maybe 50,000 people within range all up. This all changed last year, because with 40km range rockets, 650,000-950,000 are within range including four major cities.
And this is deliberate. On 24 Dec 08, ‘Musheir al-Masri, a Hamas spokesman in the Palestinian Legislative Council, said (Filastin al-‘An website, December 24) that the rockets which had been launched were only the first message and threatened to extend the attacks beyond what had been carried out so far. He guaranteed that Israel would “be hit in a way it had never been before,” …
On 28 December 2008, two impacts of artillery rockets were identified near the towns of Gan Yavne and Bnei Darom. The rockets were launched from the northern Gaza Strip and attained ranges of some 33-34 km. Examination showed that they were Chinese-made rockets with similar characteristics to standard 122-mm rockets. The maximum range of those rockets is up to 40 km.
Two types are involved, not that the MSM has noticed. They are:
BM-21 ‘Grad’ 122mm artillery rocket, range 20km, warhead 18kg. Supplied by Iran to Hamas.
WS-1E 122mm artillery rocket, range 45km, warhead 22kg
Chinese-made, not known to have been exported, not known to be produced for the PLA, probably supplied by Iran to Hamas
No Iranian-made Oghab or Fajr-3 have so far been noted in public forums.
It’s plain as a pikestaff that the Israeli response has been driven by a combination of fixed enemy intent and expanding enemy capability. They are paying a heavy international price for defending themselves, and have told those idiots at the UN to sod off: that sort of behaviour tells us that this is serious in a new way.
So this is what the author missed completely. Hamas went from being able to hit a small number of people who could be pretty well protected to being able to hit almost a million, who could NOT be protected.
At that point, precisely what choices did the Israeli government have left?
I mean, there is a truckload of opinion here about how horrible the Israelis are. That’s easy armchair criticism from people out of range.
So, my friendly centre-left denizens of LP, let me ask you a HARD question. In these circumstances, having given the pallies Gaza and having been bombarded for their pains, what should Israel have done once the bombardment extended from maybe 50,000 Israeli citizens under lethal daily threat to about 900,000?
And note that it’s the [Hamas insult mode on] terrorist proto-simian theocratic loons of Hamas [Hamas insult mode off] who are driving the show, here. (Insulting Hamas terrorists with the term ‘paleo-simian’ seems to offend some with delicate sensibilities, so I have modified it.)
Also, note Hamas’s fixed intent – they will use any weapon to hand – this matter is not driven by their intent, it is driven by their CAPABILITY. Now, there is a nightmare doubtless working inside Israeli planning, and that is the appalling thought that if Iran supplies Tabun or Soman to either Hizb’allah or Hamas, then they could lose a large fraction of that exposed population. A WS-1E will take about 6-10 litres of such agents depending on warhead configuration, so even a dozen jerrycans of the stuff brought into Gaza would kill many thousands of Israelis. Anyone doubt that if they got Tabun or Soman, hamas would NOT use it? And so we get to Three Conjectures again.
The terrible ifs accumulate.
Question 1: What do you guys think an Israeli response should have been? (BTW: ‘I dunno, but not what they have done – is a cop-out.)
Question 2: If Hamas-in-Gaza hits Ashkelon with a score of WS-1E with Soman warheads a week from now, killing (say) 5,000-20,000 Israeli civilians, while promising more to come, what do you think the ‘appropriate’ Israeli response should be??
I hope that this also illuminates what I said earlier, about the staunch pro-Israeli support of the ALP over history and the Rudd government in particular. Anyone read Philip Dorling’s article “A Diplomatic Silence” account of the Rudd Government’s solid support for Israel’s defensive war against Hamas?
I found his history of this very long-standing ALP Chifley/Evatt policy to be fascinating. I did not realise quite how deeply into the ALP’s soul support for Israel runs. In this case, I am very pleased that Rudd is utterly indistinguishable from Howard on this issue.
Interesting that the Rudd government fundamentally disagrees with most denizens here. My own wild guess is that the Israeli Embassy has provided much of the real picture to the Rudd government. If so, I would not expect any changes at all, which is a Very Good Thing.
MarkL
Canberra
MarkL, you might like to consider complying with the three paragraph rule for comments.
In addition, I’d be interested in the definition of “existential threat”, and indeed any information on when this phrase first started being used and in what context. The rocket fire is certainly to be condemned, and inspires fear in citizens, but it’s very hard to see how it’s an “existential threat”. The logic of “deterrence” in this context is highly assymetric as well, I’d suggest.
Mark, it was long but I’ve seen many long posts in the various iterations of this thread, so why quibble now?
Apart from length, some interesting questions raised, MarkL.
AC @ 76,
The Age article is an edited version of this article from the previous day’s Guardian.
As well as several key phrases absent in The Age, you can read for yourself that “the allegations were never proven and no charges were ever made”.
So:
“If the comments in the Age article are found to be true – how could you blame Israel for such an action?”
They were not found to be true.
Your question (or ‘main point’ as you called it) was not only hypothetical but persuasively rhetorical – ‘are found’ is a bogus shift of tense.
Go Fairfax btw! Nice work, if a tad unsubtle. Oops, hang on a sec! What’s going on there? Our media’s reputedly supposed to show a pro-Palestinian bias, aren’t they?
The accusation is not from the Age, it is from an Israeli government committee. The Age is just reporting on the committee’s opinion. These politicians crime has been in opposing the Israeli government’s policies, which the committee regards as incitement and support of terrorism (standard fare for non-democratic regimes), and in “refusing to recognise Israel’s right to exist”, which is simply a political position that would not be a crime in a democracy. These is no accusation that any of them have been involved in any act of violence. The Israeli government might want to ban them from participating in the elections, but that would also confirm that Israel is not a democracy that tolerates its minorities to participate in the political process with an independent voice. If you think that is reasonable, that’s fine, but it isn’t democracy.
Question 1: What do you guys think an Israeli response should have been?
To renew the ceasefire by lifting the blockade of Gaza, and to withdraw its forces from the West Bank to the 1967 borders, as required by international law.
Yes, yes, Nick. I’m not saying they are or they aren’t true. I have no idea on the matter. I’m asking how views here would be affected if they were found to be true. Well? What say you?
Former Irish President Mary Robinson:
http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/email/a-crisis-of-dignity-in-gaza
The Israeli Courts might yet knock the political apartheid out – they are the last bastion of institutional liberalism left in the country. Fortunately, a large minority of the population also oppose these approaches. One day they will defeat the ethnic cleansers currently in power.
One thing we can all agree on: the current Israeli leadership show no sign of being able to engineer a peace, or a military victory.
They are truly lost – without international law, right or justice – and now, without even the solace of being a legitimate, functional democracy. The leadership cant even enunciate a vision of the future – because the truth about their intent in the west bank just cant be spun. Banning political parties is a sure sign these leaders will ultimately lose.
Hmmmm
The pro Israeli crowd are very fired up today-rage my semitc fraticiders against the going down of the sun
the ministry has been sending pressers every half hour-the world dont believe you anymore israel and yahweh dont the blogs show it
number of proto simians dead 1000-hat tip to markl and his love of jewish racial classification (BTW markl why dont you say gentile-you know you want to)
“Well? What say you?”
If the people mentioned were in fact “supporting terrorism” then I don’t think you’d find anyone to defend them.
It was obvious this was a crock of shit from the far-right parties at the centre of the allegations. If they had evidence that these political parties and their MP’s were giving support to terrorists then why not hand it over the police and have them arrested?
And for the vast majority of non-anti-semites here. Consider supporting HOOD in their struggle to help protect the remaining Yemeni Jews from the talibanisation of their society. (http://www.hoodonline.org/det.php?sid=1965) THIS is the sort of activism by Muslims which gives one pause for optimism. Hope they survive the extremists who are (literally) gunning for them.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231424932109&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
So the Israelis are so concerned about civilian pallies that they stop the war from 1000-1300 daily to let relief supplies in (a very interesting ‘zionist blockade’ technique, that). This is roughly 900 trucks and 20,000 tons of supplies so far. There’s even a website streaming live video from the crossings, showing the trucks going in. (www.israellycool.com)
The Hamas response? Raid the trucks, steal the food and sell it on the black market.
Class act, that.
MarkL
Canberra
No.85
Mark
Apologies.
MarkL
Canberra
Mark’s quote of a quote @ 28:
“The world’s exaggerated willingness to forgive Israel is liable to crack this time.”
Oh god I hope so, but I fear the West will crumble into it’s old lines. This however is an historic conflict, way above others of last decades even, perhaps that in comparison may be described as “skirmishes”?
This war is Israel blatantly and arrogantly being a rouge state, thinking it can get away with it because of all the support it’s had in the past. I only hope that many Western countries will now think twice about blind support for a state that won’t follow the same principles that we’re supposed to.
“the ministry has been sending pressers every half hour”
It never grows tired. I await your next effort at wit!
But only in a Manichaean pseudo-military mind.
Having a read through the Jerusalem Post.
Would anyone like to have a go at completing their international online survey?
The first four questions are doozies…
Mark No.85
Comment: I have no data on the latter. I suspect that Israel (the context here?) has a rather different definition, one based on their lack of defensible boundaries except at Golan and utter lack of strategic depth. To a state this small, dependent on a citizen-army, and with indefensible borders, it would make sense to define an existential threat as any one which forces them to remain mobilised for an extended period OR which can repeatedly deliver mass casualties OR where an enemy army inflicts a defeat giving their army entry into the country OR any combination.
Comment: Israel’s actions in NOT responding with a major assault before now indicates that they agreed with your assessment while only about 50,000 people in non-critical towns were at risk. The new 45km range rockets affecting about 900,000 people and four major centres has changed that calculation. Examining a map showing their economic assets hints at why – Hamas can now paralyse a significant part of their economy and reach into the West Bank! Hamas, with additional firepower, can now cut Israel in half strategically. 45km from Gaza also means they can hit the southern dormitory suburbs of Tel Aviv. What country can accept those circumstances?
Comment: Agreed. In fact, I do not think it exists in a meaningful form because hamas and Hizb’allah are Iranian proxies. How does Israel deter Iran? At the level of the catspaws, the intent of Hamas is fixed. A fixed intent cannot be deterred. Even here at LP, nobody has seriously suggested that if Hamas had WS-1E with Soman-filled warheads, they would forebear to use them immediately. Therefore, the extent of Hamas attack is determined only by their capability. And at this point the pitiless calculus of the Three Conjectures kicks in: what is coming may now be impossible to stop. While Iran continues its policy of aggressive proxy war on Israel this situation can only worsen and is neither controllable nor subject to deterrence. Note that the pallies themselves are just the meat in an Iranian-Jihadist nutcase sandwich. Poor buggers are a prop to those actors. Both Tel Aviv and Tehran know all of this. Tehran does not care as, by its actions, this is the intended outcome. Nothing about this situation is good, the best we can hope for is a least-worst outcome.
[Three paragraphs exclusive of quoted material]
MarkL
Canberra
@96 – Thanks, MarkL.
Nick at 100,
yes did the survey, good grief! WTF? It’s up there with Howard’s republican fiasco!
Looked briefly at other news on the site, equally WTF?
“Two IDF officers were moderately wounded during clashes with Hamas gunmen in the Gaza Strip overnight Tuesday. Another officer and three other soldiers were lightly wounded during operations elsewhere in the north of the Strip.”
These are their casualties??? What were the light wounds, a broken fingernail? A slight bruise? Compare that to Gaza, it goes without needing explanation…
Yeti No.89
1. No blockade exists, even in the middle of a war Hamas started, Israel is letting supplies through and has not cut off electricity (Gaza is powered from the Ashkelon power station). What you think is a ‘blockade’ are merely sanctions. Like the UN uses.
2. Withdrawing from Gaza three years ago worked so well, Yeti. Why the pallies have built a prosperous, peaceful, thriving democratic statelet there, just as the EU and various left-oriented entities predicted in 2005 that they would, once given the opportunity.
Oh, wait…
What about having a go at Question 2? That would take some actual serious thought or gumption.
MarkL
Canberra
Mark and MarkL, considering that there’s a full-scale conventional war going on, the only relevance “deterrence” has is the value of looking back at it, wistfully, wondering what happened to it.
Yes, it’s true that Israel retains the deterrent capacity to turn Gaza or the West Bank or Western Jordan or Cairo or Teheran or anywhere close into overlapping circles of black, dirty, glass—but evidently, an existential threat like that is a threat that’s no deterrent at all.
Quite correct Liam.
And the same applies to the endless to-and-fro over justifications for bellicosity and justifications for how both sides conduct the war.
It is clear that both sides are quite unwilling to listen to moral suasion or legal argument.
Therefore, that a crime is being committed by one side or another, or both, is moot.
The practical question now is which side is making the bigger blunder.
Smokey; the ‘skirmishes’ of the past that you refer to were incidents like where hundreds at Deir Yassin were deliberately slaughtered as policy to terrorise many hundreds of thousands into fleeing, in order to ethnically cleanse ‘the land without people’.
Thousands were mass murdered many years later when Sharon organised the Sabra and Shatila massacre by the Lebanese fascists, as but one more example of how rotten to the core Zionist promoters of Greater Israel were and still are.
This war for Greater Israel is now heading for its 42nd anniversary. And like Nixon bombing Nth Vietnam in the Christmas bombing we can expect this violence to be followed by a peace deal and the beginning of the withdrawal of settlers from the Palestinian State. It won’t be as quick this time but we are witnessing history being repeated as a farce.
So just ask yourself this ‘How goes the 1967 war for Greater Israel’?
We know how Sharon’s invasion and occupation of Lebanon ended with all outstanding issues resolved quite recently.
We know how the settlers in Gaza ended their extended effort to build ‘facts on the ground’ and presumably cause the Palestinians to emigrate or some such Zionist drivel.
We ought to know that what these politicians say the latest slaughter is about is irrelevant.
So why are you so down? There is no going back to how the Israelis formerly occupied Gaza! So why not begin to doubt that you even understand what’s going on with this latest ruthless bloodshed?
You can see that Israel is a state terrorist engaged in brutal aggression. So can everyone else who is even remotely describable as in anyway progressive. Zionists and their supporters like Rob are not convincing anyone that brave little Israel is not the problem.
This violence is election violence for the sake of persuading Israeli voters that the current government is tough enough and deserves to continue. It is also part of the end game stage for the failed war for Greater Israel.
See my article at;
http://strangetimes.lastsuperpower.net/?p=175
You might consider the three paragraph rule too, patrickm, particularly since presumably your comment reproduces material in the link you’ve posted.
smokey 103, I’m stuck on this Jerusalem Post op-ed, titled The great Iranian sting.
MarkL, since it’s the publication you like to source from, perhaps you can comment on what David Wilder suggests the IDF had planned for the last few weeks if Hamas hadn’t “refused to renew the cease-fire”?
My post is awaiting moderation but the essence is that MarkL is full of it and there are very clear reasons why the Gaza Strip has not turned itself into a utopia.
You know what the UN doesn’t do, MarkL? Destroy power generators, withhold critical fuel supplies and hoard legitimate tax money from the Palestinian Authority.
Oh, and more recently (Nov 2008) you have the breakdown of the sole power plant because Israel wouldn’t allow replacement parts through the blockade. Oh damn, there’s that word again. This time from the AFP.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hKzqnofJIHGEpUc48aFaevwq0X4A
The Israeli’s are right, the media really is biased against them.
patrickm, yes I’d admit “skirmishes” was an unfortunate and rather flippant word used to describe said previous conflicts, and I should really have thought of something more appropriate. Apologies.
