Intifada 3? Kidnapped Israeli citizens might be a flashpoint

[Dr. Trainwreck]

In that case, the moral thing would be for Hamas to target the house of every IDF reservist for rocket fire, right?

Is that not what they are doing?

Yeah, more or less. My point is that if we apply Omeganian's logic, then this is the moral thing to do.

[Omeganian]

In that case, the moral thing would be for Hamas to target the house of every IDF reservist for rocket fire, right?

Is that not what they are doing?

Yeah, more or less. My point is that if we apply Omeganian's logic, then this is the moral thing to do.

Since when is Hamas actually targeting something? Not to mention shoots at houses instead of people?

[Dr. Trainwreck]

Since when is Hamas actually targeting something? Not to mention shoots at houses instead of people?

Yes, their rockets are shit and they're lucky if they even fall inside the right country. What of it?

TBH, if they ever got weaponry that's actually worth something, I'd wager they'd go for military targets, but whatever.

[Omeganian]

Since when is Hamas actually targeting something? Not to mention shoots at houses instead of people?

Yes, their rockets are shit and they're lucky if they even fall inside the right country. What of it?

TBH, if they ever got weaponry that's actually worth something, I'd wager they'd go for military targets, but whatever.

Well, infiltrators getting into Israeli territory are certainly a highly precise weapon such as you describe, but evidence of these preferring military targets is... inconclusive.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

Since when is Hamas actually targeting something? Not to mention shoots at houses instead of people?

Yes, their rockets are shit and they're lucky if they even fall inside the right country. What of it?

TBH, if they ever got weaponry that's actually worth something, I'd wager they'd go for military targets, but whatever.

Well, infiltrators getting into Israeli territory are certainly a highly precise weapon such as you describe, but evidence of these preferring military targets is... inconclusive.

Suicide bombers are not missiles.

Like, do you even have a point, or you're just going "Hamas is teh evulz and all we do is justified"?

[Omeganian]

Yes, their rockets are shit and they're lucky if they even fall inside the right country. What of it?

TBH, if they ever got weaponry that's actually worth something, I'd wager they'd go for military targets, but whatever.

Well, infiltrators getting into Israeli territory are certainly a highly precise weapon such as you describe, but evidence of these preferring military targets is... inconclusive.

Suicide bombers are not missiles.

Like, do you even have a point, or you're just going "Hamas is teh evulz and all we do is justified"?

For me, if Hamas contunes firing rockets at Israeli citizens while being assaulted by IDF, that means they simply want to murder Israeli citizens. As for whether the actions are justified... well, yes, sometimes it gets excessive, but so long as a critic isn't willing to go into Gaza and show us how it's supposed to be done (or at least describe a similar enough operation which went better in that regard), what can his or her words be except for ramblings of an idealistic moron? War is hell, so don't expect to find an all angel population.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

For me, if Hamas contunes firing rockets at Israeli citizens while being assaulted by IDF, that means they simply want to murder Israeli citizens. As for whether the actions are justified... well, yes, sometimes it gets excessive, but so long as a critic isn't willing to go into Gaza and show us how it's supposed to be done (or at least describe a similar enough operation which went better in that regard), what can his or her words be except for ramblings of an idealistic moron? War is hell, so don't expect to find an all angel population.

Good thing that the mighty Omeganian's "for me" isn't the end all of discussion then, eh?

And don't tell us that nobody else can show how it's done. You know an example of doing things right? The Troubles. The UK could have responded with overwhelming force, cause lots of collateral damage, radicalize the Irish and turn them pro-IRA. Instead they exercised restraint, alienating the population from the extremists, and eventually brokered an agreement. In fact, they exercised so much restraint that the overall casualties, excluding civilians, were 3:1 in favor of the IRA. But it worked, and worked so well that military historian Martin van Creveld (who is, btw, Israeli) used it as an example of a successful counterinsurgency in his book The Changing Face of War: Combat from the Marne to Iraq.

Operation Protective Edge and all its horrors, you know, need not have happened. But Bibi, being a thickshit, started kvetching about how Israel needed to teach Hamas "a lesson" and other similar tough-guy-logic tripe. The end result of his chestbeating was a huge number of dead Israelis (many times the dead from rocket attacks since 2006 IIRC), a part of Gaza destroyed, and a civilian-to-combatant casualty rate too horrible for anyone short of Tamerlane, but apparently not too horrible for the idiots who decided the operation had to be carried out. How does war feel like? Oh wait, what would Israel know about it, the Palestinians are doing all the dying.

[Patroklos]

The Troubles isn't really analogous unless there is a significant majority of the population of Gaza clamoring to be a part of Isreal.

