[N_Fiddledog]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

If the 10 children were marking the end of ramadan and bombing a hospital then they were in dire need of parental guidance. But what am I saying? In Gaza it was probably their parents who put them up to it!

In any case I'm curious why this part of the article wasn't deemed worth quoting...

"The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) claimed “Gaza terrorists” fired two rockets aiming at Israel; the rockets mistakenly hit the Gazan facilities.

The IDF said that “Palestinian terrorists” fire from civilian areas in Gaza “hit[ing] their own people”, adding over 200 rockets fired from Gaza have hit the besieged strip itself since the start of the Israeli operation “Protective Edge” on 8 July."

[Zipperfish]

Well, as a western progressive, I must plead guilty on the "great open-minded exasperation at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, bemoaning that “fault exists on both sides.” You nailed it there, JJ.

Although I would hasten to add that the exasperation isn't due to some moral equivalency, but to the fact that tjhis "news" story hasn't changed in my whole life. And I'm not that young anymore! That's the exasperating part.

I like to think of myself as being a bit on the realist side of the progressives, so I've drawn the somewhat pessimistic conclusion that perhaps this low-level, chronic conflict is the the most stable state of affairs for all involved. Certainly an argument can be made that those in power on both sides benefit to an extent. Hamas is granted the moral sanction to continue their villainous ways. Their people suffer, but the leaders seem to be doing quite well, thank you very much. Israel can continue to settle occupied territory and dodge those awkward right of return for refugees questions.

Certainly the undivided attention of kings and presidents over the course of decades has failed to move this thing one way or the other.

The UN Human Rights Council. Gimme a break.

[desertdude]

What an utter load of horse shit, same old bullshit dressed in a different way, I would respond but I think this does a better job of it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mehdi-h ... 1406545029

[desertdude]

DanSC DanSC:

North Korea has killed far more than 10 kids.

So has Israel

DanSC DanSC:

Israel wishes it could run Gaza like a North Korean prison camp.

It tries its best to though, with the 7 year siege and shit like this.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 32826.html

[BartSimpson]

desertdude desertdude:

DanSC DanSC:

North Korea has killed far more than 10 kids.

So has Israel

DanSC DanSC:

Israel wishes it could run Gaza like a North Korean prison camp.

It tries its best to though, with the 7 year siege and shit like this.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 32826.html

That's not a 'holding pen'. It's a walkway. We've got walkways just like that at every pedestrian overpass in California. Big deal.

[Gunnair]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

DanSC DanSC:

Hamas buying arms from North Korea seems like poor PR

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/07/27 ... le-stocks/

The caption reads:

$1:

This undated picture released from North Korea's official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) on July 7, 2014 shows North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un (C) being celebrated by soldiers as he inspects the defence detachment on Ung Islet, defending an outpost in the East Sea of Korea.

"being celebrated"? Really, 'cause a couple of those guys look terrified.

Looks like they're all about to be shot!

[Goober911]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

desertdude desertdude:

Worse is killing 10 children celebrating Eid marking the end of ramadan and bombing a hospital

If the 10 children were marking the end of ramadan and bombing a hospital then they were in dire need of parental guidance. But what am I saying? In Gaza it was probably their parents who put them up to it!

Fucking sad.

[Khar]

$1:

Yet the mere existence of Israeli sin should not blind anyone to the greater evils of its enemies.

This is the sort of blunt moral judgment that’s been traditionally uncouth among fashionable western progressives, who, often feel the need to affect great open-minded exasperation at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, bemoaning that “fault exists on both sides.” Such is the default position of those ideologically inclined to regard assertive side-taking as a symptom of an unsophisticated mind, with “blind” support of Israel in particular a worrying proxy for something worse — Millennialist Christianity, perhaps.