I’d be the first to admit however that this is the first conflict I’ve followed closely over there. And that I know little about the nuances of Middle East politics. I do though have the capacity to therefore look at this current conflict without the glaze of history.
Although I’m aghast at the unfolding catastrophie that Israel is now inflicting on Gaza, I’m still trying to keep an open mind not prejudiced by the past. I may be wrong in that but as I’ve not followed the past that’s just the way it is for me.
I do appreciate the horror of what’s now happening. But please don’t preach to me about the past and how I should be thinking.
Mark you have just said ‘@96 – Thanks, MarkL.’ to a person that posted 387 words plus quotes. and picked on me for posting 341 words total.
I think the question “how goes… is the only bit reproduced, the rest was just shooting from the hip but some of the thoughts are definitely in the article.
More on the banning of Arab-Israeli parties: its worth noting that some 9% (120,000) Arab-Israelis are Christians, and another 9% are Druze, the latter of which are subject to compulsory military service like as Jewish citizens are. One in 5 Arab-Israeli are not in fact Muslim.
Both parties banned support a two-state solution, and as Michael noted above, a constitution that guarantees equality for minorities. Arab Christians vote for these parties in the same proportions as Muslims.
The general view within the two parties is that the Knesset knows full well the Supreme Court will disallow this racist garbage – its a bit of politicking in the lead up to the election.
I’m sure it will serve to increase the rift between Arab Israelis and the rest of the Israeli society: which I think goes strongly as to who is making the blunders, as Katz asks.
Smokey; I’m not telling you ‘how’ you should think. That’s up to you, once you have something to think about. I’m just providing you with something to potentially think about if you want to.
MarkL, your Question 2 is a joke. You might as well ask what should Israel do if it were subject to an illegal, racist, colonial military occupation by the Arabs.
patrickm, not a problem.
It may be worth noting in this that I may be quite like a rather large number of people throughout the world today, who’ve not in the past taken much notice of all those fights over there, but now have thrust upon them one of our so called friends openly and without regard committing basically mass murder. I mean in some cases with the house bombings and all (more like taking out a city block) the Israeli’s might have well as lined the women and children up in front of a firing squad.
It is an appalling and horrifying conflict. I wouldn’t call it a war, as the weaponry is so vastly in favour of Israel. Any fair minded person would have to say this is a slaughter. And at the hands of a force seemingly unfettered by the Geneva Conventions or international law.
Yes we’re all being given much to think about with this conflict. I do hope the West thinks clearly, and not to support a rouge state that has no interest in human rights.
@112 – patrickm, I’m asking everyone to keep comments as concise as possible and not exceeding three paragraphs in length. Please refer to the comments policy.
OK Mark
BTW what did you make of my link?
Haven’t read it, I’m afraid, patrickm.
Well it is good to see we are both on the same side at last. Both support Australian troops in Afghanistan. Both support Australian troops defending our ALP government diplomats in Iraq. Both support Navy ships dealing with Pirates and both condemn the latest Zionist blood bath. You will be sending me birthday cards at this rate. But I have to tell you I am really on to something with my article on Gaza. Just like I predicted how the Iraq liberation would unfold and as it moves into the end stage, I am also able because of the draining the swamp theory (that explains why the liberation was needed to launch the bourgeois democratic revolution for the whole region and thus why Palestine can’t be left out), so I am able to predict the end of the failed war for greater Israel now being played out to the utter confusion of liberals.
AC
#16 (replying to my #12)
“Ron, for an alternate view of this (and I believe a rational and accurate analysis), here are some comments from Douglas Davis, former senior editor of the Jerusalem Post, published in this week’s Spectator, p.16:
“…. , the experience of Gaza has demonstrated that territorial withdrawal does not make them safer, but more vulnerable.”
AC , I blieve israel withdrew from Gaza aslogisticaly it was too unmangeable and allow Israel to unilateraly determine a border annexing part of West bank partly via a “wall”
However in any event , th CONTINUED ilegal occupation of Palestinien West Bank soil by Israel is OF ITSELF reason for Palestiniens to continue to resist (via firing rockets etc) It is quite irrelevent that israel withdrew from PART of th ilegaly occupied Palestinien land (namely Gaza), becaue it still ilegaly occupies PART of Palestinien lands (th West Bank)
Isrea’s mere ilegal occupation of any Pelstinien lands at all (th West Bank) is of itself th reason why resistanse contues…and always will whilst Israel so ilegaly occupies This is simply cause and efect Israel th occupier must withdraw before anyone can realiticaly expect th Palestineins th occupied to stop resisting
Isreal’s fake argument that th occupied th palestiniens must FIRST stop resisting th ocupier th israelis is unrealistic , and is th blatant pretext Israel uses to contnue to occupy
Furthermore , given th rockets ar coming from Gaza , why th hell do not israel NOT fully withdraw from th West Bank as required under UN resolution 242….because it wants to annex part of it and also Arab east Jureulesm
MarkL and Rob
you ONLY hav grounds for a legit argument IF Israel was not an ilegal occupier of Palestinien soil , but Israel is an ilegal occupier and ALL resistanse by th occupied Palestiniens is justified , and your refusal to accept this reality is not only hypocriticaly based on Israel’s miltary superiority …but can only last until th Palesinens gain sufficent wmd type weapons to blast Israel out of there illegal occupation of th Palestinien West Bank…it is only a queston of time , which th Palestiniens hav , and Israel does not …and where will your smugness be then , probaly wiorrying about casualities …israeli casualities unfortunately and mostly innocent ones at that (unless Israel beforehand complys with unaminous UN resultion 242 to completely withdraw from West Bank and arab east Jurulesm)
Interesting take from Anthony Cordesman at CSIS,
http://www.csis.org/index.php?option=com_csis_pubs&task=view&id=5188
A critical perpsective that barely even considers the harm suffered by Palestinians.
And a bit more on the ceasefire that was and, perhaps, could have been still,
Israel Rejected Hamas Ceasefire Offer in December
Lefty E, last time I looked the Druze were a sect of Islam. Yes it’s true some Islamic scholars have declared them as not being true Muslims. But many Sunnis believe Shiism to be outside Islam, so take that with a grain of salt. Of course, your stats may still be true, since there are Arab Jews in Israel, but I’m just saying regards the Druze thang.
Israel chooses survival over the Worlds love! ABC..AM. Perhaps there will be no survival if the World takes up this offer to hate Israel.
Katz,
That’s not quite what I meant. Classical deterrence works precisely because it’s invulnerable to moral suasion: in the Cold War example, one side could not deter the other from launching all of their missiles at their cities with appeals to morality or law, although by any standard nuclear war was immoral and illegal. Only inaction works when deterrence exists. “You’re killing Palestinian children” is not an argument available to opponents of a country with a deterrent capability; the obvious response is “Yes, yes we are, the more killed, the better the deterrent”.
It’s arguable that in Lebanon in 2006 the Israelis lost their non-nuclear deterrent entirely: they fought a conventional war to the very limits of what was politically palatable, short of levelling every part of Lebanon with artillery and airpower, and lost. The IDF is fighting again in Gaza at the political limit; and the stated Israeli objective—to reduce Hamas’ capability to launch rocket attacks to nil—is impossible at the tactical level. Hell, I think with a Dick Smith catalogue and a mate with access to ammonium nitrate, I think I could replicate Hamas’ capability right here in Inner Western Sydney. Only deterrence at the political level worked before.
Without conventional deterrence, I’m baffled as to what Israeli strategy is. Do the Israeli politicians really expect the IDF to maintain semi-war in Gaza and the West Bank indefinitely?
I’m having trouble calling this a war – for my money this is an Israeli counter-insurgency operation with PR spin to make it more palatable. Wars are fought between the armies of nation-states – is Hamas the government of such a nation-state? If yes, then call it a war by all means – with the implication that Palestinian state exists seperately to Israel already and the two states are now at war again (a two states-at-war solution is you will). Is Israel the internationally recognsied occupying power of Palestine (even if they abbrogate their Geneva responsibilities)? If yes then Hamas is not a governmnet and Israeli opperations are counter-insurgency, not war.
I’m curious to know if people calling it war are comfortable with increasing Hamas’s legitimacy in this way? I would have thought that the IDF’s interests would be better served to frame it as C.I. as that would be easier to spin as part of the War on Terror(tm).
It’s like the Iraq War – still to this day I hear people talking about the War in Iraq. The War in Iraq ended years ago, it took about 2-3 weeks to win – GWB was right with his wonderful photo-op’d carrier posing, the war was over. Since then there has been no War in Iraq, merely occuption and resistance. Kinda like in Palestine.
And here’s some light reading for you budding rocketeers out there. This ends the communique from the People’s Missile And Space Bureau of Stanmore!
Ah I see the men from the Ministry or the we will defend murder, killing of kids, theft, dispossession of the Palestinians for as long as it takes,don’t worry lads as you sow so shall you reap,your day is coming
Liam, I apologise for ricocheting my comment about the morality or otherwise of the belligerents in this war off your comment.
However, I beleive that it is worthwhile to make the needle jump the groove into discussion of matters of practical interest.
Your discussion of deterrence addresses one of those interesting practical questions.
And at the end of this dead-end tunnel that the Israelis are digging for themselves is this question:
Naturally, the Israeli governing classes will try to dig around it, and fail. And equally naturally, apologists for the Israeli governing classes will avoid answering the question.
They can do this because, in the end, they have no skin in this game.
I don’t think it’s deterence they are after, but prevention. This is looking just like 2002 in the WB when the Israeli army operation there didn’t do much to ‘root out terror’ but did a fine job destroying the infrastructure of govt and civil society. And what they want to prevent is any semblance of functioning governence. From their own experience they believe that the establishment of the de facto mechanisms and institutions of the state leads inexorably to the actual state.
The attack on offices, schools, basic infrastructre, TV stations, medical clinics etc, in Gaza will do little to stop militants firing their rockets, but it will increase the chaos in Gaza and make it increasingly difficult for Hamas to manage any semblance of governance. Israel (and not just Israel) is not so worried by the failure of Hamas to govern Gaza as it is by the fear that they could.
Indeed Michael. No longer bothering to pretend to be a beacon of democracy in a region of tyrants – I get the sense Israel will settle for being a functioning ethnic state in a region of rubble, created by their own tanks and aircraft. Home delivered disorder, the flatter domestic conceits about uncivilised Arabs.
They did the same thing in Ramallah to Arafat.
No one defending Israel has yet explained why they deserve peace beyond their own borders. Virtually nothing they do outside their ‘67 borders passes a basic do unto others test, that a 5 year old understand. That is why they are now being viewed as the Bothas and DeKlerks of the Middle East. The fetishisation of Israel is coming to an end.
Today’s apologists will recant, or hide, or feign neutrality tomorrow.
State-building prevention is an interesting concept.
Stultifying the construction of a viable state in the West Bank appears to have been the effect of Israeli actions up to the death of Arafat. And beyond, of course, the enmity between Fatah and Hamas has done the job for Israel, at least in the short term.
I wouldn’t suspect that any Israeli in authority has ever said that this was the motive of Israel. But they wouldn’t way that, would they?
So far, Palestinians have failed to build a viable state. Can one conclude, therefore, that Israel has been successful?
If so, how long is this success likely to last?
Liam is inching towards a breakthrough when he says ‘I’m baffled as to what Israeli strategy is. Do the Israeli politicians really expect the IDF to maintain semi-war in Gaza and the West Bank indefinitely?’ The question is actually rhetoric, as after 42 years of a failed war for greater Israel the contending Zionist leaderships facing elections are trying to prove to their own voters who has the right policies AND is tough enough to deserve their vote; neither intend to keep the Gaza bloodletting going indefinitely. Both would bring it to an end in the context of ending the failed war for greater Israel. A Palestinian victory is thus coming with the establishment of a Palestinian state and the alternate Zionist leaderships are interested in concealing this victory and their own defeat so they have changed the war aims from the conquest of greater Israel to something else. As I understand it, their actual war aims are now the establishment of a Palestinian political process that fully incorporates Hamas and that will take full responsibility for the suppression of Jihadies, Al Qaeda etc and be in full control of its borders in the manner of all other states North and South and East of Israel as the Israelis are themselves. It has taken 42 years for the Israeli military to fight it’s way back to its 1967 borders but by god plucky little Israel has almost done it!
As with the last ruthless bloodletting to the north in Lebanon that ended with ALL outstanding issues resolved and international MONITORS in place (who do nothing more than report either side breaking the peace when both sides now want to keep the peace). Just like in Iraq we can ignore the stated goal of WMD / now annoying rockets and ignore the impossible goals attributed by those bloggers who opposed the US / now Zionists. For example when the troops are withdrawn from Gaza this time tunnels will no longer be required any more than they are into Lebanon or into Israel. Trucks, ships and airplanes will eventually transport all that the new and equal Palestinian State requires to defend itself etc just as they do in Lebanon and there is both peace on that border and Shia Hezbollah now plays a substantial role in that government. Just as their comparable Iraqi party Dawa does in Iraq. Palestinians will protect Palestinian borders just as Israelis protect their borders.
Once the new Israeli government is established at some point after a ‘decent’ interval prisoners will start to be released and the deal (already understood) will be formally agreed and the withdrawal of the settlers will start. The Israeli people are being conditioned to the ‘peace with honor’ formula of Nixon ending the Vietnam War. Keep an eye open for the release of the Palestinian Mandela Marwan Barghouti. He will win the next presidential election so there is no point in negotiating the final agreement while he is in jail convicted like Mandela.
[With mounting concern about the hundreds of civilians killed, nine Israeli human rights groups wrote to their government warning of their "heavy suspicion ... of grave violations of international humanitarian law by military forces".]
I wonder how the IDF will spin this?
But by the same token, after 42 years Israel hasn’t lost the war for Lesser Israel.
I think short-term political ’strategies’ are trumps at the moment Liam, over any sense of long-term strategy for the Israelis.
The level of planning, timing and internal / external commentary on how this attack on Gaza is being played for domestic political purposes in Isreal I think is clear. I’ve also seem some persuasive arguments that ‘the west’ as it were was at least initially overwhelmingly supportive of Israel’s latest action because they want to see off the spectre of another Netanyahu government.
I don’t think there’s any doubt that a significant portion of what is playing out in the Gaza strip at present is an extraordinarily repugnant form of domestic chest-beating on behalf of Livni and Barak.
Where it gets really troubling is in terms of long-term strategy. Olmert has shown himself to be more and more extreme (his family history showing through perhaps?), and it’s getting harder not to seriously contemplate that the dominant political narrative in Israel right now actively seeks total destruction of the Palestinians, pursued in a variety of forms.
The ongoing level of collective punishment over the last five years of Palestinians, the support for illegal settlements, the security wall being used to ghetto-ise the Palestinians further and further, and now the systematic destruction of all necessary infrastructure (along with a wilful disregard for Palestinian life) is making this hard to dismiss.
There has been traditionally a strong left movement in Israel. One wonders where the hell they are right now. Has their influence declined so very much?
Firedoglake – proportionality by the numbers:
http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/3003
Mark, regarding the origins of “existential threat”, or at least how it came to prominence in internation relations in the last 10-15 years, see:
Security: A New Framework for Analysis (1998) by Barry Buzan, Ole Wæver, Jaap de Wilde from the Copenhagen School of security studies.
Specifically, how it relates to the theory of Securitization. Chapter 2 is good start, though that particular Google book has a lot chopped out (conspiracy nuts are sure to love its cover artwork btw).