[Omeganian]

And don't tell us that nobody else can show how it's done. You know an example of doing things right? The Troubles. The UK could have responded with overwhelming force, cause lots of collateral damage, radicalize the Irish and turn them pro-IRA. Instead they exercised restraint, alienating the population from the extremists, and eventually brokered an agreement. .

Well, maybe if Israel had sufficiently strong groups supporting it in Gaza, it would have went better. In any case, when murder of Israelis and Americans is celebrated on the streets of Gaza, the "not alienating" part becomes much harder. Yes, perhaps some things should have been done differently in the past, but Israel is forced to work with what it has now.

In fact, they exercised so much restraint that the overall casualties, excluding civilians, were 3:1 in favor of the IRA.

The main criticism against Israel is about the civilians, you know...

Operation Protective Edge and all its horrors, you know, need not have happened.But Bibi, being a thickshit, started kvetching about how Israel needed to teach Hamas "a lesson" and other similar tough-guy-logic tripe.

What, you think he should have let Hamas continue firing rockets? You think Israelis would have stood for that?

The end result of his chestbeating was a huge number of dead Israelis (many times the dead from rocket attacks since 2006 IIRC), a part of Gaza destroyed, and a civilian-to-combatant casualty rate too horrible for anyone short of Tamerlane,

Didn't know the casualties controversy is over already.

but apparently not too horrible for the idiots who decided the operation had to be carried out. How does war feel like? Oh wait, what would Israel know about it, the Palestinians are doing all the dying.

Well, the amount of fire we get here is indeed limited - and, BTW, if WE don't know about it, what would YOU know? - but that's the way it's supposed to be with IDF protecting us. How many protests were there about the low civilian casualties in WWII USA compared to the leveled German cities? Should the USA have allowed Germany to develop intercontinental range rockets before starting Operation Overlord?

[eyl]

Abbas: Hamas plot against PA threatens unity govt

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas replied to Shin Bet claims Monday, that Hamas was responsible for attempts to incite a third intifada in the West Bank and topple the Palestinians Authority government, saying that he was following the reports with great concern.

Abbas warned that the developing information posed a serious threat to the future of the Palestinian Unity government. In his statement, the Palestinian leader repeatedly stressed the name Hamas to more severly highlight the organization behind the foiled attempt some are calling a coup.

The Shin Bet revealed earlier that the investigation of 93 Hamas activists arrested across the West Bank in recent months revealed that they participated in planning a series of mass attacks on Israeli targets – with a focus on violence in the Temple Mount compound – in order to instigate a third intifada.

The plan called for using the intifada as cover to seize rule in Ramallah, which would have been led by the "Mohammed Deif of the West Bank" who currently operates out of Turkey.

More than 70 indictments were served in recent days at military tribunals in the West Bank, and they expose the largest coordination effort Hamas has attempted in the area since Operation Defensive Shield more than a decade ago.

Under the framework of the planned operation, terror cells were created in 46 Palestinian towns and villages – in Jenin, Nablus, East Jerusalem, Ramallah, and Hebron.

The infrastructure for the operation was exposed in May, along with the identity of its leader, Hamas operations officer Saleh al-Arouri, who remains in Turkey, according to the Shin Bet.

Ynet was told that in recent months there was an active movement of Hamas activists arriving to Hebron from abroad. These operatives were known to security forces to be loyal to al-Arouri.

The operatives were assisted by Jordanian couriers, who transferred $600,000 – $50,000 in each border run. The funds were moved through Turkey and Jordan and were intended to purchase vehicles and safe-houses.

The Shin Bet confiscated the cash, as well as 24 M-16 rifles (not of Israeli manufacture), six handguns, and seven missile launchers, magazines, and loads of ammunition.

Al-Arouri was released from Israeli prison several years ago; he was one of the Hamas officials involved in the negotiations for the release of captured IDF soldier Gilad Shalit. In recent years sources in the security establishment have named him as the source shaping terror operations against Israelis in the West Bank.

At the head of the military infrastructure in the West Bank stood Riyad Nasser, who was arrested several months ago – but whose interrogation only started in the summer after terminated his hunger strike.

Palestinian engineering and chemistry students were recruited for the operation. One of the most notable detainees holds a doctorate in computer science – he was recuited in Malaysia and trained in encryption and cyber-attacks.

"The discovery of the infrastructure attests to the great danger posed by Hamas' headquarters abroad given its strategic plan to collapse the Palestinian Authority," said the Shin Bet.

"Khaled Mashal was aware of this and the Turkish government knew about the operations emanating from its territory. The PA's security forces received updates about the investigation. Hamas' plan was the same as its seizure of the Strip in 2007. Al-Arouri is the Mohammed Deif of the West Bank."

AFAIK, there isn't any non-Israeli corroberation for this ATM. However, it's significant that Abbas (per this and later articles) is apaprently taking this very seriously rather than denouncing it as an Israeli allegation.