$1:

To conclude this isn’t to posit that Israel, and the current Israeli government in particular, is without failing in other contexts, nor to even make a value judgment about the broader merits of Zionism, if you’re still a skeptic. It’s simply to note that what we have right now is a secular, liberal democracy fighting the aggressions of a lunatic death cult actively loathed by the long-suffering captives it purports to rule. With tendentious conduct resulting.

What is funny is that you've generally done the most common form of "feel[ing] the need to affect great open-minded exasperation at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" which is the fact that regardless of the status of the current conflict Israel has taken actions which have more or less insured that a continued state of armed aggression, anger, resentment and international outrage is going to be common place in the area. I know a great many people who frown when Israel is praised but will readily state that the current conflict is the fault of Hamas.

There are no doubt a lot of people playing the line here, but the typical progressive or liberal isn't wholly represented by those who are so activist as to march on the street or declare Hamas a complete victim. I have no shortage of liberal friends who have readily stated that Israel is being forced to fight a war between that is between a moral hard place and a Hamas rock. Nor has it been only liberals who sprinkle their opinion on Hamas with appropriate criticisms of Israel, nor is it especially wrong to have a nuanced opinion.

I think your underlying point is correct, though, and the rest of my post is in support of that from my own viewpoint. Even on this forum the debate has less been about the current conflict but rather about what happened in 1948, 1967, 2003, or whatever time have you. The continued use of conflicts in the past as reasons for future conflict ensures a never ending war, as endless peoples have been slighted at this point, with many originators of this conflict long dead and cold in the ground. People should take greater actions to ignore the morass of cries of past indignity, because getting lost in the past isn't going to improve anything going forward. Especially since I can justify just about anything if the past is reason enough for me to do something now.

I'm not saying the past is irrelevant, but context is lost when conflicts are not separated out. History should inform but not drive endless conflict.

The current conflict was precipitated by the continued firing of rockets at Israel, which Israel duly used as a proper casus belli in response after days of restraining itself from an attack, and after diplomatic efforts were ignored. I must point out, desertdude, that your source is incorrect here; there was an Israeli strike that killed seven Hamas militants, yes, but the rockets were already being launched, and the rate of firing had been increasing ever since the problems with the three Israeli kids. As pointed out in the numerous points in JJ's article there were other acts of aggressive that also provided aggravated reasoning to go to war, such as the tunnels. Jus ad bellum, or right to war, comes from the right of a state to defend itself and it's citizens. Israel was attacked and defended itself. The best that Hamas has is the immolation of the teenager, and while a horrible act, blood feuds don't stand as a reason for armed conflict as much as wonton, unaimed violence at a populace does.

Where comes the problem is that Israel has been backed into a corner with jus in bello, or justice in war. Distinction between militants and normal citizens is difficult, if not impossible at times. Proportionality is the other key point, in that civilian casualties are only acceptable insofar as the military value of the target aimed for it worth it. Or, more frankly, your military has to be worth the associated civilian harms.

Israel has to deal with an enemy who is fighting from a predominantly urban environment, who uses and has been widely reported to have been using schools, hospitals, mosques and heavily populated districts as points of attack, and who have to deal with people recalcitrant in movement from combat areas. Regardless of the degree of Hamas complicity in these actions, reality is that they are firing from heavily populated urban areas, in the image of civilians, with the knowledge that any reprisal will come with civilian harm due to those factors. Hamas is far from blameless and does perform actions, hence, that at the very least put civilians in the line of fire while firing indiscriminately into Israel. Either Israelis have to engage in acts which are not strictly proportional, or continue to be attacked without recourse. Israel has chosen the action that is better, in my view.

Proportionality, first of all, has nothing to do with body counts. The point of proportionality, as mentioned, is in relation to the removal of military targets to achieve aims. Yes, over a thousand Palestinians have died, but the point of war in response to attack is not to kill one for each citizen you lose, it's to ensure the safety of your citizens. Israel is not responding by carpet bombing indiscriminately but attacking specifically sites where rockets have been launched from. They are attempted to do the best they can to limit casualties, and save for Libya has been more successful than most other bombing campaigns out there (and Libya was mostly fought in more sparse regions). Frankly, I don't think Israel could carry out this war much better without attacking at all, and that only leaves the following results.