Here’s a brief summary from Securitization theory and securitization studies by Rita Taureck:
Myriad; other than the increasingly isolated supporters of Zionism, the whole world can see this as an extraordinarily repugnant bloodbath planned and set loose for internal eyes and that Israeli voters are responding accordingly. The Zionists are not convincing anyone else of the merits of the failed war for greater Israel, and they do not want to. That war has to be ended and is going to be ended by either government sometime after the elections. Nixon was a republican and ended the war 1 month after bombing the hell out of the North. Kennedy was a liberal Democrat and he started the war to prevent democracy. It only matters to the Israeli leadership who is leading. It won’t matter to the US leadership who used to fund this war and wont any more. Once Bush called the West Bank occupied territory the end was in sight.
The truce or ‘quiet’ was agreed to at the time it was in order to run its course and was not renewed by the Zionists because IT was part of the planning and timing for this bloodbath. This Zionist slaughter is however still planned with the next stage fully in mind. Short term thinking is a little bit longer than a couple of months and the Zionist leadership can both walk and chew gum. But the war is lost and nothing can reverse this.
Myriad only a couple of years ago Lebanon copped the destruction of infrastructure and willful disregard for life. This WAS followed up by a comprehensive settlement ending all outstanding issue and establishing peace on that border without BTW Hezbollah ever recognizing the legitimacy of the Zionist project.
I largely agree PatrickM – although I must resist such emotive terms as ‘zionist slaughter’ – but I’m not entirely sure what your point was? I think I lost it somewhere in there.
And btw I do think the term Zionist gets thrown around here rather carelessly. It’s entirely possible to be Zionist and support a 2 state solution (I’ve met them), and for many Israelis / Jews, being Zionist simply means believing in the promise of a homeland & creation / retention of a Jewish state. I would argue that what you’re talking about is more if you like a ‘neo-zionism’ in the same way as we have neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism.
At any rate, I think it’s inaccurate and inflammatory to label the current hard right etc. both inside and outside Israel as ‘Zionists’ given that being one has never meant ensuring destruction of the Palestinians or necessarily denial of a second state for them.
Just a question what country’s have warrants out for the arrest of some Israeli Politicians,I read somwhere that some of them cant got to Europe or they will be put on trial for war crimes.
Any chance the the 3 Australian spinners in Israel would be on that list,not to mention the men from the Ministry on here
So support for Israel is itself a war crime, John.
Nick No. 109
Nick, I have seen this one bandied about here, but it might overplay the argument, I suspect. What are the known facts?
- Iran has established two proxy armies on Israel’s borders, Hizb’allah and Hamas.
- It has supplied them with money, explosives, personal and crew-served weapons, communications equipment, artillery rockets up to 45km range and conventional light artillery.
- It is obvious that the lives of Arab civilians mean nothing to Tehran or its proxies, so that much of the quoted report rings true – but so what? That is nothing more than a nice propaganda bonus. It is not the main game, the Iranians have not spent years and billions for that outcome. It’s obviously minor in their calculations.
The role of the US is overstated – the US has not been able to act against Iran since the creation and release of the CIA’s extraordinarily political Iranian threat assessment, which was in no way an intelligence assessment. It undercut US policy and left it drifting. There may be a very high price to pay for that. Tel Aviv understands this very well, as their reaction showed.
We do not know what the main Iranian game is in the medium term but we do in the long term. That has been clearly stated on many occasions (and there is no evidence to support an assessment that they are joking, totalitarian theocratic loons are quite open about their intentions) – and that is the nuclear annihilation of Israel. The Israeli response to this oft-stated intention is obvious. While the present theocratic totalitarian government persists in Tehran, this intent appears to be fixed. If that is so, then the long term existential threat to all of Israel described above is genuine. At lower levels (as I described above) there are varying levels of threat.
The article assumes that Tehran is completely in control of Hamas and directs its actions. The evidence does not support this. Tehran IS in direct control of Hizb’allah as it is a sub-agency of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Hamas is not an Iranian creation, it is a semi co-opted ally, and as such is capable of premature action. So it is not as reliable as Hizb’allah, which they directly control. What this is all probably leading to is:
- The end of any chance of Israel leaving the West Bank in the foreseeable future. This is already a given, as leaving Gaza led to a worse situation.
- Far more stringent sanctions on and control over Gaza by Israel and Egypt
- Direct intervention against Fatah on the West Bank by Iran (Hamas/Hizb’allah) to destroy them and replace them with Hamas or another co-optable ally.
- A second Hizb’allah attack on Israel, probably this year, to weaken Fatah and facilitate the above.
- The election of Netanyahu.
- The accumulation of more ‘terrible ifs’ (BTW, my dear Peter, my view is not Manichean, but Hobbesian.)
MarkL
Canberra
Are you going to reveal the dark hand behind this conspiracy, MarkL?
Yeti No.116.
Oh, Yeti, the answer to your question is easy. They would all be dead and the few survivors fled. Like after the muslim genocide of the Armenians. And of the Pontic Greeks. And of the South-Lebanon Christians. And of the Bekaa Christians. Notice the thriving Jewish communities in Iraq, there since taken to Babylon? Ba’ath sorted THEM out. Or the thriving Jewish communities in Peninsular Arabia? North Africa? Syria? All extinct ‘within their original range’.
Question 2: I did not think you had the courage or ability to try and answer a genuinely difficult question requiring actual thought.
Ron No.123
Thanks for the hilarious (if barely comprehensible) rant, you hit all the standard Hamas talking points. But you blew it at the end, you admitted the fixed Hamas intent to keep killing Israelis and their near-certain intention to obtain and use WMD if they can. Go back to your extremist websites and bone up on the Hamas propaganda again, or they’ll behead you for getting it wrong.
Three Conjectures again! Thanks for confirming what I say, Ron. It’s nice of you to do so
Katz No.146
What conspiracy? The mess inside the CIA has been public knowledge for many years. have you not been paying attention?
Place should have been broken up years ago. Like DIA.
MarkL
Canberra
[ahem]
Also, to myriad’s third paragraph at #142, I say hear hear.
Agree, Liam and myriad.
However.
It is a historical fact beyond any serious dispute that the Arabs could have created a state of Palestine in 1937, when the Peel Royal Commission recommended it; in 1947, when the UN voted for it; at any time between 1948 and 1967, when the Arabs occupied Gaza and the West Bank; at any time, provided that the terms did not pose an existential threat to Israel, between 1967 and 1977, when the Likud won its first electoral victory, and Israeli irredentism got the upper hand; and in 2000, when Barak offered it.
Each time, the Arabs refused.
Rob,
“It is a historical fact beyond any serious dispute that the Arabs could have created a state of Palestine in 1937, when the Peel Royal Commission recommended it.”
Since the British Government and Twentieth Zionist Congress both also rejected that recommendation by the Peel Commission, I’m not quite sure how it’s a historical fact beyond serious dispute.
Ah, we’re down to ominous threats instead of reasoned argument. Time to start a new thread.
Nick @ 141 – thanks for that – very informative.
Sorry it got held up in the moderation queue. More than two links is a trigger.
In the thread, earlier, I claimed this:
I’m an office-working inner-city humanities graduate, for the record.
Having done a bit of reading today on a few amateur rocketry websites, and especially on improvised rocketry in Gaza, I am now quite certain that with access to raw materials and time, I could build a rocket that would work as well if not better than theirs. I’m fairly shocked, actually, at just how primitive and rudimentary the technology is.
I’d just like to restate my conclusion: eliminating Hamas/Islamic Jihad’s capacity to build and fire rockets is not a viable tactical goal.
Grow up, you child. Do you want an actual discussion or “consensus reality”?
My point is just that if you say that Rob’s a gentleman and a scholar, etc, someone else is going to come along and say “I hates Rob”. It really doesn’t get us anywhere.
.
Oh sure it does.
.
Think of it like a tire on a car. It goes around and around and around and… We seem to be going around in circles but the wheel is heading froward as well. On a car that’s lost and no-one is driving. That’s my theory of history; in yer face Hegel.
.
If we contemplate it we can really acquire an in-depth understanding of Israel/Palestine.
Liberals losing their sense of direction during periods of intense military action does not surprise me but Myriad saying that ‘…it’s getting harder not to seriously contemplate that the dominant political narrative in Israel right now actively seeks total destruction of the Palestinians, pursued in a variety of forms.’ Is classic. Whatever is happening that is impossible in the 21C. This is followed by Mark breathlessly informing us that this bloodbath is blatantly disproportionate (the Pope is a Catholic). That is political irrelevancy.
The Zionist ruling elite are creating massive destruction amidst major losses of Palestinian life with zero prospect of convincing anyone that they are not behaving disproportionately. Why are they doing this? When did they do this last? Lebanon and Shia Hezbollah are not strategically different from Sunni Hamas and the Palestinian state of Gaza and the West Bank.
We can expect this vicious end stage of a 42 year old failed war to go the same way as in Lebanon. While all the while the Zionist distract the gullible pointlessly shouting at Iran, as if they were the enemy and the Palestinian people that stood in the way of the creation of greater Israel were not. The Golan Heights will be handed back to Syria without generating another great pile of rubble and body parts.
The Jewish Agency (the pre-state government of the Yishuv – the Jewish National Homeland) accepted the Peel recommendations. The Arab High Committee rejected it. The British realised the Arabs would not agree to partition, and proposed a unitary state. This was submitted to the League of Nations, which rejected it as contrary to the Mandate which called for the establishment of a Jewish National Homeland. The matter was at that impasse when WWII broke out.
Shorter MarkL: (Memo Joe Biden): Bypass the CIA and stovepipe raw uncorroborated data that only supports my one_size_fits_all_belligerence policy. (Ask Dick Cheney how to do that VP specialty.)
Shorter MarkL: Our corrupt puppet Fatah has not a shred of credibility left in the Arab world. I want more war and vicarious thrills for puppet protection.
So open and loony about building nukes they’ve invited the IAEA to see if Iran has enough centrifuges to go from 3% to 90+% enrichment, to build a crude WW2 type nuke 2 or so metres in diameter which will never fit on any Iranian missile.
“At any rate, I think it’s inaccurate and inflammatory to label the current hard right etc. both inside and outside Israel as ‘Zionists’ given that being one has never meant ensuring destruction of the Palestinians or necessarily denial of a second state for them.“-Myriad
Not sure about that,
Nobody Could Have Predicted
No, Really; Absolutely Nobody Could Have Predicted
Wernher Von Liambraun re:
I could build a rocket that would work as well if not better than theirs…
Let me know if you a visit from the AFP
Well AC, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck. and spouts propaganda straight from the Israeli spin machine,what to you think I should call you,MarkL and Rob.
It was not a threat it is just a fact, you are in a war you will not win,you can kill em all but others will replace them, they will get you in the end
John, it seems to me that most of the comments you’ve made on this thread are ad hominem. We get the picture that you’re not fond of Rob and AC. Please only comment again if you have something to say about the issues. I won’t be tolerating any further disparaging comments – from anyone – about other commenters’ motivations.
Nick No.141
Interesting links, thanks. The above is intriguing. It actually splits the meaning into two different criteria of existential threat.
1 – ‘we will not be here’
2 – ‘[we] will not be free to deal with it in our own way’
These are useful definitions, and indicate that Israel may be currently facing both types, with the stated Iranian nuclear intention providing the first, and the Iranian proxies the second.
If so, this argues for a high degree of sophistication in Iranian thinking and planning, and a degree of interior Iranian certainty as to their planned outcome(s). It also reinforces the view (expressed frequently here) that the Iranian planning is graduated so as to cement a wider spectrum of internal factional support. After all, while President Ahmadsanutjob might be all red hot for a nuclear war with Israel, not all within the power structure might agree this to be the best idea they have heard recently. But if that is labelled as a risk, and the plan encompasses making Iran the dominant power in the immediate Muslim region (Iran being more stable than Pakistan, the only other nuclear contender) through posing a ’second tier existential threat’ (No.2 above), then this is all pretty standard ‘regional hegemon politics’. The nuclear risk could arguably be mitigated.
Interesting.
MarkL
Canberra
I think we could all do with a dose of Liam’s sense of humour – myself not least.
Please. No more threats. You’re worrying me.
“The Jewish Agency (the pre-state government of the Yishuv – the Jewish National Homeland) accepted the Peel recommendations.” – Rob
As much as I hate the historical two-step, Rob’s rose-coloured glasses need an adjustment.
The Jewish Agency accepted with Peel commisiion with a rather significant addition. They demanded that the Brits remove all Arabs from the proposed Jewish state. Just several hundred thousand of them, who made up around 80% of the population and owned 90% of the land.
Those damned pesky Arabs baulked at this rather modest proposal. I guess it’s just another demonstration of how they refused a state of their own.
Peter No. 159
Please, Peter. Your level of ignorance is really embarrassing.
Some hints, then: ‘Lebanon’s government structure’, ‘Khan’, ‘loft’ and ‘Basij’.
Surely that is sufficient to help you work it out?
MarkL
Canberra
and
Shorter MarkL: I say the CIA is accidentally political. Why? Because that allows me to hold two contradictory ideas. I can do that because I have FAITH!
In the reality based world, either someone inside the CIA made a political (i.e., deliberate decision to come up with the “wrong” assessment on Iran) or the CIA came up with that assessment because they were incompetent. It can’t be both.
I’d be interested in your sources on that, Michael.
The Peel Royal Commission certainly recommended substantial population transfers, Arabs from Jewish territory and Jews in Arab territory to Jewish. As I recall, the Commission recommended the British government set up a fund to facilitate land purchases to support the transfer. It had in mind the forced transfer of ethnic Turks from Greece to Turkey, and vice versa in 1923, following a war between those states. As they said, it was painful, but 15 years later relations had never been better between Turkey and Greece. I don’t recall that the Commission recommended forced transfer in this case.
As you probably know, Peel’s recommendations were based around population densities. Where the Jews the the majority, they got the land; where the Arabs were, likewise.
Are you interested in discussing the details of this Rob? I’ll have time over the weekend.
Certainly.
Some hints MarkL: The thread is about Gaza, primarily. West Bank secondary. Existential_threats_from_Iran_paranoia has got to be off thread.
Meantime the negotiations go on:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/15/israel-gaza-offensive-truce-talks
(I hope Bazooka Liamista doesn’t spill any DIY kitchen ingredient, rocket fuel recipes into the Intertubes.)
Katz No.169
Now, let me see.
A couple of times on this blog I have spoken very, very disparagingly of the CIA. Could it be that in my murky and long distant past, I had professional contact with this organisation? No, of COURSE not. Katz would be able to tell with his infallible spidey-sense.
Twice, I have stated that they should be broken up, disbanded, gotten rid of, removed from the plane of being as an organisation, no longer exist, dissolved into their component parts with others picking up the functions. To wit, they should become a dead parrot!
This puzzles poor Katz.
Whatever can I possibly mean?
It is, I grant, a very deep and profound mystery, my meaning here. A mystery inside a riddle, wrapped in an enigma, impenetrable to konfused Katz.
Lips, don’t unpurse
MarkL
Canberra
Yet, mysteriously, successive US administrations have failed to take MarkL’s advice.
Perhaps he failed to sign his memos with an imprint of his Secret Decoder Ring.
“Existential_threats_from_Iran_paranoia has got to be off thread.”
Sorry Peter, think I opened that can. Was really only trying to point out the Jerusalem Post isn’t exactly a fount of veracity.