[Metahive]

Well, the amount of fire we get here is indeed limited - and, BTW, if WE don't know about it, what would YOU know? - but that's the way it's supposed to be with IDF protecting us. How many protests were there about the low civilian casualties in WWII USA compared to the leveled German cities? Should the USA have allowed Germany to develop intercontinental range rockets before starting Operation Overlord?

Are you comparing the Palestinians, people Israel has driven off their land and imprisoned in open air ghettoes, to the threat and nastiness of Nazi Germany? Is that the sort of perspective you want to present here?

Know what, may every step you take from now on end in a pile of fresh dog poop, you oozing pustule of a person. Hope the IDF isn't paying you too well for your sub-par astroturfing job.

[Omeganian]

Well, the amount of fire we get here is indeed limited - and, BTW, if WE don't know about it, what would YOU know? - but that's the way it's supposed to be with IDF protecting us. How many protests were there about the low civilian casualties in WWII USA compared to the leveled German cities? Should the USA have allowed Germany to develop intercontinental range rockets before starting Operation Overlord?

Are you comparing the Palestinians, people Israel has driven off their land and imprisoned in open air ghettoes, to the threat and nastiness of Nazi Germany? Is that the sort of perspective you want to present here?

What's wrong with the comparison? What did the average American - or even the government - know at the time about the war that made it worse than, for example, the internal Palestinian conflicts (adjusted for scale)? Genocide reports were scarce or ignored. And the Germans, mind you, were indisputably driven off their lands and robbed blind just a couple decades earlier.

Know what, may every step you take from now on end in a pile of fresh dog poop, you oozing pustule of a person.

Careful about using this kind of expressions. People might think you lack actual arguments.

Hope the IDF isn't paying you too well for your sub-par astroturfing job.

Accusing others of being paid agents? Are you talking from personal experience?

[Dr. Trainwreck]

The Troubles isn't really analogous unless there is a significant majority of the population of Gaza clamoring to be a part of Isreal.

It is analogous, though, in the sense that there is an extremist organization operating in Gaza. It is not analogous in that, while the IRA was eventually isolated, Israeli heavy-handedness has resulted in secular feminists declaring 'we are all Hamas'.

---

Well, maybe if Israel had sufficiently strong groups supporting it in Gaza, it would have went better. In any case, when murder of Israelis and Americans is celebrated on the streets of Gaza, the "not alienating" part becomes much harder. Yes, perhaps some things should have been done differently in the past, but Israel is forced to work with what it has now.

Yeah, maybe this cheering has something to do with Israel bombing them while the US provides cover in the UN. Just food for thought. Besides, of course there are people less hostile to Israel in Gaza. While Israel is bombing hospitals, though, they'll continue to look like fools.

And don't give me that bullshit about what happened in the past and how you are forced now. Marxist determinism is dead, you know. By your logic, what happened in the past (and what continues to happen now) also justifies Hamas in its actions. For God's sake, man, you really cannot see that both sides use the same arguments?

The main criticism against Israel is about the civilians, you know...

The military ratio was an illustrative example, you know. The British inflicted only 10% of the overall casualties, including civilians. The only way to delegitimize insurgents in the eyes of the people they claim to fight for is to let them do the majority of the killing.

What, you think he should have let Hamas continue firing rockets? You think Israelis would have stood for that?

Totes, why not? Most rockets never even get close to anything important (defined here as 'anything at all'), the few that do are shot down by the Iron Dome. Once Iron Beam is ready, you'll be even safer. It's like an adult saying he's justified in beating up a child for cussing at him. How many people have been killed by rockets again? Assuming, of course, that Israel wants peace. If Israel wants peace with Palestine about as much as America wanted peace with the Indians back in the 19th century ('we want excuses to kill them and steal their land'), well, that's on your country.

Didn't know the casualties controversy is over already.

It needn't be. Even the IDF places the civilians to combatants ratio at 1:1, and that's by counting every Hamas member as a combatant (spoilers: they're not) and in the fog of war (spoilers: most armies have no way to accurately know how many casualties they inflict, and as a result overclaim). You might be surprised to learn who else managed similar ratios in urban combat, but you'll be correct if you guess the Siege of Leningrad. Shall I also do this based on the UN estimates?

Well, the amount of fire we get here is indeed limited - and, BTW, if WE don't know about it, what would YOU know? - but that's the way it's supposed to be with IDF protecting us. How many protests were there about the low civilian casualties in WWII USA compared to the leveled German cities? Should the USA have allowed Germany to develop intercontinental range rockets before starting Operation Overlord?

Exactly as I said, you're perfectly safe without needing to kill a few hundred children every few years. Also, nice equivocation between Hamas and the Nazis. Call me back when Hamas is backed up by the military-industrial might of Germany, moron.

