Israel declares unilateral cease-fire

[CJvR]

They may look like Monty Python's Black Knight, but they're not defeated.

Unfortunately the civilians they are hiding behind are looking even worse. Still if the IDF back off for a few days and Hamas doesn't the rabid behavior of Hamas will give the IDF a good excuse to hammer them hard again with a few days of damage assessment and recon to find new targets. Compared to the Hizb war the Gaza operation have been a remarkable success for the IDF, no fatalities for over a week and most of the earlier casualties resulting from friendly fire rather than from Hamas fire. They seems to have learned some lessons from Lebanon.

[CJvR]

Despite being rabid Hamas still have some brains...

Hamas 'announces Gaza ceasefire'

The Palestinian militant group Hamas has announced an immediate ceasefire with Israel, according to media reports from Syria and Gaza.
The group said it would hold fire so long as Israel withdrew all its forces from Gaza Strip within one week.
It comes hours after a unilateral Israeli ceasefire came into effect.
The cessation of hostilities however has been put under strain by fresh rocket fire into Israel and an Israeli air strike on militants in Gaza.
Hamas official Ayman Taha told Reuters news agency in Gaza that the ceasefire also applied to other militant groups.
"Hamas and the factions announce a ceasefire in Gaza starting immediately and give Israel a week to withdraw," he was quoted as saying.
The Israeli ceasefire came into effect at 0200 (2400 GMT).
Hours later, at least seven rockets were fired into Israel, Israeli sources said, triggering an Israeli air strike in response.
Israel says its troops will stay in Gaza for as long as necessary.
At least 1,300 Palestinians, according to Palestinian sources, and 13 Israelis have been killed since Israel launched its offensive on 27 December.

[Shroom Man 777]

Good. Goddamn it, both sides better have learned something from this waste of bullshit.

[ray245]

Good. Goddamn it, both sides better have learned something from this waste of bullshit.

Spend less on military forces, and focus more on developing their economy would be a good start. Although it is interesting to note that the Hamas is still the ruling party in Gaza. Seems like the Israeli are not going to occupy the region, nor are they going to topple the Hamas.

I really pray that real actions can be under-taken.

[Ghost Rider]

Good. Goddamn it, both sides better have learned something from this waste of bullshit.

Spend less on military forces, and focus more on developing their economy would be a good start. Although it is interesting to note that the Hamas is still the ruling party in Gaza. Seems like the Israeli are not going to occupy the region, nor are they going to topple the Hamas.

I really pray that real actions can be under-taken.

Ray, I am telling you this as a moderator because really this is getting to absurd levels.

Read the last couple pages.

More then a few have hammered this and honestly assembling a wall of ignorance this high, in as many subjects as you do is getting just a bit past annoying.

[Master of Ossus]

Spend less on military forces, and focus more on developing their economy would be a good start. Although it is interesting to note that the Hamas is still the ruling party in Gaza.

Fuck you, Ray. You dance around and give some pansy-assed excuse for a concession in the Gaza Thread, and then you come in here and spout the same bullshit. Obviously you didn't bother to read through all of the posts that people took time to write for your benefit.

Seems like the Israeli are not going to occupy the region, nor are they going to topple the Hamas.

Hamas may be massively weakened by this. They promised Gaza that this would be a repeat of Lebanon, and delivered nothing. Israel waltzed in, took what they wanted, and left, while Hamas scrambled for cover. Depending on how Gaza perceives of what happened, this could be a crushing PR defeat for them that could cost them a subsequent election.

[ray245]

Good. Goddamn it, both sides better have learned something from this waste of bullshit.

Spend less on military forces, and focus more on developing their economy would be a good start. Although it is interesting to note that the Hamas is still the ruling party in Gaza. Seems like the Israeli are not going to occupy the region, nor are they going to topple the Hamas.

I really pray that real actions can be under-taken.

Ray, I am telling you this as a moderator because really this is getting to absurd levels.

Read the last couple pages.

More then a few have hammered this and honestly assembling a wall of ignorance this high, in as many subjects as you do is getting just a bit past annoying.

Err, Ghost, I am conceding to their argument in the sense that the region as a whole should direct their efforts to something other than investing in bombs and etc(and almost every alternative effort from growing of farms to rebuilding of schools and hospitals is a productive economic activity which is what other people had argued right? ) , especially on the Palestinan side. That instead of spending half their time getting rockets, rebuilding of everything lost can be productive.

Perhaps I did not make a clear post, if that's the case, sorry about that.