Liam @ 154 – from what i’ve read the Qassam rockets which are home-made only have a range of about 10km. The Grad ones which have been smuggled into Gaza can go around 40km. A couple of interesting wikipedia links
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BM-21
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qassam_rocket
As a kid I never managed to make a rocket that would go further than the backyard – although they were small and I only ever made potassium chlorate/sugar fueled ones (the university libraries were a great source of information for a curious high school student – especially books printed during WWII on civil defence). Probably would have got into a bit of trouble if I’d landed a rocket in the neighbour’s yard
reality check
[UN headquarters in Gaza hit by Israeli 'white phosphorus' shells]
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5521925.ece
There is a ‘…usual Zionist delusion / pretence that objection to racist, colonialist policies and war crimes should spare Israel, and that when it doesn’t, this is unfair / anti-Semitic.’ But if progressives keep focused on racist and colonialist policies and the war crimes that stem from these policies then you will keep your bearings when others lose theirs.
All Zionists have to share in the philosophical and political defeat that the creation of the Palestinian state will be. 2008-9 has seen yet another bout of racist butchery presented to the world all these 42 years after the failed aggressive war for the conquest of Greater Israel was launched. The world had changed so profoundly from just after WW2 that you have to shake your head and think one clear thought about 1967. WTF were these racists ever thinking! Yet all those years ago they must have thought they could get away with it while they co-operated with the ‘where are they now’ South African Apartheid ruling elite and whats now become the tottering lastsuperpower! When Marwan Barghouti is released even people like MarkL will realize that even they can’t take themselves seriously despite the way they currently bluster so ‘confidently’ about their current mass murder and dream of the future continuing as a rerun of the past.
Latest UN OCHA field update, 14/01/2009
I’ll pass on patrickm @ 179.
MarkL
I just knew you had no intelectual arguments left against my points , when you accuse me of Hamas talking points And whats th 2 after that…th Holocost that is irelevant to today 4 generations later or th anti semitism card
I am directly accusing you an Israeli suporter of deliberately hiding/avoiding th fact Israel ilegaly occupies Palestinien soil (th West Bank)
You THEN hide/avoid th fact why th Palestiniens ar firing rockets as occupyeee at Israel th occupyer , pretty obvious why , you ar an invader…th palestiniens ar trying to force you Israel off there Palestinien land , its not Israels
But you and israel already know that don’t you ! You know obviuosly th Palestiniens like any invaded Country will naturaly resist & you know this fake pretext over time by wearing Palestiniens and UN down after 42 years , can achieve ilegal annexation of part of West Bank and Arab East Jurulesm Claims that security is all that israel desires is a charade , we all know that
BTW I repeat , WHY hasn’t israel withdrawn fully from th West Bank , there ar no rockets being fired from there
Rob
Has Israel ever stated as a condition for withdrawing from th West Bank , what specific peace agreement details it will accept (apart from reasonable security statements from palestiniens authorityies or your ‘cast iron guarantees’):
eg
1/ full withdrawall to pre 1967 borders ? , if not specificaly what West Bank land does Israel wish to annex and keep
2/ full withdrawal of all Israeli settlements in th West Bank , if not which ones does Israel wish to remain
3/ full Palestinien control , sovereigntey of Arab East Jurulesm ? (which Arabs had pre 1967 war) , and if not why not even handedly Palestinien control of israeli West Jurulesm
4/ allowing th newly creted Palestinien State full control of it own air space , having its own airrport and having its own direct sea links to outside world ? , and if not , why should th new Palestinien State hav less rights of control than every other independent Country on earth
5/ allowing all previously dispossed Palestiniens th ‘right of return’ to Israel , if not then why should existing Israeli settler-ees be able to remain in West Bank but uneven handedley Palestiniens ar denied a ‘right of return’
I’ve heard you talk Israel wants peace , well after 42 years surely Israel has publicley said what its OFFICIAL position is on th above peace terms issues Lets not continue to keep it a secret
MarkL @ 164,
I don’t really think securitization theory has much to do with literal impending death or annihilation (though in Israel’s case, ‘existential threat’ is certainly thrown around as code for genocide). It’s about triggering combinations of anxiety and compassion (the ‘future’ emotions, existential if you will, as opposed to say ‘pride’ or ’shame’ – synthesise all of them and you get things like ‘resolve’), in the absence of literal impending death or annihilation.
So, easy to see why it became so highly appealing to politicians/speech writers etc. The interesting thing to me is that they actually began using the term ‘existential threat’ to establish something as an ‘existential threat’.
Undoubtedly a profound illustration of the mystery of a Russell Hill Janitorial Walter Mitty syndrome.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/brown-condemns-israeli-attack-as-indefensible-1379873.html
Michael,
I’m sure those informed on this thread are aware that there’s always been some pretty virulent strains of Zionism, but I actually think the wiki article on Zionism, although lacking some references in places, gives a reasonable summary of my understanding at least of the various evolutions and strains of it. It’s definition of neo-zionism fits with my understanding at any rate.
I think it’s possible to be a Zionist but still think the Palestinians should be allowed to co-exist with a Jewish state. And while I can understand why the word is pretty much ‘evil’ to Arab peoples in the region, there are sufficiently virulent anti-semitic groups about who rant about ‘zionists’ that it’s not a term I’m comfortable seeing used with such a broad brush when talking about the modern day conflict (as such).
Myriad; I am pleased that you think that ‘Palestinians should be allowed to co-exist’ but actually you now have no option because it’s the 21st C!! Many African states had to co exist beside racist South Africa before it came to an end. Even though it had all that military power and nuclear bombs it came to an end; (just don’t expect that to happen re Israel in any short term).
Zionism is racism and that’s the key to understanding why such a slaughter as is happening as we speak can be perpetrated. But Zionism is also on the nose world wide and that’s the key to understanding what this mass murder will lead to in the near future. This mass destruction and murder is not the actions of a vigorous world view with a grand future. It is the revolting (death throws is to strong at this point) decline of a virulent racism and there is not a progressive political trend anywhere that does not side with the Palestinian people as they endure this horror.
Even liberals are no longer able to tolerate the conservative do nothings like Rudd and Co to the extent that they go silent. There is a swell of opposition to what was formerly thought of as ‘plucky little Israel’. The demand is now overwhelming from the masses world wide. Get out! End the occupation! No country will accept second class status under a hegemon! No nation will ‘ride at the back of the bus’. No people will remain in a colonial era that has now obviously and patently ‘Gone with the Wind.’
Another war crime to add to the list. Israel bombs UN headquarters, claiming yet again that “Hamas was operating from there”. More people killed, including Palestinians sheltering there. Emergency relief supplies destroyed. UN says there was no Hamas there. Who do you trust? [link]
Olmert has said “sorry”, and that “Israel’s response was disproportionate to our perceived threat”.
This just about sums up Operation Cast Lead in total doesn’t it?
PatrickM, I can only think you haven’t seen my past posts on this blog to be at a point where you’ve only just confirmed that I think the Palestinians have a right to co-existence. Apparently you missed the posts I’ve done elaborating quite clearly that I support a 2 state solution, and believe that Israel should abide by the UN resolutions to end its human rights violations, illegal occupation of the West Bank and blockage of Gaza etc and fully comply with the 1967 boundaries.
Daniel Levy’s article at the start of this post pretty much sums up my views, and I’m Green politically, so that should really tell you all you need to know.
But just so we’re absolutely clear, I’m not a zionist, of any kind, and I’d thank you not to keep using my posts as a launching pads for your highly emotive and inflammatory screeds along those lines.
I have however been to Auschwitz and Dachau, and as a member of a highly persecuted minority myself (I’m lesbian, albeit a lucky middle class white one), it’s not hard for me to step into the shoes of Israelis and Jews and understand why many have such a siege mentality that has led some of them to an extremist position on the I-P issue. It’s not like they made up the centuries of blood-steeped prejudice against them. Luckily most of the Israelis and Jews I’ve met, like most of the Palestinians I’ve met, have a contextualised understanding of the situation, and for them the persecution of Jews through the centuries, culminating in the Holocaust, is a reason to say “never again”. Unfortunately there are those who say “never again to us” which is entirely different, and drives a lot of the extremist Israeli ideologues in their ruthless and deplorable approach to the Palestinians. Equally you have extremists in the Palestinian camp who mirror this, and neither group seems to care much for the civilians on both sides crammed in the middle.
In terms of the current conflict, I think I’ve made it abundantly clear that I think that Israel’s actions are a breach of international law in multiple areas, are an appalling and disproportionate response to Hamas rockets that that dissipated by 97%, and are largely driven at present by domestic politics, which is beyond despicable with now over 1000 Palestinians dead including hundreds of children.
The Al-Quds hospital was also hit by tank fire,
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/01/16/2467224.htm
It seems clear that Israel is attempting drive as many non-Palestinians as possible from the Gaza Strip.
It is arguable that the Israelis want as few non-Palestinian eyes as possible to witness what may happen next.
What does Israel have in mind for Gaza?
Pro-Israel Rally Attended by Big-Time NY Dems Descends into Calls for ‘Wiping Out’ Palestinians (Alternet, YouTube video)
I wouldn’t normally link to the Reverend Moon’s horrible Washington Times, but amazingly they have published a very good op-ed:
When Israel expelled Palestinians:
What if it was San Diego and Tijuana instead? (Moonie Times)
The Massacre in Gaza: Check the Facts (Palestine Chronicle)
That Gordon Brown comment (@ 185) is at least encouraging that blind support for Israel is disintegrating.
Also with the UN building, it’s illogical that after what’s already happened that the UN wouldn’t have taken extreme precautions that there would be absolutely no chance whatsoever of Hamas firing from inside the premises. The IDF is obviously trigger happy and lying.
You’d have to assume though that it’s probably a bit more than just trigger happy. To make such gross “accidents” over and over whilst claiming the ability to strike “surgically” says to me they’re doing it on purpose.
“David vs Goliath” doesn’t come close.
Comparison of military strength of Israel and the Palestinians (IMEU)
that’s right smokey
Israel’s free ride ends (Michelle Goldburg, Guardian)
From that blog I’ve been reading (or is this more propagandist script writing Rob?):
‘bombing central Gaza
……..
‘Leila in al Quds hospital at 8:59 am: “So al Quds now has army outside. snipers next door, 50 hits near us during night and 4 hits to us. fire in apartments behind, wounded kids near who we can’t collect…”
‘UPDATE:
‘The Al Quds hospital continues to be surrounded by invading Israeli troops, with snipers positioned in the high buildings around the hospital neighbourhood. Doctors and those inside report being unable to leave the hospital.
‘The UNRWA headquarters was hit three times by tank shelling, injuring 3 UN workers. Around 7oo Palestinians were seeking shelter in the compound, which is clearly marked as a UN compound.’
http://ingaza.wordpress.com/2009/01/15/bombing-central-gaza/
If this is propaganda, then who wrote the script, especially when it’s in the international media?
Latest UN OCHA field update, 15/01/2009
Meanwhile, in Sudan, the government have resumed air strikes over Darfur. Tell me, MarkL & Rob et.al., how the Sudanese Government’s actions in Darfur differ from those of the Israeli Government’s in Gaza?
As best I can work it out from reading the blog you have linked to the author is Linda Willis, a doctor working in a hospital in Gaza, although she does not directly identify herself as the aothor in any “about me” entry .
Is it propaganda? Of course it is. It provides a coloured, emotive and partisan view of what is happening in Gaza, as do all the entries on the ingaza blog. All of its posts are critical of Israel and none of Hamas or the Palestinian people. That is its purpose.
There is nothing wrong with that. Linda Willis is entitled to be partisan and an agitator for her cause. That is free speech.
It is also not to say that much of what she writes is not factually correct. In Gaza she is a witness to a terrible unfolding tragedy for its people. Working in a hospital she see that tragedy first hand.
However to infer as you do that her words should be uncritically accepted as the unembellished truth asks us to stretch credulity -not that you would be at unhappy if we did.
Well, I find it instructive that the very few Westerners working inside Gaza (generally UN humanitarian agencies and doctors) are uniformly critical of IDF actions. Whatever criticism one might care to mount of any indvidual one – the fact that the stories are so consistent should tell you something.
Again, there must be a German compund word for pointless and illogical doubt-mongering.
I, for one, value their testimony above IDF or Hamas accounts of what is taking place.
ideologischstrohhalmegreifer?
Propaganda is so difficult to get an agreed definition on, I’m not sure it’s a useful term here, particularly as for most people I suspect it carries very pejorative connotations.
If people mean that the blogs above are ‘propaganda’ in the sense that by recording their experience, the authors have an open aim of trying to persuade people to concur with their position (if they’ve stated one), I can live with that.
But it seems to me that a fair few commenters here think that things like the blogs are propaganda in the most negative and staged sense, ie people writing such blogs are getting talking points from some other authority, on both sides of the war. I don’t think that’s helpful, not least because it’s basically useless to try & prove it one way or another, and detracts from the real issues.
Like Lefty-e, I find the commentary from people like aid workers in Gaza the most helpful because they are neither IDF or Hamas.
GregM, 201, well I’d have to agree with Lefty E below your post. We aren’t getting such eyewitness accounts in our media here, and though the writing there may be coloured by opinions formed in the face of the Gaza slaughter, they at least provide balance to what in the past has been a one sided cheering squad for Israel via the MSM. Blogs like that, and others like it, are giving a first hand account of what Israel is doing to those people, the author in fact could of left but stayed there to do so. This is probably a facet of the war the IDF propagandists haven’t thought of. They stopped foreign journalists coming in, but the internet now is providing an opportunity for us to see completely the other side of the story, instead of hearing the constant demonisation of Palestinians by the media as has so often been the case before.
In fact it could be argued that what we have previously been getting is Israeli propaganda in the MSM, so one sided has the past coverage been.
I am sure there is. The German language has compound words for everything. No doubt there is a compound German word for fervently wanting to believe something about a particular matter without it being questioned and becoming irrationally outraged when anyone suggests that the matter be the subject of any questioning whatsoever.
It would be quite a long compound word, but German is full of them.
That’s pretty much the way I see such blogs. They are not, as Lefty E would want us to treat them, sacred texts handed to us by impartial angels, the words of which are to be accepted without scrutiny or analysis.
Aid workers in Gaza are self-selected ie they choose to work there and thefore you would expect them to empathise with and be partisan to the Gazan people and write in that vein about the brutal experiences that the Gazan people are now suffering.
I dont want you or anyone to ‘treat’ them any particular way Greg – I am suggesting their consistency – across a wide range of individuals – lends the account greater reliability and credibility. Any one account does not enjoy that feature – and I quite agree, if thats your point.
Not all of them are blogs either – some are public media comments, other are statements and phone interviews.
Quite a lot of the UN workers will not have ‘chosen’ to go there, by the way. They’re on mission.
More generally, that these commenters are on the ground certainly lends them more cred than any opinion on this blog. Yours or mine.
If you have friends,rellies etc who are Jewish,or have emigrated from Israel -be warned.
two cases I know of personally where the offspring were visiting Israel-both cases they have been drafted into the reserves-yet they are both Aussie born.
when I contacted our FA they said it was an internal israeli matter-not good enough Jan
I don’t think Lefty or anyone elses sought some sort of cannonisation for blog posters in Gaza GregM.
But I can’t help reflect on this:
Aid workers in Gaza are self-selected ie they choose to work there and thefore you would expect them to empathise with and be partisan…
Aid workers no matter where they go are self-selected, although I’d point out that for many the organisation they
’select’ to does the determining of where particular staff go. Of course only end up where there is a humanitarian crisis of some sort.