[eyl]

The Troubles isn't really analogous unless there is a significant majority of the population of Gaza clamoring to be a part of Isreal.

It is analogous, though, in the sense that there is an extremist organization operating in Gaza. It is not analogous in that, while the IRA was eventually isolated, Israeli heavy-handedness has resulted in secular feminists declaring 'we are all Hamas'.

OTOH, the IRA was never the actual government there. Nor was it regularly shelling all of the UK's population centers.

Yeah, maybe this cheering has something to do with Israel bombing them while the US provides cover in the UN. Just food for thought. Besides, of course there are people less hostile to Israel in Gaza. While Israel is bombing hospitals, though, they'll continue to look like fools.

You realize that the same can be said of Hamas? By turning Gaza into a massive rocket launch pad post-withdrawal, they made anyone who advocates withdrawals from the West Bank look like an idiot and validated the right's scare-mongers. (for the second time, actually, the process started with the 2nd intifada)

Totes, why not? Most rockets never even get close to anything important (defined here as 'anything at all'), the few that do are shot down by the Iron Dome. Once Iron Beam is ready, you'll be even safer. It's like an adult saying he's justified in beating up a child for cussing at him. How many people have been killed by rockets again? Assuming, of course, that Israel wants peace. If Israel wants peace with Palestine about as much as America wanted peace with the Indians back in the 19th century ('we want excuses to kill them and steal their land'), well, that's on your country.

Tell Daniel Tragerman (or his parents, rather) that the Palestinian fire is meaningless:

Rocket fire from Gaza at southern and central Israel and Israeli air strikes on the strip continued on Friday. A 4-year-old boy was killed in the afternoon when a mortar barrage hit a car in a community near the border with Gaza.
Earlier, a rocket hit a synagogue in Ashdod, injuring three people lightly. Before that a heavy rocket and mortar barrage on southern Israel left one Israeli moderately wounded by shrapnel in Be'er Sheva. Also, a home in the southern city of Sderot suffered a direct rocket hit.
...
A 33-year-old Israeli man who was wounded by mortar shrapnel in Eshkol on Thursday was reported to be in serious but stable condition.
...
9:57 P.M. Four people were wounded by rocket fire near Ashdod, one of them in a very serious condition. (Gili Cohen)
...
9:56 P.M. A military source says that the mortar shells that killed the 4-year-old boy earlier on Friday were fired from a school used to shelter Gaza refugees by UNRWA, located in the Gaza Citi neighborhood of Zeitoun. (Gili Cohen)

...
6:22 P.M. Four-year-old boy killed when mortar shell hits car in kibbutz by Gaza border. (Shirly Seidler)

[madd0ct0r]

The Troubles isn't really analogous unless there is a significant majority of the population of Gaza clamoring to be a part of Isreal.

It is analogous, though, in the sense that there is an extremist organization operating in Gaza. It is not analogous in that, while the IRA was eventually isolated, Israeli heavy-handedness has resulted in secular feminists declaring 'we are all Hamas'.

OTOH, the IRA was never the actual government there. Nor was it regularly shelling all of the UK's population centers.

Ignoring the rest becuase i don't have a dog in fight. but in case you don't know, this was manchester city center:

[Omeganian]

The Troubles isn't really analogous unless there is a significant majority of the population of Gaza clamoring to be a part of Isreal.

It is analogous, though, in the sense that there is an extremist organization operating in Gaza. It is not analogous in that, while the IRA was eventually isolated, Israeli heavy-handedness has resulted in secular feminists declaring 'we are all Hamas'.

Yet not the slightest attempt by said feminist to beg Hamas not to use such places for action that might provoke Israeli retaliation. And she, for some reason, emphasizes that the weapons are USA made. Suspicious.

Well, maybe if Israel had sufficiently strong groups supporting it in Gaza, it would have went better. In any case, when murder of Israelis and Americans is celebrated on the streets of Gaza, the "not alienating" part becomes much harder. Yes, perhaps some things should have been done differently in the past, but Israel is forced to work with what it has now.

Yeah, maybe this cheering has something to do with Israel bombing them while the US provides cover in the UN. Just food for thought. Besides, of course there are people less hostile to Israel in Gaza. While Israel is bombing hospitals, though, they'll continue to look like fools.

Let's see...

Hamas agrees to the idea of creating a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders with full sovereignty. The occupation forces must leave our lands they occupied in 1967,” he said.

Speaking from his Ramallah office, Yousef said that Hamas would be willing to abandon terror attacks against Israel should the two sides agree on a cease-fire.