One is just accepting continued and endless rocket fire from Gaza. No, they don't do a lot of damage, but they are aimed to do harm and can be easily expanded into something far more dangerous. Hamas has a poor record in actually doing much more than attacking Israel with the resources it has and there is no reason for the Israelis to expect for these attacks to end. No state should have to deal with continued rocket fire, and unfortunately this is the only way to defend Israeli citizens in a direct manner.

The second is appeasement. Now, I think there are enough historical examples to show that appeasement doesn't help much. Giving into demands allows belligerents to know there is a line that can be crossed and if they run there fast enough they can get what they want. It stands as a form of incentive to get what you want. Israel cannot provide such incentives; if suddenly there was something which could put Israel down, it would be used consistently to achieve aims of an aggressive group, and Israel doesn't want that. The resolution this thread is about came directly as an attempt to pressure Israel into giving in to Hamas' demands. Israel has no reason to do so; there won't be significant western pressure on Israel, I bet, other than pointing out how unfortunate it is that people had to die, and the USA/Canada will stand behind them anyways. Appeasement is not an option.

Hence Israel's rock and hard place. They are inherently forced to fight a conflict, with no method of fighting it morally. Which leads to a dilemma. If a terrorist outfit, or another group, is capable of using citizenry as their shields, should we allow that to be a method of warfare? What is this was North Korea using it's civilians as shields against Western troops? Or something similar? What is being fought here is essentially a war for future morality. Hamas is attempting to bind the hands of the moral into inaction. If this conflict is not fought than terrorists or other belligerents can twist morality as a defense, and the moral are essentially powerless in the face of aggression or attack. I don't want to watch an ISIS-like entity using that power against us, or other countries. Terrorists cannot use morality to achieve victory over those who fight morally.

This does mean that Israel has to fire back on rocket launch sites. It does mean that, yes, some people will die, and yes, some hospitals, homes, schools, and places of worship will be destroyed. Because if that doesn't happen, all the rockets will be behind those little moral shields where they can reap death and aggression. Morality cannot be used to stop just war, and cannot be used as a reason to disarm. At the end of the day, Israel is placing safety and life of their citizens ahead of the moral entanglement Hamas is trying to draw them into. Frankly, from the way the Western media is reporting on the conflict, I think Hamas is losing this one. Even in Canada, all the major parties are more anti-Hamas than they used to be. The loss of life is worth it so this tactic does not become common place.

Still, people don't have a lot of faith in Israel anymore, and not without reason. In war, Israel has left itself little in the way of an exit strategy, and even different members of government are unclear exactly what a successful termination of this conflict will be. In peace, Israel expands via settlements, has discrimination, balkanization and issues of unilateral and sometimes arbitrary attacks. Few international stakeholders have significant faith in the Israeli's leading a peace settlement. Unfortunately, this is something that can only be dealt with in peace, and the Gaza conflict will only provide the capacity for Israel to continue to ignore international demands for an accord. Incentivizing Israel to act in good faith in peace time is what is important here. Attacking Israel will not improve the situation in Gaza, nor will it get belligerent nations more at the negotiating table.

The pleas to the international community, nor the peace demanded of Israel, should not have come on the tails of rockets, nor did they have to.

My opinion anyways.

[andyt]

If you wanted to play the who started it game, DD's link tells us that

$1:

6) This current Gaza conflict began with Hamas rocket fire on 30 June 2014

Times of Israel: "Hamas operatives were behind a large volley of rockets which slammed into Israel Monday morning, the first time in years the Islamist group has directly challenged the Jewish state, according to Israeli defense officials.. The security sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, assessed that Hamas had probably launched the barrage in revenge for an Israeli airstrike several hours earlier which killed one person and injured three more.. Hamas hasn't fired rockets into Israel since Operation Pillar of Defense ended in November 2012." The Nation: "During ten days of Operation Brother's Keeper in the West Bank [before the start of the Gaza conflict], Israel arrested approximately 800 Palestinians without charge or trial, killed nine civilians and raided nearly 1,300 residential, commercial and public buildings. Its military operation targeted Hamas members released during the Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange in 2011."