Yet it’s interesting to me that when say, aid workers report on the destruction of Congolese refugee camps by rebel forces, or by government forces, we all don’t sit around on blogs going “well of course that’s a partisan opinion from self-selected aid worker. Better go check what the rebel force . government says.”
that should have been a / not a dot in the last sentence.
“Aid workers in Gaza are self-selected ie they choose to work there and thefore you would expect them to empathise with and be partisan to the Gazan people and write in that vein about the brutal experiences that the Gazan people are now suffering.”
And yet you’d have to concede they’re closer to impartial than any other information source we have access to, right Greg?
@200″Tell me, MarkL & Rob et.al., how the Sudanese Government’s actions in Darfur differ from those of the Israeli Government’s in Gaza?”
Why? What’s the point? Or to put it another way, why not list a half a dozen conflicts in the world and demand to have it explained to you why x differs from y?
Or to phrase your question another way:
“Tell me, Terangeree et.al., how Hamas’ actions in Gaza differ from those of the Lashkar-e-toiba in Mumbai?”
You first. Otherwise, let’s just stick to the topic at hand, hey?
Nick No. 184
Comment: I do not think that ‘existential threat as a code for genocide’ is thrown around at the policy level. It certainly is at MSM level, but who takes those clowns seriously any more? I think that the second tier ‘existential threat’ has the effects you describe, because they are so immediate. A cold-blooded strategic calculation that Hamas can cut Israel in half with WS-1E bombardment rockets translates on the ground to being indiscriminately attacked by various bombardment rockets (each an individual war crime because of its indiscriminate nature, something the MSM and UN ignores). So you are right, but it is the fact of being attacked that generates the feelings described. A future threat of nuclear genocide is not nearly as immediate as a constant flow of rockets falling into one’s own town: an immediate and literal presence of impending death. And Israel is so small that this emotion seems shared at the national level. This, I think, explains the 94% Israeli popular support for the current action in Gaza.
Comment: Unless this was leakage from the policy level definitions we discussed above. In that case, we have a clear linkage of the second tier ‘existential threat’ as defined in policy with the immediate reality of indiscriminate bombardment with its attendant literal fear of impending death. That’s a powerful mechanism right across the spectrum of perceptions, and a powerful generator of popular resolve.
MarkL
Canberra
maybe some of the Israeli supporters should go look at the kind of scum backing them
http://stoptheism.com/
Eric Magolis @
http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis132.html
Lapdog Fatah. Apt
More from the man at teh Ministry here.
‘Fatah’s yes-men will then agree to the US-Israeli plan for the West Bank, which recognizes Israel’s retention of its useful parts, and leaves millions of Palestinians squeezed into Israeli-policed tribal enclaves, or Bantustans.’
This is the sort of rot produced by pseudoleftists that know nothing about Fatah or what would be tolerated by the Palestinian people. The most popular person in all of Palestine is Marwan Barghouti. He will be the next president and the agreement reached to end the failed war for greater Israel will be no different in nature to the deal to with Lebanon and Egypt. Palestinians will not go to the back of the bus and live in a second rate country!
Calling Fatah lapdog actually reflects on the Palestinian people.
Well for what it’s worth the author of that blog is one Eva Bartlett, of the “International Solidarity Movement”, whatever the hell that is. You can see a short interview of her here:
http://www.russiatoday.com/guests/video/1938
(wow, a Russian link, that will get the red flags flying…)
Agree myriad 209, nobody here is saying that these blogs from Gaza are the be end and end all of news services from there. They are largely opinion pieces about observations made, but that doesn’t also mean that they’re lying about the observations made.
Such observations are rarely reported here, and IMO are a very legit things to read for a balance criteria of current happenings in Gaza. After all, we’ve been fed the opposite thing in the media here for years. What are we afraid of to read these things?
It is repulsive, and even I who’ve taken little notice over the years remember that disgusting expose of American blind faith for Israel’s doctrines back in 2006 (was it that long ago?) aghast at the green light they gave Israel back then. Oh god I hope Obama does better.
Supporters of Israel can’t be held responsible for these idiots. Just as I could never hold you responsible for the existence of the anti-intellectual, anti-free speech, misogynistic death cult that is Hamas, could I?
Or can I?
“…whatever the hell that is”
Smokey, the ISM is a well-known anti-Israel NGO.
AC
I knew it.
So by your own admission,you are a Hamas Frontman
Cunning stunt their quisling
Patrickm re:
And what about the thwarted democratic will of the Palestinians?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas
Fatah are puppets and lapdogs of Israel and the US. Bought and paid for by Israel and the US to give lip service only to Palestinian interests.
Abbas made a decree that the party who won power is illegal and you say to call him and his government lapdogs of Israel and the US for carrying out orders (albeit in their own selfish undemocratic interests), reflects badly on Palestinian people? Sheesh.
Rob, mate my point is that whatever political affiliation of said commentators, the accounts given in the blogs are real. It’s wholly wrong to simply dismiss an observation or a whole experience of a blogger (I think she’s getting a bit traumatised BTW) with a sort of “Reds Under The Bed” pointing the finger thing.
Yes, she doesn’t fit in with your political views, but no, that doesn’t mean she’s lying. She see’s things very differently from I’d say even me, as much of a leftie I am, and posts some very emotional and personal stuff as well. That is what blogs are. They’re not CNN.
Rob, I’m interested in your opinion. Have a look at the last vid bottom of post in this one “Two Strikes”. It shows short footage, man at morgue, white sheet holds the body parts of his wife just blown up before, it’s just terrible.
http://ingaza.wordpress.com/2009/01/14/two-strikes/
That is the saddest and most heart wrenching thing I’ve seen in a long long time.
This isn’t to be dismissed as simply “propaganda”. That’s an insult to those lives lost. This is reality there.
Rob, I read your Israel-Palestine Part IV, “the Global Coalition Against Israel”. At least you recognise that practically the whole world is against what Israel is doing, although you’re unable to see the reasons for it (which should be staring you in the face if you regarded the hundreds of dead and maimed civilians as humans worthy of compassion).
Instead of just assuming that the whole world is wrong and only PAJAMAS MEDIA, JPost and the IDF are right, perhaps you should do a thought experiment in which you imagine any other country – say Russia, China or Iran – doing what Israel is doing in Gaza (in the context of what Israel has been doing in Palestine for the last fifty years), and try to imagine whether or not the rest of the world would be responding any differently. The only difference would be far greater outrage.
There are some problems with your account of history. Firstly Israel was never prepared to give back the territories after 1967, and the desire of the Israeli government to control the West Bank in perpetuity did not begin with Likud in 1977. Since the Six Day War (after which Israel never offered to return the West Bank, but only to open negotiations on their future status with the Jordan, while clearly stating that the Palestinians – in Foreign Minister Abba Eban’s words – “have no role to play” in any agreement), the Labor governments have pursued the plan for the control of the territories first proposed by Minister Yigal Allon – which involved a the eventual annexation of about forty percent of the West Bank, including an expanded area around East Jerusalem (which was immediately and illegally annexed after the war), much of the the entire Jordan valley and various corridors that would break up the Arab communities and consolidate Israeli control over it, excluding only the centres of dense Arab Settlement (to avoid racial contamination, so to speak). The war of 67 was a war initiated by Israel for the purposes of territorial expansion, fulfilling an ambition that had been held by the Zionists since before Israeli independence. Israel never offered to withdraw to the 67 borders after the war, hence their refusal to accept the Rogers Plan of US Secretary of State William Rogers, which was based on UN Resolution 242, in which the official position of the US was that only “insubstantial alterations” of the border were to be allowed (this position changed with Henry Kissinger, who basically supported permanent Israeli control of the territories captured in 1967).
It is true that the Arab States were equally reluctant to make peace with Israel in the immediate aftermath of the 1967 war (they had still not forgiven the Zionists for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948 or the Suez War of 1956). however the diplomatic record is clear that the first overtures toward a permanent settlement came not from Israel but from the Arab states. In 1971 Sadat offered Israel a full peace treaty on the 1967 borders, with security guarantees and diplomatic recognition, making no mention of a Palestinian State. Israel, backed by Kissinger, flatly refused, and immediately increased settlement construction in the occupied territories. In 1972 King Hussein of Jordan proposed a peace settlement in which the West Bank and Jordan would be united in a confederation, again flatly refused by Israel. Israel’s refusal to accept these peace settlements led directly to the 1973 War and the Oil Embargo. In 1976 Egypt and the other Arab States including Syria and Jordan, along with the PLO, pressed for a full-scale peace settlement along the 1967 borders, with the terms now including a Palestinian State in the West Bank and Gaza. The proposal was taken to the UN Security Council, where the US vetoed it, while Israel refused to even attend the session. The Rabin government announced that it would not negotiate with the PLO even if it were to renounce terrorism and recognise Israel, with Rabin saying “the only place the Israelis could meet the Palestinian guerillas was on the field of battle”. It was the Israelis and the US, not the Palestinians or the other Arab states, that steadfastly opposed a settlement between 1967 and 1977.
When I have more time (and I do have a life outside of this godforsaken thread), I will get on to the record since that time, specifically the pathetic insult of an “Final Agreement” proposed by Barak to Arafat at Camp David in 2000.
yeti, you account is so full of malversion and historical inaccuracy as to be not worth a response. However, for the benefit of those reading, here are some rebuttals:
“say Russia, China or Iran – doing what Israel is doing in Gaza (in the context of what Israel has been doing in Palestine for the last fifty years”
They have all done far worse.
“Firstly Israel was never prepared to give back the territories after 1967″
Historically false.
“The war of 67 was a war initiated by Israel for the purposes of territorial expansion”
Historically false.
“It is true that the Arab States were equally reluctant to make peace with Israel in the immediate aftermath of the 1967 war (they had still not forgiven the Zionists for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948 or the Suez War of 1956). however the diplomatic record is clear that the first overtures toward a permanent settlement came not from Israel but from the Arab states.”
Nonsense, save for the first sentence up to the opening parenthesis.
The rest (indeed all) of the comment is ahistorical gibberish.
If it is gibberish, please tell me which specific facts are wrong. The Allon Plan? Israel’s rejection of the Rogers Plan? The rejection of the 1971 Peace Offer from Egypt? The 1972 Peace Offer from Jordan? The expansion of settlement activity after these offers? The US/Israeli Veto of the 1976 Peace Proposal at the UN General Assembly?
Lefty E @ 207
I think that most of the UNRWS workers (>90%) are in fact locals, so reports from UN workers I think should be taken with a grain of salt and there is going to be some level of self selection of the foreigners (eg one Palestinian schoolfriend of mine who grew up in Australia went to the west bank to work for the UN after finishing uni).
However, I am becoming increasingly skeptical of Israel’s claims of Hamas using UN compounds. There have been so many claimed occurrences of this, I’d expect at least some evidence (eg video) in at least some cases.
Well, the reports I’m referring to are from foreign UN workers and doctors, Chris. Germans, Scandos, Australians and Brits. I haven’t seen a single one from a person with an Arabic name.
And if the UN compounds are anything like they are in Timor – there’s simply no way into them if you aren’t a pass-carrying UN employee. Maybe its different there for some reason (eg lack of a PKF),
BUT there’s one thing thats just about a 100% certainty: there’s just NO F”N WAY a UN employee on mission, or more pertinently, *all of them* on any given site, would deny it if they’d seen Hamas on their turf. Neutrality is drummed into these folk – that a sacking offence, straight up, and these people have careers.
Red Cross even more so, as they imperil their whole organization everywhere if they take a side. Thats drummed up their RC workers’ asses from minute one on the job, and never stops.
In sum: I find the IDF accounts implausible. And now they’ve hit another hospital, and a UN medical supplies store. Its seems like a clear pattern of deliberately terrorising the civilian population.
You have to wonder if the increased Israeli bombing over night is the prelude to a cease-fire. We saw something similar in 2006.
“Its seems like a clear pattern of deliberately terrorising the civilian population.”
And it looks mighty like the same plan is in action when it comes to the U.N. They seem to have been deliberatly targeted from the very beginning.
It seems that with these strikes on hospitals, UN, whatever, all we have is a report from faceless military personel who fired on them, that it was because they saw some Hamas person firing from there. Then the IDF back it up. Despite the UN saying categorically no Hamas were there.
And we’re supposed to believe this?
As I said earlier, it appears Israel is deliberately killing civilians. For what particular reason I’ve no idea. Some however are calling it genocide.
Lefty E, it’s an invasion in force into an area of 360 square kilometres with 1.5 million people living in it. They will, just by accident and through carelessness and through indifference, be hitting all sorts of civilian targets including hospitals and UN medical supply stores. Just with that they will be terrorising the civilian population. They don’t need to be deliberate about it. It is the inevitable consequence of invading such a small area with so many people in it who have nowhere else to go.
Rob, yeti – your latest round of discourse is doomed to fall into yet another downward spiral of personal abuse (He says with diary products chilled in his mouth).
Here I propose a corollary to Godwin’s Law. Which that any discussion of the latest Holy Land bloody fuckup will always degenerate into “who shot first”. There’s several thousand years of recorded history and folk tales to draw upon here. Go for it. Think of it as World Of Warcraft with better footnotes and worse visuals.
I was about remove “diary” from my mouth and replace it with “dairy” – but now I think about it, the ability to masticate dates is essential to any ultimately pointless discussion about who was first holier than thou about the holy land.
OK, Nabs, I agree, I’ll leave it.
GregM is right. At a very minimum, the Israeli armed forces will inevitably be hitting civilians. The kindest possible explanation for this is reckless indifference. But when you do this repeatedly, and know that the same actions will lead to the same results, as the Israeli army does, it’s criminal, and can be considered a desired outcome.
And the repeated strikes on UN facilities is rather difficult to explain by randon chance. Given the kind of vilification of the UN within Israel, maybe it’s not so hard to explain these events. Though these incidents in paticularly highlight the tansparent deceit of the IDF PR. The orignial IDF ‘explanation’ of the UNRWA school shelling – that Hamas were firing from within the school – was a complete fabrication. A deliberate one given that the first version included the claim that 2 Hamas militants were among the dead and had been positively identified.
Israel has further split Hamas and the PA very effectively. But they should back off right about now or risk over-playig their hand and forcing an unnecessary re-unifying of the Palestian factions.
So to the end of tempting the Isralis to over-play their hand, Palestinian supporters should increase the volume on the moral outrage at this war. In order to strengthen the position of the hot-head Israeli RWDBs, of course.
So now is that rare time when shouting “Israel fascist” is actually effective.
The kindest possible explanation is accident. I don’t believe that will always be the case though. I think it is more likely to be in many cases in the range of carelessness to reckless indifference (these are the enemy after all) while there may be some cases of criminal deliberation.
GregM, once is an accident.
When you keep doing the same thing (shelling densely populated areas) with the same result (dead civilians), it’s something else.
Re:Gusface@221
I’m afraid you’ll have to explain your logic on that one. It wasn’t apparent to me.
Although; jokes don’t have to be logical, in my experience.
Ron the Incomprehensible No.182
Comment: You had actual points? Sorry, it is difficult to pick them out in your inchoate writing style. You come across as poorly informed on the subject, confined to the shallowest of Hamas talking points, and ‘ranty’. This may be quite wrong (you may be a scholar of middle eastern politics for all anyone knows) but that is how you present in a public forum. But this may be because English is your second language. May I suggest that you write out what you want to say and then spend some time polishing it? Grammatically, you are barely comprehensible, and that builds ambiguities into what you try to say.