“The movement [Hamas] is prepared to sign a hudna [temporary cease-fire] agreement with the occupying Israeli power, for a period of time agreed upon by the two sides,”

So, Hamas might agree that should Israel give up the territories captured in 1967 and recognize the Palestinian state, it might receive a temporary truce. Which, of course, raises a simple question. Two words:

"And then?"

Hamas, at the end, will have its stated goals, but since the truce is temporary, they expect to still need the right to fight Israel. For self defense? Hamas isn't Israel; no one can deny it the right for self defense, truce or not. For what goals, then?

In other words, even for this "less hostile" person, you give no evidence he will be satisfied with less that the destruction of Israel, and I am supposed to take your arguments seriously?

And don't give me that bullshit about what happened in the past and how you are forced now. Marxist determinism is dead, you know. By your logic, what happened in the past (and what continues to happen now) also justifies Hamas in its actions. For God's sake, man, you really cannot see that both sides use the same arguments?

I'm not talking about the past, I am talking about the situation we have now. Israel is more than willing to put it past them and remain outside Gaza so long as there is a guarantee of no rockets being fired and no terrorists being sent at Israeli citizens. It's the other side that's unwilling to live without firing these rockets and sending these terrorists.

What, you think he should have let Hamas continue firing rockets? You think Israelis would have stood for that?

Totes, why not?

Because these are (sometimes successful) attempts at indiscriminate murder of Israeli citizens.

Most rockets never even get close to anything important (defined here as 'anything at all'), the few that do are shot down by the Iron Dome. Once Iron Beam is ready, you'll be even safer. It's like an adult saying he's justified in beating up a child for cussing at him.

This child is shooting a gun. Maybe he's too young to reliably hit someone, but the gun must be taken away. Besides, no defense system can intercept five hundred rockets fired at once - and should Hamas be allowed to grow strong, that's what we'll get.

Didn't know the casualties controversy is over already.

It needn't be. Even the IDF places the civilians to combatants ratio at 1:1, and that's by counting every Hamas member as a combatant (spoilers: they're not) and in the fog of war (spoilers: most armies have no way to accurately know how many casualties they inflict, and as a result overclaim). You might be surprised to learn who else managed similar ratios in urban combat, but you'll be correct if you guess the Siege of Leningrad. Shall I also do this based on the UN estimates?

You forgot the Chechen wars.

Well, the amount of fire we get here is indeed limited - and, BTW, if WE don't know about it, what would YOU know? - but that's the way it's supposed to be with IDF protecting us. How many protests were there about the low civilian casualties in WWII USA compared to the leveled German cities? Should the USA have allowed Germany to develop intercontinental range rockets before starting Operation Overlord?

Exactly as I said, you're perfectly safe without needing to kill a few hundred children every few years.

A child killed two days ago, three people wounded in a synagogue maybe a kilometer from my house... Well, safer, but in order to be safe, Hamas needs to stop firing rockets.

Also, nice equivocation between Hamas and the Nazis. Call me back when Hamas is backed up by the military-industrial might of Germany, moron.

Off the top of my head, there is Iran standing behind their backs. It's true that little gets through, so what?

[eyl]

OTOH, the IRA was never the actual government there. Nor was it regularly shelling all of the UK's population centers.

Ignoring the rest becuase i don't have a dog in fight. but in case you don't know, this was manchester city center:

After which attack? And how many times did it happen?

[Captain Seafort]

After which attack? And how many times did it happen?

Who gives a fuck? The point is that the Provos were capable of making a right mess of a city centre, and did so repeatedly, in Manchester, London (repeatedly), Belfast (also repeatedly), Londonderry (again, repeatedly), Enniskillen, Omagh, etc, etc. At their worst they took complete control of large areas of major UK cities until the army could turf them out.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

It is analogous, though, in the sense that there is an extremist organization operating in Gaza. It is not analogous in that, while the IRA was eventually isolated, Israeli heavy-handedness has resulted in secular feminists declaring 'we are all Hamas'.

OTOH, the IRA was never the actual government there. Nor was it regularly shelling all of the UK's population centers.

That's where the two scenarios diverge: it never was the actual government because it never gained enough legitimacy amongst the people. Hamas has support, though, and even then they are losing it in favor of more extreme factions.

You realize that the same can be said of Hamas? By turning Gaza into a massive rocket launch pad post-withdrawal, they made anyone who advocates withdrawals from the West Bank look like an idiot and validated the right's scare-mongers. (for the second time, actually, the process started with the 2nd intifada)

Listening to scare-mongers is still wrong and counterproductive, dude.

Tell Daniel Tragerman (or his parents, rather) that the Palestinian fire is meaningless:
<snip>

I would, if I could. Truly. If you could, would you say to the parents of about 400 kids that Israeli fire is justified, or they aren't lucky enough to have names? Since apparently there is no fucking reason in your head and all that's left is appeals to emotion, that is.