Hamas may be massively weakened by this. They promised Gaza that this would be a repeat of Lebanon, and delivered nothing. Israel waltzed in, took what they wanted, and left, while Hamas scrambled for cover. Depending on how Gaza perceives of what happened, this could be a crushing PR defeat for them that could cost them a subsequent election.

Is there any alternative parties that has a chance of gaining power besides the Fatahs due to the recent Gaza attacks?

[Shroom Man 777]

Ray, they don't have an economy to speak of. They can't fix any of their stuff because they have nothing. In fact, I would not be surprised if those (cheap as hell) rockets they have are actualy charitable donations from other people.

The Israelis, for all their military budget, do have well-developed all-round infrastructure.

The Palestinians can't rebuild any infrastructure, if they had any in the first place, due to the particularly shitty situation they're in. They're no different from Springfield in the Simpsons Movie, when they got dome'd. Except unlike the Springfielders, the Palestinians have rocket launchers and exploding people.

To just say "stop buying rockets, start building hostipals and condominiums" to them would betray a profound ignorance of their situation. It's not as simple as that.

[Beowulf]

Ray, they don't have an economy to speak of. They can't fix any of their stuff because they have nothing. In fact, I would not be surprised if those (cheap as hell) rockets they have are actualy charitable donations from other people.

The Israelis, for all their military budget, do have well-developed all-round infrastructure.

The Palestinians can't rebuild any infrastructure, if they had any in the first place, due to the particularly shitty situation they're in. They're no different from Springfield in the Simpsons Movie, when they got dome'd. Except unlike the Springfielders, the Palestinians have rocket launchers and exploding people.

To just say "stop buying rockets, start building hostipals and condominiums" to them would betray a profound ignorance of their situation. It's not as simple as that.

Oh, they've been given infrastructure. It's just that it either gets bombed by the Israelis for supporting the Hamas terror effort, or has been dismantled to support the Hamas terror effort. Random example: there are not street signs in Gaza. They've all been taken down to use the poles as bodies for rockets.

[ray245]

Ray, they don't have an economy to speak of. They can't fix any of their stuff because they have nothing. In fact, I would not be surprised if those (cheap as hell) rockets they have are actualy charitable donations from other people.

The Israelis, for all their military budget, do have well-developed all-round infrastructure.

The Palestinians can't rebuild any infrastructure, if they had any in the first place, due to the particularly shitty situation they're in. They're no different from Springfield in the Simpsons Movie, when they got dome'd. Except unlike the Springfielders, the Palestinians have rocket launchers and exploding people.

To just say "stop buying rockets, start building hostipals and condominiums" to them would betray a profound ignorance of their situation. It's not as simple as that.

Ok, I admit, I am extremely confused by people coming from both sides of the argument now.

My idea that pouring money into Gaza, like what the Marshall plan did was basically debunked by one side, and said that a simple peace agreement can do wonders for the Gaza situtation through tourism alone. They also mentioned that the people in Gaza are given those tools that was misused to begin with, and those tools can be misused as long as the Hamas are around.

Then now people are saying that the Palestinians can't rebuild any infrastructure...which was pointed by another side saying they can through UN help and etc.

[bobalot]

Ray, they don't have an economy to speak of. They can't fix any of their stuff because they have nothing. In fact, I would not be surprised if those (cheap as hell) rockets they have are actualy charitable donations from other people.

The Israelis, for all their military budget, do have well-developed all-round infrastructure.

The Palestinians can't rebuild any infrastructure, if they had any in the first place, due to the particularly shitty situation they're in. They're no different from Springfield in the Simpsons Movie, when they got dome'd. Except unlike the Springfielders, the Palestinians have rocket launchers and exploding people.

To just say "stop buying rockets, start building hostipals and condominiums" to them would betray a profound ignorance of their situation. It's not as simple as that.

Ok, I admit, I am extremely confused by people coming from both sides of the argument now.

My idea that pouring money into Gaza, like what the Marshall plan did was basically debunked by one side, and said that a simple peace agreement can do wonders for the Gaza situtation through tourism alone. They also mentioned that the people in Gaza are given those tools that was misused to begin with, and those tools can be misused as long as the Hamas are around.

Then now people are saying that the Palestinians can't rebuild any infrastructure...which was pointed by another side saying they can through UN help and etc.

They can't rebuild anything because during and after the ceasefire Israel has had a blockade of Gaza which has totally destroyed Gazas economy and has the civilian population on the verge of starvation. Gaza is a ghetto for all intents and purposes.