Comment: You may not understand how great a compliment you have just given me, but thank you anyway.
There is not and has never been a ‘palestinian people’. They are Arabs ethnically and linguistically no different from any other Arab. If there WAS a ‘palestinian people’, then the Israelis, by right of conquest, have EXACTLY the same rights as them, because the Arabs (the ‘palestinian people’) conquered the area from the Christian Eastern Roman Empire in the 7th Century. So their claim is based on right of conquest too. They were then conquered in turn by the Crusaders, then they had a repecharge, then they were again conquered by the Ottoman Turks. Both got to where they are by right of conquest, so you cannot have it both ways and say that the Arab right of conquest 1300 years ago somehow supercedes Israeli right of conquest in 1967, or even of the Israelite right of conquest over the Canaanites over three thousand years ago. If you then turn to ‘well, they were living there’ as an argument, you have a worse problem, because people of the Jewish faith have been living there for some thousands of years longer since they conquered Canaan and got conquered by the Romans (read Flavius Josephus on THAT score), and their record of occupation is continuous anyway.
Comment: Israel left Gaza in 2005 at great internal political expense, becoming the first entity EVER to grant local Arabs autonomy. The British and Turks did not. So the only people occupying Gaza 2005-2008 are your mythical ‘palestinian people’ and their terrorist warlords. Why attack someone who just gave you what you said you wanted?
Comment: Perhaps that’s because they tried this in Gaza in 2005-present, and that turned out badly? Perhaps because the pallies have given no-one any reason to trust them – ever? I’ll ask you a question in return: why won’t the pallies “give peace a chance” like the Israelis did when they left Gaza in 2005? Why won’t they just stop murdering Israelis? Have you ever seriously asked yourself that question?
MarkL
Canberra
Various news report that a ceasefire deal between the significant parties (ie US, Israel and Egypt) is getting closer.
I imagine that Israel is very keen to get as much as possible in writing from the US before the 20th.
MarkL
Funnily enough you forget the phillistines-the genetic forbears of the Semites
(you know the stock the “arab” and the “jew” descended from)
and isnt true that “palestine” is a corruption of “philistine”
anyway back to your zealot rantings
“anyway back to your zealot rantings”
And in the cause of balance and fairness – back to yours!
Michael @ 229
Yes. Rice and Livni have just signed an agreement to stop arms smuggling into Gaza – which Livni says is a precondition for a ceasefire.
But Hilary Clinton has also ruled out negotiating with Hamas.
So after all the civilians (and children) killed, they are now moving towards some form of negotiation, albeit without Hamas, which could of course have occurred without these atrocities.
One can therefore conclude that Israel, in collusion with the US, fully intended to attempt to smash Hamas physically, accepting all the associated “collateral damage” . The Australian government has also been silent on this.
Selective democracy through a western filter is very scary – even sanctioning war crimes.
200 T’rainawreck
Easy. The Sudanese government has formed an Arab and mixed blood northern muslim militia (Janjaweid) who have been driving the civil population into Chad over the past decade. This is aimed at clearing out both negroid muslims and Christians from southern and western Sudan. The beneficiaries are French and Chinese oil companies – yup, in Sudan is really IS about the oil (at least in part), but as there’s no US involvement, all the usual ‘peace’ groups do not give a damn.
In contrast, the Israelis departed Gaza and handed it over to the locals – who then immediately began attacking them as a splendid gesture of thanks, and instead of concentrating on peacful pursuits elected a pack of proto-simian terrorist idiots who provoked a much more powerful neighbour until they were forced to respond.
See the difference?
Thought not.
Konfuzled Katz No.175
This comeback is well down on your usual ascerbic crispness, which is most enjoyable. You are not off your feed, are you?.
Princess Peter the Precious No. 185
Rather limp, with that especially precious hint of vapidity added.
BTW, Pete, the last swing out was OK. Did not get an A380, though, as I was able to shorten the visit. Damned B777’s again on two legs. I hate business class in those things, the forward seat row is on a vibration point. Amazing how fast the tech spreads. There’s only a couple of countries now where 3G won’t handshake with the local telco and give access.
You seem to rather bitter about us. Apply and get knocked back?
MarkL
Canberra
Nick
We may be getting a peek into the ‘why no’ question you have been implying. There is some intriguing (but single-source thus far, so unconfirmed) news from Israel.
We had been wondering about the very unusual strength of the fighting there. It looks like the IDF used a reinforced battalion to surround-and-clear in Zeytun: very unusual tactics for them, and indicative of learning the lessons of 2006.
It is known that Iran is waging proxy war against Israel, but its Shiite radicals are demonstrably doing through Sunni proxies. So much for Juan Coles ‘sectarian divide’. which is supposed to preclude Iranian coooperation with Sunnis in armed conflict
The real news implied is that Hamas did not expect Israel’s counterattack. If so, we get a look into deep flaws in their policy creation.
This looks into the core of Israel’s geopolitical rationale. It also may explain its metric for ‘victory’.
Importantly, the victory sought is not tactical (they have that already) it genuinely is strategic, and is aimed at Tehran. This is because Hamas was not deterred before It cannot possibly have been, otherwise, it would have expected and planned for an overwhelming response to its rocket attacks once they extended beyond Qassam range to cover four major centres and about 900,000 people.
Therefore, Hamas launched those rockets because it did not believe in Israel’s ability to retaliate.
Therefore, Israel’s probable objective lies in re-establish the belief within Hamas that Israel will retaliate with devastating impact. That will re-establish the same belief belief in Hizb’allah, and in Tehran.
Therefore, Israeli ‘victory’ has nothing to do with destroying Hamas, that is also revealed to be something they know is impossible. What matters that Hamas (and the other proxy, as well as their Iranian masters) knows that it will get massive retaliation for its aggression.
If this is so, it explains why Fatah, Amman and Cairo have been so supportive of Tel Aviv.
MarkL
Canberra
WTF?
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1231424936164
‘Regarding Israeli intelligence reports that Hamas’s leadership had taken refuge in the hospital, Dichter said, “Shifa Hospital has long ago ceased to be just a hospital, just as the UNRWA humanitarian and health services in Gaza long ago ceased to be just humanitarian services providing food and medical services.”
‘”UN schools in Gaza long ago stopped being just schools,” he added. “All these services and places are refuges for Hamas terrorists and commanders.”‘
Wow, the guy is utterly insane.
MarkL @247 – I entirely agree with your analysis regarding Israel’s strategic objective here.
How can I make any response without appearing immodest? We are among the least qualified to assess my performance.
BTW, I agree with much of your analysis of the politico-military shortcomings of Hamas’ actions.
Unlike Hezbollah, Hamas had no means of attacking Israel’s lengthening supply lines, largely because Israel didn’t need supply lines in Gaza.
Moreover, if Hamas did have any useful anti-tank weaponry, which seems unlikely, they didn’t use it.
Hamas’ actions add up to a major politico-military blunder, as I suggested they might in one of the earlier threads in this series.
Hezbollah’s strategy remains a winning one, however. Hezbollah’s provocation of Israel in 2006 was not directed at conquering Israel. Rather it was directed at re-establishing Hezbollah in the centre of Lebanese politics.
It worked beautifully, thanks to Israel.
Katz at 250.
Agreed. They why behind the Hamas blunder is important, it gives anyone who understands it deeply a real insight into the nitty-gritty of their relkations with Iran, and gives us outside observers a good look at how terrorist movements ‘believe their own BS’ about their opponents.
Two minor additions. Hamas did have some good anti-tank weaponry (don’t know what types yet) but the Israelis knew it. Their use of UAV-helicopter-tank-infantry teams looks to have been much better than in 2006, so they may have improved their observe-orient-decide-act (OODA) loop. Additionally, they do not seem to have given Hamas the opportunity to get good long sight times on their tanks. That’s what the white phos has been used for (smoke), as well as very, very good terrain masking. Also, Hamas look to have been poorly trained in using their guided weapons.
It’s also becoming apparent that ordinary Gazans have played a role in all of this by passing a flood of tactical data on Hamas back to Israel. That is a real insight into how the average Gazan regards them – and it appear that a lot of them prefer Israel to Hamas! It takes courage to pass info on Hamas to Israel – which explains why the Israelis left the phone system working and set up portable cellphone towers to relpace the damaged ones. (mentioned in media)
Your comment on Hizb’allah is sound, and this also adds to reasons why Damascus has been so quiet. There’s probably an intense war in the shadows in Lebanon now between Syria and Iran.
I wonder what Tehran is making of this display of Israeli resolve? That may be the real game at the upper levels, what are the impacts of this on their plans to use their nukes when they get them?
The answer to that one would be worth serious coin, I suspect!
MarkL
canberra
markl
thank yahweh you didnt launch into your pro-simina drivel.
after deconstructing your latest outpouring, I am left with one simple Q
What was the real objectice of israel going into gaza?
See? We can agree.
I doubt that there is a very close nexus between Iran’s deployment of its proxies and whatever nuclear strategies that Iran may be devising.
Naturally, both scenarios are being enacted on the same broad canvas but they are likely to be overseen by different and perhaps even rival parts of the Iranian regime.
The analogy is with 9/11. The Bush regime alleges that al Qaeda may be or may have been close to being able to deliver a nuclear or dirty bomb to the US. If that were the case, why would al Qaeda stir up a hornet’s nest by means of the penny-ante 9/11 event? It would have been much more rational to lie low and deleiver a real coup.
No, AQ expected the 9/11 event to do what it did do — that is to provoke a disproportiate response that stirred up Islamism world-wide.
The Gaza event is similar. Gaza has proven to be a difficult outpost to hold. Eventually, Hamas would have lost the support of a critical mass of the population of Gaza. Better (for Iran) for Hamas to go down fighting than to be chased out of Gaza by the Palestinians. This was a martyrdom operation, except many in Hamas didn’t know it. They were told what your captured Hamas member told. And enough of them believed it, at least until the Israeli tanks started rolling in.
Now Gaza is Israel’s problem again.
But in general, Hamas has been Iran’s failed experiment.
Are you really obtuse or is this yet another distracting maneuver? A ruse? A feint? A desperate subterfuge?
MarkL (and Katz) discussion was clear and well reasoned. If you don’t get it, that’s your problem.
Hi everybody! I just thought I’d drop by and, you know, make peace between all the warring factions and so forth, simply by pointing out that I have dark skin and a Muslim-sounding name. That works for you guys, doesn’t it?
[crickets]
Um…. maybe I didn’t make myself entirely clear, earlier. You see, I’m black. And my name, just in case you didn’t catch it before, is Barack *Hussein* Obama. [clears throat] You know… Barack? And Hussein? Sort of Arab-and-Muslim sounding? Savvy? Capiche? Did I mention that I’m not white?
Good grief, do you fuckwads get the idea or not? Come on people, play ball here (or soccer, or whatever the hell it is you play in these countries) or else it’s gonna be a REALLY long four years. Dammit, if you’re not even gonna bite on the easy ones, then why the hell did you people vote for me anyway?!?
On second thought, don’t answer that.
AC
Well done thy good and faithful servant
ps Markl
Was it to kill as many innocents as possible?
destroy Hamas?
Stop rockets being launched?
Scare Iran?
repeat Hazor?
Hazor, Gus? You mean the northern Israelite city destroyed by the Assyrians?
I think it was to destroy those dastardly UN propagandists hiding smugly in their shelters
Rob
read yadins bio (joshua destroyed hazor to assume hegemony over the caanites btw) the assyrians were about 4 centuries later
eerily the parallels with 48 are starkly shown in gaza and the “take no prisoners attitude”
MarkL
#247
Importantly, the victory sought is not tactical (they have that already) it genuinely is strategic, and is aimed at Tehran……….
Therefore, Hamas launched those rockets because it did not believe in Israel’s ability to retaliate.”
My bigest worry is you actualy belkieve th Geo politcal nonsense you wrote , what was was some sort kind of amateurish M/E international assessment to reely hide reality ..Israel’s blatant invasion of Gaza Apparently you convinced A-C
Israel “victory” sought is at a secondary level was to camoflage th fact that Hamas had kept to th prior ceasefire BUT that israel had NOT opened crossings as agreed as part of th ceasefire Hell Hamas was abiding by a ceasefire and embarassing Israel was not . because Israel reeely did not want to open those border crossings
So israel breachs one Agreement’s terms (th ceasefire border access requirement), and to camoflage both its breach and its wish not to abide with th Agreement (even though hamas has) , Israel breachs th ceasefire , then blames hamas for breaching it , then launchs a non proportional invasion on innocent Gaza civilians
Your statement “Therefore, Hamas launched those rockets because it did not believe in Israel’s ability to retaliate.” is absurb
Of course th two primary reasons for Israel’s invasion is that which you (and Israel) ar too scared to speak about , yes th West Bank Palestinien soil occupied by Israel …which is why Palestiniens in Gaza ar resisting , israel still occupies palestinien land
Its quite disinginuous for you to sanctimoniously claim Israel withdrew from Palestinien land Gaza as if they legaly could hav remained there , and say what did they get , but Palestinien resistanse rockets ….AS IF israel did not occupy any OTHER Palestinien soil Therefore primarily Israel attacked 1/ to quell legit Palestinien resistanse to Israel’s legal ocupation of Palestinien West Bank , and 2/ to destroy Gaza public infrastructure to make Gaza ungovernable hoping it will reflect on Hamas…..2 points too embarassing for you to acknowlege isn’t it
And of course you avoid answering my #182 question as well
Rob ,
i detailed peace plan issues required to be addressed in ANY peace plan in #183 , and asked you what is Israel’s offical public position on those issues (seeing after 42 years you’d expect isreal wuld hav publicly said so IF it wanted peace & security …only)
Questons abit hard to answer
Katz @253,
I don’t think there is much in considering Hamas as ‘Irans failed experiment’. That tends to ignore it’s history and repeats the constant Israel refrain of decades, that any nationalistic P. group is the puppet or some Arab regime or another.
252 Gusface
As discussed. To restore deterrence. If Hamas is afraid of an immediate and powerful IDF response, then they may cease or limit their incessant rocket attacks. Secondly, they may be decoupled from Iran, which has not been able to help them. Thirdly, they may be disempowered within Gaza if not seen as the strong horse.
253 Katz
What is happening within the Iranian regime is not known. If the Israelis know, then perhaps the defeat of the Hamas proxy will weaken that faction, which may or may not be good. It is probable that the strength of the Israeli response is also meant to be interpreted by Iran as something to give the ‘hey let’s wipe out Israel’ theocrats there at least some food for thought about the cost.
Your point on the analogy with 11Sep01 indicates a strategic weakness with muslim theocrats and ‘allah wants us to murder everyone’ nutters. They ALWAYS go off half-cocked. This looks to be a case of believing your own BS, certainly Hamas appears to have believed its own BS and whatever stew the Iranians fed them. This is nothing new, we saw the same with the Fedayeen of the 1950s. So we can surprise these actors: we know that with the 11Sep01 attacks the islamists honestly thought it would lead to a collapse of the US state. They believed their own BS, driven quite literally by a perception of the US as a civilisation they derived from Baywatch and hard core porn. No, I am certainly not joking, this comes from interrogation after interrogation, and fills their email traffic. Guess what you always find on a ‘shahid’s’ computer?
Gaza is Israel’s problem again, but it is also Egypt’s, and possibly to a greater extent. They appear torn, they both don’t want it to be (who wants the grief?) and do want it to be (to displace Iran). Hamas has certainly lost a lot of ‘honour’ (as they view it, their meaning is very different from ours) in Gaza and this is probably a good thing. Who does not want Gazans to use the vast US and EU funds flowing to them to build a peaceful and functioning society?