---

Yet not the slightest attempt by said feminist to beg Hamas not to use such places for action that might provoke Israeli retaliation. And she, for some reason, emphasizes that the weapons are USA made. Suspicious.

Well yes, she was grieving like half her extended family and forgot to shill IDF propaganda. Do you even understand the reason I linked her article? To show that Israel's actions make militants out of everybody?

Let's see...
<snip>
So, Hamas might agree that should Israel give up the territories captured in 1967 and recognize the Palestinian state, it might receive a temporary truce. Which, of course, raises a simple question. Two words:

"And then?"

Hamas, at the end, will have its stated goals, but since the truce is temporary, they expect to still need the right to fight Israel. For self defense? Hamas isn't Israel; no one can deny it the right for self defense, truce or not. For what goals, then?

In other words, even for this "less hostile" person, you give no evidence he will be satisfied with less that the destruction of Israel, and I am supposed to take your arguments seriously?

So many things wrong.

"Temporary truce"? Dude, the two Koreas never even bothered to sign a ceasefire and are still at war. The worst that comes out of them is a few border incidents, to which the South doesn't respond even though they are wronged because they understand further escalation isn't worth it.

Besides, you have proved time and again that you can kick the Arabs' teeth in. That's the thing; Israel has the largesse to give ground, and still pulp Hamas if they misbehave in any way. Hamas has absolutely nothing to negotiate with beyond being a nuisance with their prehistoric rockets. What do you expect them to give? I know it'd be nice if they stopped lobbing rockets, but it's literally their only remaining weapon, word and bargaining chip.

I'm not talking about the past, I am talking about the situation we have now. Israel is more than willing to put it past them and remain outside Gaza so long as there is a guarantee of no rockets being fired and no terrorists being sent at Israeli citizens. It's the other side that's unwilling to live without firing these rockets and sending these terrorists.

No, Israel is clearly unwilling to put anything past them. This is evidenced by the fact that Hamas was instantly accused of kidnapping and murdering three teens without any proof whatsoever. Face it, it was just luck Bibi happened to be right. Y'know, people willing to put things past them actually let things go until they blow over. If it was politically untenable for Bibi to do nothing, well... what does that say about the public?

Most rockets never even get close to anything important (defined here as 'anything at all'), the few that do are shot down by the Iron Dome. Once Iron Beam is ready, you'll be even safer. It's like an adult saying he's justified in beating up a child for cussing at him.

This child is shooting a gun. Maybe he's too young to reliably hit someone, but the gun must be taken away. Besides, no defense system can intercept five hundred rockets fired at once - and should Hamas be allowed to grow strong, that's what we'll get.

Yeah, no, sorry, "28 people in the last 13 years" is not an existential threat to Israel. Your metaphor conflates possible danger to one person with possible danger to an entire country, why are you doing this? And besides, if you give Palestine what they want and they still attack you, you can stomp them flat and be indisputably right in doing so. Even assuming that they'll get "FIVE HUNDRED ROCKETS AT ONCE!!!!!!!1!!!111!" to launch, what with the blockade and all.

You forgot the Chechen wars.

You are right, Mr. Middle East's Only Democracy and World's Most Moral Army, you are absolutely right. I forgot Russia.

Off the top of my head, there is Iran standing behind their backs. It's true that little gets through, so what?

"Iran standing behind their backs" is now equivalent to "millions of Germans rolling around with tanks".

Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.

[eyl]

Listening to scare-mongers is still wrong and counterproductive, dude.

Counter-productive? Probably. But wrong? In case you missed it, what happened was exactly what they predicted would happen. And the Palestinians' actions made the peace camp look like credelous idiots.

I would, if I could. Truly. If you could, would you say to the parents of about 400 kids that Israeli fire is justified, or they aren't lucky enough to have names? Since apparently there is no fucking reason in your head and all that's left is appeals to emotion, that is.

No, I wouldn't say that; it would be meaningless. OTOH, unless I'm greatly mistaken, you're not one of those parents.

But while my phrasing may have been emotional, it's evidence that your assertion that Israel is perfectly safe from Palestinian fire is demonstratably false.

I also have no idea why you brought Iron Beam into play, as it won't be operational for at least a year and then we'll have to see how effective it is.

EDIT - you know, the irony is, that I used to pretty much the same argument that you're making. I argued that Iron Dome would bring about a situation where Israel coudl simply ignore Hamas attacks. However, as another poster pointed out, Israel would still need to send everyone to shelters wvery time there was a rocket incoming, so it wouldn't help that much (NTM I neglected the issues of their short-range munitions).