That's a real mug's game, because you can always go back a step further and find some act by Hamas why Israel just had to launch those airstrikes, in turn Hamas just had to perpetrate the act that caused Israel to launch the airstrikes because of something Israel did and so on.

Israel needs to close the settlements, to show that it is actually interested in peace. You can't go to your neighbor saying "I come in peace" while you continue to occupy more and more of his house by force of arms.

If Israel does that, and the the Palestinians still won't make peace, then Israel would be have the casus belli to go and kick their butts and occupy their territory with soldiers until there is peace. Until Israel stops the bullshit of claiming to want peace while making gradual war (settlements), tho, it doesn't have a leg to stand on.

[Khar]

andyt andyt:

If you wanted to play the who started it game, DD's link tells us that

$1:

6) This current Gaza conflict began with Hamas rocket fire on 30 June 2014

Times of Israel: "Hamas operatives were behind a large volley of rockets which slammed into Israel Monday morning, the first time in years the Islamist group has directly challenged the Jewish state, according to Israeli defense officials.. The security sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, assessed that Hamas had probably launched the barrage in revenge for an Israeli airstrike several hours earlier which killed one person and injured three more.. Hamas hasn't fired rockets into Israel since Operation Pillar of Defense ended in November 2012." The Nation: "During ten days of Operation Brother's Keeper in the West Bank [before the start of the Gaza conflict], Israel arrested approximately 800 Palestinians without charge or trial, killed nine civilians and raided nearly 1,300 residential, commercial and public buildings. Its military operation targeted Hamas members released during the Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange in 2011."

That's a real mug's game, because you can always go back a step further and find some act by Hamas why Israel just had to launch those airstrikes, in turn Hamas just had to penetrate that act because of something Israel did and so on.

Israel needs to close the settlements, to show that it is actually interested in peace. You can't go to your neighbor saying "I come in peace" while you continue to occupy more and more of his house by force of arms.

If Israel does that, and the the Palestinians still won't make peace, then Israel would be have the casus belli to go and kick their butts and occupy their territory with soldiers until there is peace. Until Israel stops the bullshit of claiming to want peace while making gradual war (settlements), tho, it doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Already responded to and handled:

$1:

The current conflict was precipitated by the continued firing of rockets at Israel, which Israel duly used as a proper casus belli in response after days of restraining itself from an attack, and after diplomatic efforts were ignored. I must point out, desertdude, that your source is incorrect here; there was an Israeli strike that killed seven Hamas militants, yes, but the rockets were already being launched, and the rate of firing had been increasing ever since the problems with the three Israeli kids. As pointed out in the numerous points in JJ's article there were other acts of aggressive that also provided aggravated reasoning to go to war, such as the tunnels. Jus ad bellum, or right to war, comes from the right of a state to defend itself and it's citizens. Israel was attacked and defended itself. The best that Hamas has is the immolation of the teenager, and while a horrible act, blood feuds don't stand as a reason for armed conflict as much as wonton, unaimed violence at a populace does.

The majority of modern media coverage recognizes the Israeli military response (Operation Protective Edge) was launched July 8th following several successive days of rocket attacks. The author you sourced and the actual operation are two different conflicts. The one discussed in that article is Operation Brother's Keeper, which was an action due to the kidnapping and successive issues following.

Hence, the conflict being discussed by the media at large is the military action taken in response to the increased fire from Hamas, an action taken without jus ad bellum, a concept I had just explained. The distinction is obvious and simple; a calculated airstrike which takes out seven militants engaged in attacking your own state is not the same as a hundred rockets fired at Israelis, inclusive of civilians, in general.