[TheKwas]

Also, it certainly does matter if Hamas is the one firing the rockets or not. If the FLQ decides one day that they want Maine to join an independent Quebec for whatever crazy reason, and decides to fire rockets into maine despite government efforts to stop them, The American government still has no right, either moral or legal, to declare war on the Canadian government.

Sure they do. The only thing which makes it 'legal' for another country to invade another is having the force of arms todo so.

The morality is another issue entirely.

Not under international law.

What do you base this on? How many times with no provocation has Israel broken a ceasefire?

I don't know the specifics, but the general claim is that Israel simply doesn't live up to it's end of the bargain. For example it's claimed that during this last ceasefire, Israel was supposed to open Gaza's borders and allow free movement of food and aid. They did, but not to the degree that was the agreement. Hamas grew tired of waiting and attacked, which makes them look like the ones who 'broke' the ceasefire. Or Palestinian advocates argue that During the Oslo peace treaty, Israel was supposed to stop all new settlements, but simply continued to expand. Palestinians respond violently and they look like the aggressors in the conflict.

I'm not knowledgable enough on all the specific conditions in the numerous peace agreements to say whether this narrative is totally correct, but it's quite a common claim.

They would if we did nothing to stop the FLQ from firing rockets into Maine.

Perhaps, but that's making the assumtion that Hamas really did do nothing to stop others from firing rockets. There are numerous reports of Hamas attempting to police the other groups and stopping them (without causing outright war between the factions). Of course, since Hamas is little more than an impoverished miltia, I don't think anyone can be surprised that they don't have 100% control over their territory.

[ray245]

They can't rebuild anything because during and after the ceasefire Israel has had a blockade of Gaza which has totally destroyed Gazas economy and has the civilian population on the verge of starvation. Gaza is a ghetto for all intents and purposes.

Wait, then why did Fingor_Noldor mentioned this?

Then fucking rebuild whatever was bombed. Or do you suggest that Hamas should be allowed to use human shields is even a better solution? Would you like to process that bit of information in your head before you go spouting idealism?

The problem is, after you take down the Hamas, who is going to rebuild it? The Israeli? The UN? The Fatah? Can the UN and Fatah even reassert control over the region?

How about "Palestinians?"

I think I have gotten way to confused by their post. The vibe I have gotten from their post seems to say it is not that hard to re-build things. Seems like I have gotten the wrong meaning coming from them.

[Ryan Thunder]

They would if we did nothing to stop the FLQ from firing rockets into Maine.

Perhaps, but that's making the assumtion that Hamas really did do nothing to stop others from firing rockets.

Good point.

There are numerous reports of Hamas attempting to police the other groups and stopping them (without causing outright war between the factions).

Interesting. Even if its true, though, that does still leave the issue of their constitution.

[Ender]

Also, it certainly does matter if Hamas is the one firing the rockets or not. If the FLQ decides one day that they want Maine to join an independent Quebec for whatever crazy reason, and decides to fire rockets into maine despite government efforts to stop them, The American government still has no right, either moral or legal, to declare war on the Canadian government.

Yes, they absolutely do, on both grounds. Morally, the American government is beholden to protect its citizens. It is failing to do so by allowing a foreign entity to attack them and must react to protect its people. A government that does not act to protect its people is an illegitimate one, as such actions would fundamentally go against the reason for government. The people cede individual rights and in return gain the protection of other rights by the government. That is the whole point of the endeavor. While the US government should act towards the Canadians in a moral fashion and consider that in their reprisal for the attack, they are not obligated to do so. They are obligated to eliminate the threat to American citizens, both morally and legally.

As for legally speaking, there has been no resolution covering this. "Hot Pursuit" is an internationally recognized principle and part of both the Law of the Sea and Convention on the High Seas. It is right which may be expressed in any domain, not simply maritime law. The issue of where it pertains to sovereignty of a state is a gray area right now. UN Security Council Resolution 1373 defines the responsibility of the state to include active pursuit of internationally hostile factions.

By other terms, the Council decided that all States should prevent those who finance, plan, facilitate or commit terrorist acts from using their respective territories for those purposes against other countries and their citizens. States should also ensure that anyone who has participated in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetration of terrorist acts or in supporting terrorist acts is brought to justice. They should also ensure that terrorist acts are established as serious criminal offences in domestic laws and regulations and that the seriousness of such acts is duly reflected in sentences served.

However, the existence of such internationally hostile factions (specifically, pirates) and the inability or unwillingness of the state to suppress their actions is what prompted the recognition of the right of Hot Pursuit in the first place. This has led to the unanswered question that you incorrectly claim to know the definitive ruling on.