No, Israel is clearly unwilling to put anything past them. This is evidenced by the fact that Hamas was instantly accused of kidnapping and murdering three teens without any proof whatsoever. Face it, it was just luck Bibi happened to be right.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The Israeli government is not, after all, under any obligation to make the the details of the investigation public, certainly not before a trial. Given that it appears that Hamas was, apparently, indeed involved, I'd think you need some supporting evidence to assertit was a lucky guess.

Yeah, no, sorry, "28 people in the last 13 years" is not an existential threat to Israel. Your metaphor conflates possible danger to one person with possible danger to an entire country, why are you doing this?

You're aware that the rockets' effects aren't just deaths? Note that a single rocket - just one - landing in Yahud (it didn't even cause any serious damage AFAIK) was enough to shut down most aerial traffic to Israel for 48 hours. A lot of the towns bordering Gaza have lost a massive amount of their population over the years due to the fire.

And besides, if you give Palestine what they want and they still attack you, you can stomp them flat and be indisputably right in doing so. Even assuming that they'll get "FIVE HUNDRED ROCKETS AT ONCE!!!!!!!1!!!111!" to launch, what with the blockade and all.

To the sound of massive international condemnation, no doubt. And maintaining the blocakde and "giving the Palestinians what they want" are mutually exclusive.

[Omeganian]

Let's see...
<snip>
So, Hamas might agree that should Israel give up the territories captured in 1967 and recognize the Palestinian state, it might receive a temporary truce. Which, of course, raises a simple question. Two words:

"And then?"

Hamas, at the end, will have its stated goals, but since the truce is temporary, they expect to still need the right to fight Israel. For self defense? Hamas isn't Israel; no one can deny it the right for self defense, truce or not. For what goals, then?

In other words, even for this "less hostile" person, you give no evidence he will be satisfied with less that the destruction of Israel, and I am supposed to take your arguments seriously?

So many things wrong.

"Temporary truce"? Dude, the two Koreas never even bothered to sign a ceasefire and are still at war. The worst that comes out of them is a few border incidents, to which the South doesn't respond even though they are wronged because they understand further escalation isn't worth it.

So far.

Besides, you have proved time and again that you can kick the Arabs' teeth in. That's the thing; Israel has the largesse to give ground, and still pulp Hamas if they misbehave in any way.

And the USA has the largesse to give Texas to Mexico. Do they?

Hamas has absolutely nothing to negotiate with beyond being a nuisance with their prehistoric rockets. What do you expect them to give? I know it'd be nice if they stopped lobbing rockets, but it's literally their only remaining weapon, word and bargaining chip.

And one which makes negotiating with them immoral and ridiculous.

I'm not talking about the past, I am talking about the situation we have now. Israel is more than willing to put it past them and remain outside Gaza so long as there is a guarantee of no rockets being fired and no terrorists being sent at Israeli citizens. It's the other side that's unwilling to live without firing these rockets and sending these terrorists.

No, Israel is clearly unwilling to put anything past them. This is evidenced by the fact that Hamas was instantly accused of kidnapping and murdering three teens without any proof whatsoever. Face it, it was just luck Bibi happened to be right.

Evidence, please.

Most rockets never even get close to anything important (defined here as 'anything at all'), the few that do are shot down by the Iron Dome. Once Iron Beam is ready, you'll be even safer. It's like an adult saying he's justified in beating up a child for cussing at him.

This child is shooting a gun. Maybe he's too young to reliably hit someone, but the gun must be taken away. Besides, no defense system can intercept five hundred rockets fired at once - and should Hamas be allowed to grow strong, that's what we'll get.

Yeah, no, sorry, "28 people in the last 13 years" is not an existential threat to Israel.

Neither are a couple thousand Palestinians out of million+ every few years an existential threat to Gaza. Why aren't they being ignored then?

[Dr. Trainwreck]

Counter-productive? Probably. But wrong? In case you missed it, what happened was exactly what they predicted would happen. And the Palestinians' actions made the peace camp look like credelous idiots.

And Israel's actions made people lose faith in Fatah and elect the even more extreme Hamas in their stead. This is nothing but a merry-go-round, a vicious cycle. It cannot be stopped while both sides are going "oh well, the other guys have to stop first". One has to give.

But while my phrasing may have been emotional, it's evidence that your assertion that Israel is perfectly safe from Palestinian fire is demonstratably false.

Bullshit. I said that Israel is safe from attacks, and you counterargued with... one person. The imbalance in deaths matches exactly the metaphor I used, which is also the metaphor used by van Creveld: a grown man beating a child. You are silly even assuming the child started it. That's why the UK shied away from this during the Troubles.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The Israeli government is not, after all, under any obligation to make the the details of the investigation public, certainly not before a trial. Given that it appears that Hamas was, apparently, indeed involved, I'd think you need some supporting evidence to assertit was a lucky guess.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The American government is not, after all, under any obligation to make the the details of the WMD investigation public.