I think by responding in the way you did, you accidentally fall trapped to the issue I mentioned; in the end you deflect to the last issue and claim it is the real cause that needs addressing. For all you bemoan doing that as an issue (mug's game as you called it), you immediately use it to bring in time honoured criticisms outside the realm of this specific conflict. Like what Israel should do in peace time. Yes, I agree. But what does it have to do with the current situation, specifically with the condemnation Israel has received and what it is doing during wartime? How long before someone brings up 1967? 1948? The holocaust?

I say, fuck that game entirely. Like I said, I don't want to play the game, and engaging in the mug's game ensures no solution is ever found because some harm always come first. The distinction for this conflict is, in my mind, that Hamas launched rockets with no military targets in mind. Civilians were threatened which gave Israel the right to respond. Hamas, on the other side, lost seven militants (not civilians) engaged in anti-Israeli activities, the loss of which, during supposed peace, does not constitute a reason to attack. There is a difference between a blood feud and an all out attack against the citizenry of a nation. Which one of these people did it first in the current conflict? Hamas or Israel? Further, I'm being charitable in including those seven militants; consistent rocket attacks prior to those seven people could be included following the end of the last operation, which persisted past the events of June 30th and into early July. Israel had already ended that operation several days prior to the start of the next.

Regardless of who started it, Israel does have legitimate reasons for engaging in the war. Notice I said "responded," not that Israel did not precipitate possible actions before hand. However, escalation into war is the result of actions that can lead to war; that isn't to say they are the cause of the war themselves. We could all go back to the dozens of little problems that lead up to World Wars or other conflicts and blame them, but the action that causes the war is the flashpoint. This particular conflict is the result of self defense of the citizens of Israel, not the right to defend militants engaged in anti-Israel activities. Hence, "casus belli." Not "the many myriad minute escalations that lead to the casus belli." I don't even have to be right about who or when the conflict began to still be correct about why Israel is at war as the legitimate actor. No one should say the casus belli was a kidnapped Palestinian or three Israeli kids; they are not worthy of war, as sad as it is to say. Wholescale assaults against the safety of a population are.

If you want to criticize Israel for actions taken during another operation, do so. Entirely within your right. Personally, I agree with you on Israeli peace time actions not coming up to snuff. We just shouldn't expect it to be a casus belli for all future conflicts. It muddies discussion and allows the exact kind of "if I go back far enough I can justify anything" kind of thinking that destroys any kind of legitimate discussion of peace.

As for your other bit, I agree. Israel has to stop it's shit. Unfortunately armed conflict isn't going to get us anywhere closer to it, and at the very best, Hamas is playing into an Israeli game with these rocket attacks. More likely, and what I suspect, is that Hamas is attacking for it's own gains, and actively harming the peace effort.

EDIT: Sorry, accidental early submit.

[andyt]

Makes no sense to try to pick out particular conflicts in isolation. That way lies madness, actions that seem perfectly reasonable without context.

Neither side wants peace. The Palestinians would rather wage futile war and play into Israeli hands, give them an excuse to not sue for peace themselves. Trying to pick this mess apart into one side being less culpable is a mug's game.

[desertdude]

With all due respect Khar, that is just bullshit. This whole Gaza mess started when Hamas was elected fairly in Gaza and Israel went all ape shit, lay siege to Gaza by land sea and air. You're free to vote for anyone as long as we approve. So much for democracy in the Arab world, eh ? It doesn't work that way the example of the IRA is in front of you, until Britain sat down and talked to the IRA they did not achieve peace. Israel has tried everything including bombing the shit out of Gaza except talk.

During the Suez Canal crisis, Israel declared the restriction of Israeli shipping through the canal as an act of war and went to war over it, this is exactly what its doing with Gaza now.