As to the impact at the higher level – that of Iranian nuclear plans and factional perceptions, we can only speculate.
As for agreement, if data is graded for reliability, and evaluated dispassionately by educated and intelligent people with at least some knowledge of the issue, this is not surprising. I think Ron1 at 260 makes the point very strongly that an emotive ‘eruption’ which ignores facts has far less value.
(I can’t think of another word to describe what is written there – no offence is intended. I can see no evidence of any form of analysis in what I think he is saying, it’s stream of consciousness, I think, but it’s so inchoate as to be hard to tell. In any case, we were discussing that sort of stuff 600 posts ago and it’s profitless to revisit such minutiae again)
MarkL
Canberra
You’re a taxi driver aren’t you, MarkL? Sound like one that’s for sure.
“You’re a taxi driver aren’t you, MarkL? Sound like one that’s for sure.”
Is that all you’ve got?
Markl
I deduce you are
1.adding to the original ‘motive’ to invade gaza,ie rocket attacks by including some good ole boogymen.
2.expressing the age old fear of the pentapolis ie ensuring there is not unity among the “palestinians”
3.Also the rather fanciful fear of Iran-by yahweh man you dolts have the nukes. not them towelheads in bablyonia (saved you the insulting rhetoric there old chum)
ps A bit better ipso facto would also enhance your musings
Some Islamists certainly did believe this. The process by which this might happen was by no means consensual. Other Islamists rejected al Qaeda’s dramatic tactics, preferring a gradualist approach to culture change.
Proof of this can be seen in post-invasion Iraq which, under severe provocation, gave only minority support to al Qaeda in Iraq. (Granted it started from a low base. There was no AQ in Iraq before the US invasion. Thus al Qaeda in Iraq was an artifact of the US invasion.)
Islamism in Iraq, led by pro-Iranian Shiites, has been sophisticated, gradualist, and astute in its negotiations with the US. Conversely, and with US assistance or connivance, the Shiites have wreaked genocide on Iraqi Sunni.
You’re not actually saving anyone any efforts. You’re revealing more about your own inner thoughts than anything else and using others as your proxies.
Mark: apologies for the meta-commentary, but really – how can such contributions be considered a reasonable response to MarkL’s detailed discussions. Gusface might as well be blowing raspberries.
wbb re:
You’re a taxi driver aren’t you, MarkL?
Presumably he had a Royal Australian Navy guy as a passenger one day.
http://andrewbartlett.com/?p=155#comment-2947
AC-I feel your pain!
Ceasefire announced
Israel says mission accomplished,has asked Bush for loan of banner
“what was the misssion again”
This is a simplistic reading of my comments.
Hamas has had a complex history, subject to many influences, including at one time patronage by the Israelis themselves.
Moreover, Hamas has developed a mass support base, as I have emphasised in comments in this series of threads.
It cannot be denied that Iran gave financial and logistical support to Hamas.
Hamas’ leadership, which is itself split, made their own (contradictory) decisions about their attitudes to this support and whether and to what extent they would do their Iranian sponsors’ bidding.
At this point, we don’t know what the Iranian sponsors were asking Hamas to do. The naive response is that Hamas was merely a puppet. I suspect that the story is much more complex than that.
Whatever, there would be very few persons and groups connected with and committed to Hamas right now that are happy with the current predicament of Hamas. None of them would be saying right now, “This is what we expected and this is what we have been working for.”
This is the definition of a failed experiment.
Katz 267
Oh, of course. I do not know of anyone who pretends to be able to keep track of all the factions and groups out there. It’s like the Life of Brian ‘Judean peoples Liberation Front’ skit on ‘ice’. And I hope the gradualists can open the gates of itjihad and get a fundamental religious reformation underway.
A point here is how AQ’s senior leadership managed to convince themselves that the 11 Sep 01 attacks would collapse the US. How did they acquire the worldview that led to this conclusion and what does that tell us about them and how the process information, validate their conclusions and turn that into policy? There is a lot of obvious advantage in knowing that, so I will not belabour the point. It also tells us, (I think) that it is normal for them to ‘go off half-cocked’, to attack prematurely. If they genuinely believe in their marrow-bones that allah is working with them, this is to be expected. ‘He’ll sort out the small stuff’, is the approach, I guess.
Access played a role in this too. If an Islamist wanted to go off and fight the infidel, then Iraq was a very easy place to get to from all over the Arab world, and many organisations would facilitate getting him there. The Syrian government was a classic in this regard, by facilitating wannabe jihadis to cross the border and go into the mincer, they removed a lot of young men who might otherwoise pose problems for the regime. Their act of telling the Israelis who was crossing, when and where they were gathering inside Iraq, was really obvious. The Jordanians did the same, of course, especially with Saudi jihadis.
The number of organisational names recorded there is high, and many are probably disinformation or ones for a handful of men styling themselves in flowery terms. What is now emerging is that Iraqis themselves, both Shia and Sunni, seem to prefer nationalist bickering to sectarian violence, and the life of a foreign jihadi in Iraq is now extremely exciting and extremely short. It is very much foreign jihadis committing mass murder against the other branch of islam in Iraq and expecting ‘his side’ to cheer the slaughter of other Iraqis that has turned much of that tide. Political bickering in a parliament (even with the usual street violence which accompanies the political process in much of the world) is much to be preferred to sectarian violence.
What is historically surprising is that after decades of Sunni oppression under Hussein’s Ba’athists, there was not a much more violent backlash from the Shia. I suspect that when Petraeus etc write their memoirs and we can get a good look at how that all panned out (maybe 10-20 years from now), we will find it was a case of riding two tigers simultaneously.
MarkL
Canberra
Hmm.
Bit of an insight into IDF use of small tactical UAV.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?
plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=
blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-
dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3afa9201fd-890a-48a5-b8e4-b7fb8481a08d
Awful URL, to look at it you’ll have to cut and past. I broke it up into 4 lines.
MarkL
Canberra
Gusface, 270,
The war maybe on the verge of ending, but the political ramifications for Israel throughout the world has barely begun. They’ve used up an enormous amount of goodwill over this, and in future weeks the stories of what happened there (which have so far barely been told) will further diminish Israel’s standing. War crimes that hopefully will be independently investigated, and the illegal use of white phosphorous.
With a death toll at over 2,000 now from a population of only 1.5 million, that is a huge number. It’d be like Oz losing about 8,000 people in comparison. A very high proportion women and children. In future Israel may not have the political support it has relied on with this to kill at will.
I don’t think the West is going to like this either, especially given the current economic conditions:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/gaza-counts-the-cost/2009/01/18/1232213418829.html
“According to the Palestinian central bureau of statistics, the damage to infrastructure alone is $US476 million ($714.7 million) – the bill for which is expected to be largely picked up by Western donors.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/17/israel-halts-gaza-assault
Given the ease of making primitive rockets; Egypt’s problematic cooperation/apparently porous borders and the doubtful effect of US/Israeli/European agreements to prevent arms flow: Olmert’s “Mission Accomplished” statement rings hollow. By simply surviving Hamas is not necessarily “broken.”
Contrast with Israel’s ambassador to the UN on Dec 29th:
http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=6894
OTOH Olmert’s statement (same link): “We feel the pain of every Palestinian child,”…”Any shout of pain touches us all.”—speaks for itself.
sadly smokey the golems (by the fact that they are golems) just dont see it as anything other than a “victory”
The real “loser” is indeed israels image and its people.
The most disturbing fact though, is that an election ploy was parlayed into an outright war on a basically defenceless people
The war was always a day in day out ongoing event for the Palestinian people and it is called the war for greater Israel,there has been a telescoping of Zionist violence and that alters nothing much but it does distract the gullible.
The issue is how to end this failed war not this ‘battle’!
Yes the increased violence was planned for the Israeli election. We will soon see who forms the new government and thus if this aspect of the violence worked for Livni and Barak. But the mass murder and destruction is supported by Netanyahu who is equally required to change the war aims in the eyes of Israelis, like Nixon just before getting out of Vietnam. The war will be ended by either government!
Gusface, agree, but the claims of victory will only work for the converted this time. After the Iraq experience such claims will ring very hollow, and as you say people are reminded of Bush’s “victory” speech. America succeeded in flattening Iraq, but very much lost it’s soft power.
patrickm, you’d have to say that this has been an historic slaughter. Yes it’s ongoing in the face of the long history, but it’s a bit of an understatement to call it just a “battle”? If only for the reason that the unfettered murder that Israel unleashed has shocked the world in it’s brutality and disregard for the values the West is supposed to hold dear that protects human rights. It’s been a PR disaster worldwide, despite however Israel tries to spin it. In that sense likely a watershed moment that history will remember as much more than just another battle in the war, more like a defining moment when Israel lost vast amounts of political support. That’s evident already, and these are very early days.
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/jan/26/00006/
Some would argue I imagine that the fact that Hizbollah hasn’t attacked since 2006 [excluding a few rockets the other day]proves that military “deterrence” works. But that is an example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, just like Bush’s claim for the US to have avoided further terrorist attacks by his Afghan/Iraq attacks.
Hamas OTOH has everything to gain by loosing of a few rockets (even into unpopulated areas) just to demonstrate Israel’s inability to carry out its stated objective.
I’d be interested in reading what Rob thinks has been achieved in this war, (apart from temporarily degrading Hamas’ military capacity and proving that Israel has a bigger stick): given that the prior stated objectives of the war have not been fulfilled.
Smokey; the Zionist leaders do not care about international support. The war is lost and they are going through a process of ending it while attempting to conceal the defeat as best they can. So first they change the war aims and then in achieving those new war ‘aims’ declare victory.
The US will not fund this war any longer. It has been harming US interests in the ME for years and the US are going to demand of the tail as befits the dog. The shouting at Iran is to distract attention from the loss to the real enemy that has stood in the way of the achievement of the war aims that the war for greater Israel was launched to achieve.
As you can see in the overwhelming bulk of comments on this who series of threads the more appropriate name would have been clueless in the face of the latest Gaza mass murder.
Once you refocus on what the war is and was really about and reflect on the recent example of Lebanon and on Nixon ending the Vietnam war after bombing the North the mass slaughter that’s been ruthlessly launched becomes comprehensible.
The war against Lebanon launched in 1982 finally came to a close with an agreement that settled all outstanding issues and Israels alternate leaders intends to keep to their side of the border in future, just as they respect Egypt and the same will apply to Palestine and Syria.
A 42 year old war is being brought to an end in defeat and that defeat is being concealed. It will not be ended next month as Nixon did it, but over the next couple of years. Look for events like the release of Marwan Barghuti, as he is going to be the next President of the Palestinian Authority, as a big indicator of the speed and direction of events. Releasing Mandela in SA was a similar step all those years ago. Apartheid South Africa long lost international support before they fell and Israel is an international pariah (Rudd and Obama) not withstanding they are not worried about international feelings. Stop taking Zionists so seriously, their whole world view has been collapsing in on themselves for decades. When Obama basks in the glory of a ME peace settlement during his first term reflect on this discussion.
[At the Chaim Sheba Medical Center at Tel Hashomer on Saturday, Dr. Abuelaish was surrounded by Israeli colleagues. Several were crying. Tammie Ronen, a professor of social work at Tel Aviv University, knelt beside the doctor. “You cannot let yourself collapse, you have your living children to take care of,” said Dr. Ronen.]
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/18/world/middleeast/18doctor.html?em
Gazan Doctor and Peace Advocate Loses 3 Daughters to Israeli Fire and Asks Why
Someone earlier mentioned war crimes- exhibit A
MarkL
#241
RON: “WHY hasn’t israel withdrawn fully from th West Bank , there ar no rockets being fired from there”
MARKL Comment: “Perhaps that’s because they tried this in Gaza in 2005-present, and that turned out badly? Perhaps because the PALLIES have given no-one any reason to trust them – ever?
I assume ‘pallies’ means Palestiniens , suppose one wuld like me playing word games with j.ew or Israeli….or would that ne anti semetic and your pallies is not
ethnicaly disrespectful
As your claim “they Israel tried this in Gaza in 2005-present, and that turned out badly?” es it turned out badly SOLELY because Israel occupies Arab soil …th West Bank you seem to pretend th peoples (Palestiniens) on th West Bank (under Israeli ocupation) ar DIFFERENT peoples to those in Gaza , and so can be ignored
You ar occupying Palestinienn people (in West bank) and so you appear blind to fact Palestinien people in Gaza ar resisting because you do so…and its either disinginuous of you to pretend otherwise that withdrawal from Gaza alone wuld stop Palestinien resistance , or you know that and you ar simply repeatng an Israeli spin arguement pretending there ar 2 separated Palestinien peoples
MARKL QUESTION “I’ll ask you a question in return: why won’t the pallies “give peace a chance” like the Israelis did when they left Gaza in 2005? Why won’t they just stop murdering Israelis? Have you ever seriously asked yourself that question?
”
i’ll answer both those questons MarkL ,
1/ israel has NEVER given peace a chanse because Israel is an invader of Arab land and has been a continuous occupier for 42 years , and will NOT withdraw That is th hart of th conflict You can ONLY giv peace a chanse if you first withdraw …..so you guarantee resistanse by occupiing , which means rockets , which means reprisols(non proportionate) and cycle continues Your policy guarantees perpetual conflict…and naturaly sooner or later th occupied th palestiniens will get wmd type weapons , thats simply a time issue as even Israel can not halt technolagy inovations
2/ israel has NEVER given peace even a remote chanse because Israel , as an invader and 42 years ocupier , will NOT even publicly unambigously state its terms for withdrawal including specifying its pease terms requiremnts for 5 peace term issues listed in my #183
How can Israel claim to be interested in peace , yet not clearly specify its terms for withdrawal (from land it ilegaly occupies per UN resolton 242 , and had you serously looked at my #183 , i generaly was not unhappy with Rob’s iron cast security guarantees need)
but MarkL , (and rob as well) , don’t post a word ‘peace’ , without saying what peace rems Israel publicly requires per my 5 points in #183
MarkL
“At this point, we don’t know what the Iranian sponsors were asking Hamas to do. The naive response is that Hamas was merely a puppet. I suspect that the story is much more complex than that.”
Trying to include Iran is just a red herring…I mean you say we don’t know what the Iranian sponsors were asking Hamas to do” , Hamas did NOT need to be asked to do anything by anyone whatsoever Hamas or Blind Freddie simply can see easily Israel still occupies th West Bank so Palestiniens (Hamas) NATURALY will resist , as will any occupied people given th chance to do so I’d concede Iran may represent a risk to Israel’s security but all by itself , with its posible nukes Palestiniens unlike Iran ar under ocupation , they do not need anyone to tell them that or to resist your ocupation MarkL th iran red herring is not even an ordarary one
Interesting post patrickm, BTW I think we’re on the same side, only I haven’t the faintest idea what you’re talking about most of the time
.