The kindapping and murder was used as a casus belli, dude. I'm fairly certain Israel should have publicised anything that would show Hamas' involvement before starting this little wrecking party. Do you even know why the UN dislikes you? Because you pull shit like this.

To the sound of massive international condemnation, no doubt. And maintaining the blocakde and "giving the Palestinians what they want" are mutually exclusive.

Did the world condemn Israel back in 1948, 1967, 1973? I like your little "no doubt" at the end there. You are right, though, in that Hamas demands a lifting of the blockade.

---

So far.

This 'so far' of yours has lasted almost sixty years, and is a damn sight better than what's happening in Gaza.

And the USA has the largesse to give Texas to Mexico. Do they?

First you equivocate between Hamas and Nazi Germany, then you equivocate between Gaza and Texas. What the fuck's your problem man? It's not even apples and oranges here, it's apples and cement. Would it kill you to make a comparison that isn't completely ridiculous?

And one which makes negotiating with them immoral and ridiculous.

Because we don't negotiate with terrorists!

Oh wait, no, we do it all the time. Sorry this results in more talking and less chestbeating, okay? No hard feelings.

Neither are a couple thousand Palestinians out of million+ every few years an existential threat to Gaza. Why aren't they being ignored then?

"Israel flattening half of Gaza every two years isn't an existential threat!"

About as true as it was for the American Indians.

[Simon_Jester]

Counter-productive? Probably. But wrong? In case you missed it, what happened was exactly what they predicted would happen. And the Palestinians' actions made the peace camp look like credelous idiots.

And Israel's actions made people lose faith in Fatah and elect the even more extreme Hamas in their stead. This is nothing but a merry-go-round, a vicious cycle. It cannot be stopped while both sides are going "oh well, the other guys have to stop first". One has to give.

Out of curiosity, how do we decide which side has to give?

Is it automatically the rich and heavily armed side that should give by ceding... I don't know, land, resources, whatever... to the poor and poorly armed side? Does this hold true only under some conditions, or always under all conditions?

But while my phrasing may have been emotional, it's evidence that your assertion that Israel is perfectly safe from Palestinian fire is demonstratably false.

Bullshit. I said that Israel is safe from attacks, and you counterargued with... one person. The imbalance in deaths matches exactly the metaphor I used, which is also the metaphor used by van Creveld: a grown man beating a child. You are silly even assuming the child started it. That's why the UK shied away from this during the Troubles.

The interesting thing about the grown man/child analogy is that it implies that Hamas is like a child: too innocent and immature to understand the consequences of its actions.

We expect adults to restrain themselves in dealing with children, even children who viciously attack them, because we know children are too young to know any better.

But even though it is clearly unfair for a grown man to be fighting an (adult) midget, we wouldn't necessarily condemn the grown man for continuing to fight a midget who was attacking him. The midget is presumably old enough to understand the consequences of picking a fight with someone much larger and stronger than himself.

Or would we? Is it always immoral for a large, fit man with a gun to make demands of an angry midget with a pocketknife? Should the large man be prepared to give the midget what he wants and hope for the best?

Basically, my point is that by reducing matters to "Israel is large, Hamas is small, therefore Israel should ignore Hamas's attacks and go pick on someone their own size," and then reducing that further to "Israel is an adult, Hamas is a child..." we shift the tone of the debate in a very significant way.

Is it appropriate to do so? I personally don't think so.

And one which makes negotiating with them immoral and ridiculous.

Because we don't negotiate with terrorists!

Oh wait, no, we do it all the time. Sorry this results in more talking and less chestbeating, okay? No hard feelings.

Is it actually a good idea to negotiate with terrorists in this case? Does the evidence suggest they would stop being terrorists at some point?

[Omeganian]

So far.

This 'so far' of yours has lasted almost sixty years, and is a damn sight better than what's happening in Gaza.

Well, it also lasts quite well on the borders with Egypt and Jordan, despite the past wars. Because with these countries, Israel managed to formulate reasonable terms which both sides can find acceptable in the long term. Hamas doesn't even try. They either talk about Israel destroyed, or demand territories permanently, but as a short term solution. In other words, a scam operation.

Neither are a couple thousand Palestinians out of million+ every few years an existential threat to Gaza. Why aren't they being ignored then?

"Israel flattening half of Gaza every two years isn't an existential threat!"

That sounds like economical damage, and as such must be ignored. At least according to the logic of a certain person who insists on Israel ignoring all the billions required for protection against Palestinian rockets.

[His Divine Shadow]

The Troubles isn't really analogous unless there is a significant majority of the population of Gaza clamoring to be a part of Isreal.

The most analogous situation here is really the US and theft of native peoples territory until all they have left are a few reservations.