Currently, the world is operating under a general sentiment of following historical precedent, where Hot Pursuit can only be undertaken by the attacked sovereign state. In other words, the US Punitive Expedition of 1916 would be acceptable, as US territory was attacked. But the 1960 extraction of Adolf Eichmann by Israeli agents in Argentina was unacceptable as the state of Israel was not attacked by Eichmann, having not existed at the time. (Note that the timeline in that particular event makes it rather debatable as to whether Israel could claim it was attacked by him, but I'm sticking with the sequence of events for simplicity) For more modern events, the US was justified in attacking Afghanistan under a similar argument. However, the US is not the sovereign of Afghanistan, which is why the attacks into Pakistan are illegal and protested. But Somali pirates have been attacking Chinese government vessels, which is why the Chinese Navy has deployed against them with no similar protests.

In your scenario, Canada would be legally responsible for controlling the FLQ. If it failed to do so, the US would, by precedent, be legally justified in invading, as they were the sovereign state attacked. Even if Canada were attempting to stop it and unable to do so, the US would be justified. Though in that situation one would hope that the Canadian government would ask for international aid in suppressing the rogue faction and any operations would be join ones.

[TheKwas]

My understanding of Hot Pursuit is that it can only be taken against the agents that actually committed the acts of terror, not the government that happens to be in control of the land they operate from (assuming that government does not aid said agents). So, if America decides that drug smugglers from Mexico are infact terrorists, they could make a legal case for their ability to attack drug smuggling operations in Mexico if the Mexican government is unable to do so. However, they would have no legal case for invading Mexico City, removing the government, and occupying the country.

Afghanistan is a special case because the Afghan government was actively aiding the terrorist networks and refused to bring them to justice themselves.

[Ender]

My understanding of Hot Pursuit is that it can only be taken against the agents that actually committed the acts of terror, not the government that happens to be in control of the land they operate from (assuming that government does not aid said agents). So, if America decides that drug smugglers from Mexico are infact terrorists, they could make a legal case for their ability to attack drug smuggling operations in Mexico if the Mexican government is unable to do so. However, they would have no legal case for invading Mexico City, removing the government, and occupying the country.

Afghanistan is a special case because the Afghan government was actively aiding the terrorist networks and refused to bring them to justice themselves.

As the UN resolution stipulates, it is the responsibility of the state to curtail such activities. A profound inability or unwillingness to do so makes the government culpable and complicit. Whether the defending state decides to go to the extreme of overthrowing the entire government is up to them, but by precedent it is legally permissible (see Afghanistan).

[Gil Hamilton]

Hamas may be massively weakened by this. They promised Gaza that this would be a repeat of Lebanon, and delivered nothing. Israel waltzed in, took what they wanted, and left, while Hamas scrambled for cover. Depending on how Gaza perceives of what happened, this could be a crushing PR defeat for them that could cost them a subsequent election.

I don't see Hamas giving up power over this in an "election". If they look like they are going to lose an election, they'll do what they did to get themselves elected in the first place. Take the the streets with guns and kill their rivals. People talk about how Palestine "elected" Hamas and thus there is little sympathy, but the more I read about that election, the more it sounds like a coup against Fatah with an election tacked on. Hamas and Fatah are still fighting over it, after all.

[eyl]

I don't know the specifics, but the general claim is that Israel simply doesn't live up to it's end of the bargain. For example it's claimed that during this last ceasefire, Israel was supposed to open Gaza's borders and allow free movement of food and aid. They did, but not to the degree that was the agreement. Hamas grew tired of waiting and attacked, which makes them look like the ones who 'broke' the ceasefire. Or Palestinian advocates argue that During the Oslo peace treaty, Israel was supposed to stop all new settlements, but simply continued to expand. Palestinians respond violently and they look like the aggressors in the conflict.

I'm not knowledgable enough on all the specific conditions in the numerous peace agreements to say whether this narrative is totally correct, but it's quite a common claim.

It's a common claim, but it's a massive oversimplification. The thing is that even before the barrier in the West Bank was built, Israel managed to stop most attacks. The "lulls" you often see Israel accused of ending are often simply periods when there were no successful (i.e., caused serious casualties or deaths) attacks against Israel, but the unsuccessful ones are not reported, so when Israel finally attacks in response it seems we restarted the violence, een though it actually never stopped. You also have the issue of "one Palestinian faction declares cease-fire, second faction attacks Israel, Israel retaliates against second faction, first faction declares cease-fire over".