I’ve said previously that I know bugger all about the history and politics over there. I have been one of many who’ve dismissed past conflicts as a bunch of nutters going nuts at each other, for the bazillionth time, and WTF is it even in the news here now, again…? Then proceeding to watch the cricket or footy, or of late something in that very nice HD thing. The simple fact that someone like me has bothered to, or had their attention caught by this war, is in itself a statement of how much Israel has fucked this all up. I think we can both agree that this has been probably the climax of Israeli aggression in the region and will in future be fettered by the lack of support by that other nutter, America. Whether Israel thinks it needs foreign support or not is beside the question, they do in the long run. World opinion will, if they continue to wage one sided wars that murder and maim thousands, turn against them and in years to come they may find themselves having to cop an embargo themselves. There has to be a turning point, and I really hope after this debacle that we’ve all witnessed that that turning point will be this conflict. The West’s reputation as humanitarians is at stake over this as no one will believe what we’re supposed to be standing for if we continue to support a rouge state like Israel that blatantly doesn’t give a fuck about human rights or the rules of “war” (I am loath to use that term in this conflict however as it wasn’t a “war” being so one sided).
All that said, I have not the faintest idea what a “Zionist” is, and why I’m evidently taking such persons so seriously. I do have trouble with descriptions I’ve not heard before. And it does sound like a rather loaded description BTW, one that’s supposed to bring up some preconceived idea in my head? Is this where I ask like some Pauline Hanson idiot “please explain”? (I don’t own a fish and chip shop though). But seriously, assuming a Zionist = some Israeli zealot (?) what gives you the notion I’m taking them seriously?
As for the views of Obama and Rudd, well political leaders always drag their feet after the public screams at them about this or that. But ultimately in a democracy they have to listen.
Gusface, it’s wonderful to see such a story has made it into the NY times.
BTW MarkL, re:
Utterly confusing as to what “us” is. From your blog record it varies Walter Mitty like between the Army, Navy, student of revisionist history (but not with a retired history professor) and Spoof Spook (nudge nudge wink wink say no more about the CIA, my lips are sealed; Allo Allo: listen carefully I will say this only once).
Peter Kemp
it seems its becoming more dificult for israeli suporters to defend th undefensible
MarkL and Rob had been blogging tried and true (for past 30 years) …Israeli spin , but that Israeli spin won’t work this time its so blatantly obvious th carnage reeked by Israel on innocent civilians and kids in Gaza this time….and people ar legit saying around th World unlike past Israel incursions , how come this non proportionate Israeli response…then people ask what for …then peoples ask these inocent civilians don’t look like terorists like we was told about then people ask why ar th rockets fired that cause such little comporative damage ….then people ask how come israel is still in th West Bank….and wink wink its all an Iranian ruse per th CIA does not ring true
times ar a changin , gaa will make people think more about blame , spin is losing its shine
What a sad sight the doctor from Palestine made when with the backing of his Israeli workmates he poured out his grief at the loss of three daughters murdered by the IDF. And the unedifying scene of Israelis screaming abuse while his pain poured out for all to see. Can any sane person not be moved to utter revulsion at such cowardly attacks and mindless behavior?
Katz,
I think this misunderstands what Hamas is about. It sees itself sd thas the premier group fighting for Palestinian liberation in the wake of, what it beleives to be, the demise of Fatah/PLO.
By the same token, Hizbalah was surprised by the extent of the Israeli response in 2006 and there were divided opinions about what it meant and whether it was what Hizballah had wanted. Certianlz, from the current perspective, it seems to hve workeds out quite all right for them.
Israels operation has legitimated Hamas’ self-perception – they were attacked and Fatah protected. I suspect the long term implication of this isn’t what Israel really wants.
And next time I’ll check for typos before submitting!
But there is no unanimity at the operational level within the Hamas leadership.
Which part of Hamas wanted what you said they wanted? Why neglect to mention the other major faction?
There are differences of opinion within Hamas about most things. Though in this case, the difference isn’t that great – the Gaza leaders want an immediate opening of the Rafah crossing in exchange for the ceasefire. Basically, everyone wants to show they’ve won.
Most interestingly, Abbas’s public pronouncements are essentialy the same as Meshals; immediate withdrawal of Israeli troops and a complete end to the blockade.
zorronsky
#288
“What a sad sight the doctor from Palestine made when with the backing of his Israeli workmates he poured out his grief at the loss of three daughters murdered by the IDF. And the unedifying scene of Israelis screaming abuse while his pain poured out for all to see. Can ANY sane person not be moved to utter revulsion at such cowardly attacks and mindless behavior? ”
no , very well said
Michael
#292
“Most interestingly, Abbas’s public pronouncements are essentialy the same as Meshals; immediate withdrawal of Israeli troops and a complete end to the blockade.”
Gaa invasion has unified Fatah and Hamas in focussing on overall objectives…israeli withdrawal and a independent Palestine , which they did share but got submerged fighting each other..Gaza has reunited them , whilst they’ll still fight internaly , a common enemy has been magnified to there eyes as th reel problam israel has achieved what it did not wish to unify factions at macro level and make Hamas humanised AND th aggrieved attacked Party
Agree, Zorronsky. There a several senior Israeli ministers who ought not be able to leave the country for fear of an ICC warrant.
Timing is everything here.
It is clear that Mashal is more attuned to Iranian ambitions than the Gazan section of Hamas.
At first, Mashal (residing in Lebanon) wanted Hamas in Gaza to fight to the death. In other words, he wanted martyrs.
When Mashal perceived that his Gazan confreres were unwilling to play that role, he then conceded.
There are some questions that are worth asking:
1. Did Iran encourage Hamas in Gaza to provoke Israel?
2. If so, did Israel react in the way Iran expected them to react?
3. How did Mashal arrive at the decision that Hamas should refuse to agree to a cease=fire?
4. How did Mashel subsequently arrive at the decision that Hamas should seek a ceasefire?
OK as a side note did anyone see the Nazi’s at the protests on the weekend? (Tim Blair has picked it up at http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/nazis_needed/ )
Way to go idiots! Any protest against the deaths in Gaza on the Palestinian side is now completely negated. Where the hell were the protest organisers? Or did they condone this sort of sign? (They didn’t catch any photos but I did see glimpses on the news of some pretty nasty Israeli flags with the Star of David replaced with the swastica.)
I’d just mark it down as a bad case of engrish, tssk. I wouldn’t be calling people Nazis or claiming that all protest against the deaths in Gaza have been negated by it, unless I was looking for a reason to that of course.
“Any protest against the deaths in Gaza on the Palestinian side is now completely negated.”
Jes’, if only Timmeh could have let that small number of folks, who attended, know in advance, they could have saved themselves the train fare into town.
So, wrapping up: Israel broke the ceasefire, killed several hundred children, and achieved their noble aim of a poll boost in the lead up to elections.
Well, congratulations, and let me just add on a personal note that I’d like to see you criminals in the dock at the Hague.
Won’t hold my breath though.
tssk
#296
“OK as a side note did anyone see the Nazi’s at the protests on the weekend? ”
Pro israeli’s ar foolishly still using trading on th 1945 nazi guilt ploy for sympathy , thats TSSK well past its use by date , from 4 generations ago ….although your Hollywood mates keep th myth going , in fact world sympathy now is with th Palestiniens….about time, seeing they ar th occupied peoples , and yes Left share your sentiments….Serbs faced Hague for atrocities so why not th Israelis as there guilt is not not questioned in world , and probably why pro israeli suporters hav gone very quiet , there false ’spin’ does work on his Site
289 Michael
Hamas does not really say this, that’s an interpretation of the infighting among the 5 major pallie factions. Hamas strongly oppose a ‘two-state- solution’ as that would mean recognising Israel. Hamas does not recognise Israel at all and wants it obliterated.
It certainly changed their path. After their ethnic cleansing of southern Lebanon (no Christians there now, it was never reported in the MSM and the ‘peace’ movement never protested it) they changed from building a hizb’allah ‘enclave’ in Lebanon to muscling in on its government. That’s forcing the Syrians to work with the Israelis to counter them.
291 Katz
Agreed. The ‘leaders’ in Damascus do not agree with the ones in Gaza.
295 Katz
Agreed. Which tells us a bit about the capabilities and limitations of Iranian influence within Hamas. Are there three major internal factions, an Iranian one in Lebanon, a Syrian one in Damascus, and a local one in Gaza?
If the unconfirmed (one source only thus far) reports of Iranian rocket techs in Gaza and the existence (again as yet unconfirmed) of Fajr-3 rockets landing in Israel after the unilateral Israeli ceasefire are true, then I believe we have something like a positive answer to this. It is difficult to believe that Iran would send Iranian techs in without them supporting the idea of the hamas attacks. After all, they cannot attack Israel without the 45km range rockets Iran supplies.
If Mashal’s view of what hamas-in-Gaza should have done is true, then this is a hint that the Israelis did not react the way Tehran thought. But only a hint.
I have found no data yet – there are the money questions. Answers would tell us all much.
MarkL
Canberra
286 Peter Kemp
Excellent.
287 ron1
Clueless. No idea of the real world.
293 ron1
quoting Michael #292
There is no evidence of this. The comment is a fantasy
So they are united while fighting internally, which involves killing each other. How is this inherent contradiction somehow possible in your mind? Clueless. Quite clueless.
Here’s a clue.
Israel has achieved many, but not all, of its military objectives
The IDF has killed a number of high-value targets, including Hamas Interior Minister Said Siam, Hamas commanders Abu Zakaria al-Jamal and Nizar Rayan, and a number of alleged Iranian agents
Hizb’allah claims that Iran is trying to get several of their rocket experts in Gaza out of the place. Tehran does not want to escalate matters with Israel by having their Iranian agents taken prisoner.
A lot of the infrastructure that allowed Hamas to operate in the Gaza Strip has been destroyed.
Hamas can still launch artillery rockets into Israel, but its supply is now limited. The number of attacks is slowly declining. Israel intends to stop resupply by setting up security mechanisms with Egypt, the US and EU to better secure the Rafah border crossing. Details are still being worked out, but Israel and the United States have signed a binding agreement (approved by Obama and Clinton) involving technological and combat engineering aid and assistance.
Hamas has been cornered. It now has some obstacles in getting back on its feet:
- a major internal factional struggle has begun
- the severe rifts between the Damascus-based and Gaza-based Hamas leaderships have resurfaced.
- While the Gaza leadership was getting hammered, Khaled Meshaal, coordinating with Iran, dragged out the conflict by refusing to agree to a truce, building enmity with cadres and rival leaders.
- With new security measures in place, it will be hard for Hamas to restore its tunneling network and resupply its rocket arsenal enough to seriously threaten Israel again.
- The majority of Arab regimes are happy to see Hamas crippled, that’s why so many of them worked to help Israel.
Do you ever see anything but the surface events, Ron?
MarkL
canberra
MarkL, may I respectfully request you sop using the term “pallies”? It is demeaning.
oops that should read..”stop”.
regards.
MarkL @ 302 – I agree with all of that.
I’d add that the IDF has won this encounter. It’s lost only around 10 dead, some from friendly fire, while hundreds of Hamas operatives have been killed. In the calculus of the Middle East, still largely a medieval warrior culture, that counts for a lot.
The IDF has fought and won in one of the most dangerous urban warfare environments in the world, an environment of a kind traditionally regarded as a death trap to an invading force. I imagine military strategists the world over will be studying their tactics very closely.
And no-one in the Middle East will have missed the fact that Hamas, despite their vainglory, hardly resisted, fought badly if at all, and hid wherever it could behind women and children. Throughout the conflict, the Hamas senior leadership sat out the war in underground bunkers beneath the Shifa hospital, which Israel could not strike. That won’t have gone unnoticed, either.
I’m not sure there’s much to learn from the IDF’s tactics of shelling large civilian structures as a method of “winning” a war in a densely populated area. I reckon the smart ones have probably worked out that mortars, which are completely unsuited and not designed for warfare in a dense city, are going to do a lot of damage in same.
Which leaves the obvious conclusion that the only less the IDF has to offer is that if you’re willing to kill children, women and civilian men at an extraordinarily high rate and in breach of international law, you too can ‘win’.
As to your last statement Rob, what did you expect, that Hamas leaders should all helpfully line up for the IDF? It’s a stupid point when we know full well that every country has bunkers in which to hide its leadership in case of military strike or invasion, including Israel.
So… No comment on Hamas’ culpability in regard to putting women and children in the line of fire as a military tactic? Thought not.
The point is that they hid under a hospital, myriad, knowing the IDF couldn’t strike them. That’s cowardice, as well as a war crime.
“I imagine military strategists the world over will be studying their tactics very closely”
Of course they will, I would have thought killing women and children was quite easy really, I mean, what military tactics are required here? I guess to open the bomb bay doors, or to operate the missile delivery system of a U.S. supplied F16 fighter or bomber takes some tactical training.Not to mention the driving of tanks, and the firing of modern artillery pieces.
So Hamas with their AK 47’s and other small arms didn’t put up a very good fight against Abraham’s tanks, modern artillery, and assorted aircraft and helicopters?
In a word “Bollicks”
Rob, as I’ve argued before, the IDF could have won this little skirmish with a much better ratio of Israeli:Palestinian deaths by fighting past their political levels. They could have brought out the 155mm siege guns and simply crushed each town like adult feet on beach sandcastles, as the Russians do in every ex-Soviet satellite nobody in the West cares about. They could have brought out their capital-D Deterrent and turned Gaza into a hotter, flatter, radioactive wasteland, without a single Israeli military casualty. Nobody disputes the ratio or the IDF’s capabilities, or its political limits.
The IDF has clearly won at the physical level and lost at the moral level. Hamas has won at its own level simply by remaining a political actor; a stronger one in comparison to its real competitors—Islamic Jihad and Fatah, not Israel. The strategic consequences for Israel and any peace settlement are all that’s left to argue about.
Paraphrasing Captain Jack Sparrow: Terrorists! Duh!
MarkL re:
An illogical asertion: if the MSM never reported it how could the ‘peace movement’ knew about it to protest? Secondly, independent proof of this alleged ethic cleansing?
Yeah, right. The Syrians worked so hard for Israel that Hezbollah has never before been better re-supplied through the Syrian land borders, and is consequently armed as never before.
Rob re:
If your criteria is body count, then the USA must have won the Vietnam war. You really think those “operatives” won’t be replaced, and soon? Roughly 3:1 military personnel killed in favour of Israel in the 2006 war and Hezbollah lost? It’s the political victory, not the body count that matters. Like the Brit Royal Air Force [outnumbered roughly 3:1] in WW2, simply surviving was the 1941 victory for the clearly weaker force.
Hyperbolic drivel. Ten Israelis killed and three of those by friendly fire. Compare with General Paulus’ army at Stalingrad–900,000 men; 60,000 or so into captivity at the end of it.
(Correction: 1940 Battle of Britain, not 1941.)
And don’t take my word for it or that of my learned friend Mr. Kemp, take William Lind’s. (Are you there Leniad? The mention of Bill Lind ought to drag you out from hiding).
Israel may have learned the wrong lesson from their 2006 Lebanon adventure.
Their official rhetoric is that since 2006 Hezbollah hasn’t fired any rockets into Israel. Therefore the fearful pounding the IDF meted out to Lebanese population centres was a successful deterrent.
Fast forward to 2009. Israel meted out a fearful pounding on Gaza. Now the IDF prepares to withdraw. Does Israel believe that, like Hezbollah, Hamas will remain quiet?
If that is the thinking, then Israel may have made the mistake of assuming that Hezbollah and Hamas have similar ambitions. This is not the case. Hezbollah was happy enough to return to the centre of political life in Lebanon. They are not fixated on Israel
Hamas, on the other hand, owes its existence to the struggle against Israel. They must continue to resist Israel, or cease to exist.
Israel may eventually be forced to attempt to garrison Gaza, with all its attendant dangers.
Ok, it’s probably time for a new thread.
Update: Discussion can be continued here:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/01/19/eyeless-in-gaza-vii/