A 10 year peace plan lays on the table, which asks for lifting of the blockade. A permanent peace plan, the Arab peace plan signed by every one except Israel which includes the recognition by all Arab states and an end to their Israeli boycott lays rotting in some desk drawer. Israel continues to sabotage any peace negotiations with the Palestinians.

Like I said in the other thread, if you're going to turn it into the world biggest open air prison then don't be shocked if the "inmates" are going to riot every chance they get.

Withdraw your settlements, remove your military from Palestinian land, define your borders, lift the illegal siege, recognize the Palestinian state, remove your apartheid wall and then if still the Palestinians don't stop this shit, do what ever you please. But don't just make up pie in the sky with your what ifs and buts and justify your land grabs and massacres.

[andyt]

The only problem is "define your borders" DD. While I think they should probably do so, it would sure give the Palestinians an excuse to continue attacking because they are not happy with the borders. Especially Jerusalem, don't see how ever to untie that Gordian knot. Maybe there could be some sort of neutral border commission, that defines the borders, and the world community takes both sides by the scruff of the neck and says this is the deal, now shut up.

"Some say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one..."

[Trenacker]

Most observers who believe that creation of a Jewish state in Palestine resulted in the unfair dispossession of Palestinians tend to accept the proposition that Palestinians have the right to use violence in pursuit of a homeland. While these observers may not believe that HAMAS is an ideal or effective steward of Palestinian interests, they tend to take a dark view of Israeli security operations since, in their opinion, the most-legitimate option for Tel Aviv would be either to (A) eliminate settlements and retire to the Green Line, or (B) declare an end to the Jewish state and seek instead a unitary Israel. According to this point-of-view, the use of violence, including suicide bombing and attacks on Israeli population centers, are legitimate forms of resistance against colonial occupation by a people in duress. By that same logic, HAMAS can almost never be "at fault" for starting another round of hostilities because it is, in fact, a representative of the aggrieved party. Israel's steady march rightward and taste for settlement-building are merely a vindication that it is a settler state in the mold of apartheid-era South Africa and Rhodesia.

Most observers who favor Israel regard the Palestinians as an unfortunate minority that lost rightful claim to their land during a war fought for utterly cynical reasons by faithless neighbors who have proven to be equally as guilty of neglect of the Palestinian plight as Israel itself. Israel's post-1948 conquest of territory is either valid on the face of it, or because it was fighting wars of self-defense. Britain, not Israel, was the original transgressor, but it is hardly productive to rehash such an old and difficult problem. We must accede to reality, and the reality is that Israel, like every other nation-state in the world today, has an ugly past in which some people were winners, and others losers. This perspective takes each skirmish and subsequent escalation on its own merits: here, HAMAS is to blame because immediate hostilities can be traced back to the murder of three Israeli teenagers. Israel's increasingly right-wing political tilt and settlement-building are rarely considered, let alone mentioned, and is, at best, regrettable. The Palestinians are merely reaping what they sowed in previous elections: punishment for backing an odious terror group.

At this point, Israel's demographic situation augurs badly for stability, let alone peace. The Israeli electorate is increasingly conservative, increasingly unsympathetic, and increasingly supportive of settlement-building that will only provoke additional rounds of violence. Since the United States shows no sign of applying meaningful pressure anytime soon, I don't see any basis for optimism. The Palestinians are increasingly successful at garnering international sympathy and may just eject HAMAS in the aftermath of the latest round of shooting, but it is difficult to imagine that such an outcome will either decisively end the cyclical bouts of conflict or give way to a competent caretaker government. There's simply no basis for civil society outside the armed struggle in a society like that.

[desertdude]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

desertdude desertdude:

Worse is killing 10 children celebrating Eid marking the end of ramadan and bombing a hospital

If the 10 children were marking the end of ramadan and bombing a hospital then they were in dire need of parental guidance. But what am I saying? In Gaza it was probably their parents who put them up to it!

You've outdone your self this time, pat your self on the back. All sorts of wonderful words come to mind to describe you right now but I shall refrain.