As far as the settlemetns are concerned, while for the most part I think they should have been frozen following Oslo, that agreement did not, AFAIK, actually stipulate that.

Perhaps, but that's making the assumtion that Hamas really did do nothing to stop others from firing rockets. There are numerous reports of Hamas attempting to police the other groups and stopping them (without causing outright war between the factions). Of course, since Hamas is little more than an impoverished miltia, I don't think anyone can be surprised that they don't have 100% control over their territory.

Given that Hamas managed to completely disarm the Fatah presence in Gaza, I find it difficult to believe they couldn't control the much weaker factions.

I don't see Hamas giving up power over this in an "election". If they look like they are going to lose an election, they'll do what they did to get themselves elected in the first place. Take the the streets with guns and kill their rivals. People talk about how Palestine "elected" Hamas and thus there is little sympathy, but the more I read about that election, the more it sounds like a coup against Fatah with an election tacked on. Hamas and Fatah are still fighting over it, after all.

I believe you're mixing up the timeline. Hamas took power peacefully enough at first, AFAIK; it was only much later that they effectively staged a violent coup (taking control beyond what they were legally entitled to by the election and destroying their opposition in the process).

[bobalot]

Perhaps, but that's making the assumtion that Hamas really did do nothing to stop others from firing rockets. There are numerous reports of Hamas attempting to police the other groups and stopping them (without causing outright war between the factions). Of course, since Hamas is little more than an impoverished miltia, I don't think anyone can be surprised that they don't have 100% control over their territory.

Dude, Even the Israelis say Hamas did not fire one rocket during the ceasefire.

Here is a Israeli spokesman saying so -> Link

[Master of Ossus]

I don't see Hamas giving up power over this in an "election". If they look like they are going to lose an election, they'll do what they did to get themselves elected in the first place. Take the the streets with guns and kill their rivals. People talk about how Palestine "elected" Hamas and thus there is little sympathy, but the more I read about that election, the more it sounds like a coup against Fatah with an election tacked on. Hamas and Fatah are still fighting over it, after all.

You may well be right about Hamas not conceding power following an election, but most or all of the violence you're referring to occurred after Hamas had won the elections. Fatah and Hamas had a bit of a civil war, into which the other little factions jumped, that resulted in Hamas effectively expelling the other groups (or at least the ones it saw as being aligned with Fatah) from Gaza.

[Darth Wong]

In many neighbourhoods, Hamas had been doing public charity work, which boosted their popularity. And they could make the argument (not without justification) that Fatah was absurdly corrupt and was lining its own pockets with aid money meant for the Palestinian people. They were popular at the time they won those elections, and it wasn't entirely because of the "RAR KILL JEWS" attitude that people normally blame.

[Kanastrous]

Good. Goddamn it, both sides better have learned something from this waste of bullshit.

Spend less on military forces, and focus more on developing their economy would be a good start. Although it is interesting to note that the Hamas is still the ruling party in Gaza. Seems like the Israeli are not going to occupy the region, nor are they going to topple the Hamas.

I really pray that real actions can be under-taken.

Ray, I am telling you this as a moderator because really this is getting to absurd levels.

Read the last couple pages.

More then a few have hammered this and honestly assembling a wall of ignorance this high, in as many subjects as you do is getting just a bit past annoying.

Do we have rockets that can fly over the wall of ignorance?

Maybe we should try tunneling under it, and taking Ray by surprise when he least expects it.

Seems likely that within 12-24 hours everyone in Gaza will have conveniently forgotten that it was Israel that declared the cease-fire first. Befoe long it will be all heroic fighters defeated ruthless Zionist war machine etc, etc, etc.

[Ryan Thunder]

In many neighbourhoods, Hamas had been doing public charity work, which boosted their popularity. And they could make the argument (not without justification) that Fatah was absurdly corrupt and was lining its own pockets with aid money meant for the Palestinian people. They were popular at the time they won those elections, and it wasn't entirely because of the "RAR KILL JEWS" attitude that people normally blame.

I'm going to assume they were ignorant of Hamas' "constitution."

Otherwise, they willingly elected known terrorists to lead them. If that's the case, the only sympathy they'll get from me is pity for their monstrous lack of foresight.

Well, that, and some donations to aid organizations.

[Kanastrous]

I think this is where one gets bogged down by perspective.

I mean, really, how many Palestinians regard HAMAS as a terrorist organization?

I'm betting, fewer than the number of Israelis who regard the IDF as one.