Intifada 3? Kidnapped Israeli citizens might be a flashpoint

[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.

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

Jews paid better prices for the land.

[Simon_Jester]

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.

One notes that once they had been pressed onto reservations in miserable, rotten land after repeated treaty betrayals, the natives did not keep trying to launch cavalry raids into the surrounding US-claimed land, even though in many cases they had a strong claim to that land: "The US signed a treaty saying we could have that land, then abrogated that treaty because they claim their Constitution gives their Senate the right to break treaties whenever the hell they want."

Whereas Hamas continues to launch attacks of various kinds into land that they do not have a formally binding document to base the claim that it is 'their'* land. And they ask for this land as a precondition to even have a period of not-shooting.

I have been quite critical of Hamas in this thread before, and my reasons are simple.

One is that Hamas' actions are out of touch with the military realities, about as insane as Jefferson Davis planning counterattacks to destroy the Union armies advancing on Richmond in March 1865. This suggests that they are not rational about making the decision to use lethal force, which calls into question whether one can trust them in negotiations. You can negotiate with someone who uses force to defend themselves. Can you negotiate with someone who uses force because it is their most profound ideological belief that using force against you is inherently just and right?

The second is that I perceive the situation as being one where Hamas is exercising de facto control of whether there will be peace or war in Gaza... and is choosing war. Israel could decide to simply not even try to use force to blockade or attack targets in Gaza, but to do so they have to simply accept an expensive and escalating attack of rockets and commandos, which currently cause small numbers of deaths and moderate economic disruption, but could easily cause more. Israel has basically established by its actions that it's willing to put up with a little of this, but not very much. As long as there's a limit to how much attacking against themselves Israel is prepared to ignore, Hamas can at any time ramp up their attacks to a level Israel is unwilling to tolerate. At which point Israel will respond by playing whack-a-mole with high explosives against any Hamas targets it can find for a short period, then go back to trying to ignore them.

This strikes me as very provocative. Deliberately so- as if Israel simply started randomly marching armed raiders into Gaza at a time when no attacks from Hamas had been seen for some time... and then claimed to the international community that a grave injustice was taking place, when those raiders got shot at.
________________

*(that is, the Palestinians as a whole, Hamas having arrogated power to speak and decide for them)

[His Divine Shadow]

The reason is that palestinians have not yet been sufficiently decimated and exterminated enough, once roughly 9 out of 10 palestinians are dead we will probably see said behavior, it's just so hard to accomplish anything in private in todays modern world.

[Omeganian]

Well, the "economic disruption" isn't that moderate overall.

http://docstalk.blogspot.co.il/2014/05/ ... ekels.html

[Dr. Trainwreck]

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?

Case by case basis, obviously.

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.

Does van Creveld's metaphor reduce insurgents in general to infants? No, I don't think so; this is a comparison of physical capabilities, not of mental ones.

Besides, your analogy has a problem too. My involvement here started when Omeganian talked about morality, and this was about the morality of collective punishment before he sidetracked into a general IvP debate to dodge the topic (into which, I admit, I was suckered). In this light, I'd be wary of this argument; it looks like you are saying "well, of course there is no problem with the strong pounding the weak into the ground".

That's just unintended implications, though.

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?

Fatah was once classified as a terrorist organization by Israel and the US, but no longer is. It actually renounced terrorism back in the eighties. Its most high-profile member, Mahmoud Abbas, is still in charge in the West Bank, which is perfectly quiet compared to Gaza. I would guess the same could be done if more moderate people got in charge of Hamas. People like Khaled Mesha(a)l: he doesn't sound all that terroristy to me, and besides was the one to say that the Hamas covenant (you know, which calls for the destruction of Israel) was no longer relevant, but politics prevented an actual change to it. The selfsame covenant which Hamas has dropped from its political platform since 2006.

It certainly looks like a softened stance.

---

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.

"We want to settle your land and pound you when you get pissed" isn't reasonable or acceptable, asshole. Nor are your agreements from before Hamas even existed (Egypt) or was even close to power (Jordan) relevant. The territories they demand are ones you took by force and ones on which you're busy playing colonialism. And don't give me the bullshit about Hamas being unreasonable and extreme, I have sources just above here that there are moderates you can negotiate with.

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.

Well if you aren't despicable. Thousands of people go beyond economical damage, you fucking psychopath. Go play in fucking traffic and rid this world of your kind.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

Also, doubleposting because I just saw it: Israeli airstrike levels 7-story building in Gaza

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (AP) — Israeli airstrikes leveled a seven-floor office building and severely damaged a two-story shopping center in the Gaza Strip early Sunday, signaling a new escalation in seven weeks of fighting with Hamas.

The strikes in the southern town of Rafah came just hours after Israel bombed a residential tower in Gaza City, collapsing the 12-story building with 44 apartments.

A total of eight people were killed in Sunday's airstrikes. Israel said one of the dead was a Hamas official involved in handling the group's finances.

The targeting of large buildings appears to be part of a new tactic by Israel. Over the weekend, the army began warning Gaza residents in automated phone calls that it would target buildings harboring "terrorist infrastructure" and that they should stay away.

A senior military official confirmed that Israel has a policy of striking at buildings containing Hamas operational centers or those from which military activities are launched. The official said each strike required prior approval from military lawyers and is carried out only after the local population is warned.

However, he said, there was now a widening of locations that the military can target. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not permitted to discuss the matter with reporters.

Speaking ahead of Israel's weekly cabinet meeting, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned Gaza residents to keep their distance from Hamas militants.

"I call on the people of Gaza to immediately evacuate any structure that Hamas is using to commit acts of terror," he said. "Every one of these structures is a target for us."

In the 12-story apartment tower, the target was a fourth-floor apartment where Hamas ran an operations center, according to Israeli media. In the past, Israel has carried out pinpoint strikes, targeting apartments in high-rises with missiles, while leaving the buildings standing.

The military declined immediate comment when asked why it collapsed the entire building instead of striking a specific apartment.

Meanwhile, Gaza militants continued to fire rockets and mortar shells at Israel, including at least 10 on Sunday, one of which wounded three people on the Israeli side of the main Gaza crossing, the military said.

Israel's Defense Ministry said the three wounded were civilian drivers waiting to transport wounded Gazans who had been brought into Israel for treatment in hospitals. The Erez crossing is used by journalists, aid workers and Palestinians with Israeli permits to enter or leave Gaza.

In southern Israel, hundreds of people attended the funeral of 4-year-old Daniel Tragerman, who was killed Friday in a mortar attack. The mourners included Israel's President, Reuven Rivlin.

Elsewhere, five rockets were fired from Syria and fell in open areas in northern Israel. It was not immediately clear whether they were fired by pro-government forces or rebel groups.

Amid persistent violence, Egypt has urged Israel and the Palestinians to resume indirect talks in Cairo on a durable cease-fire, but stopped short of issuing invitations.

Several rounds of indirect talks between Israel and Hamas have collapsed, along with temporary cease-fires that accompanied them. The gaps between Israel and the Islamic militant group on a new border deal for blockaded Gaza remain vast, and there's no sign either is willing to budge.

The Israeli military said it had carried out some 20 strikes on Gaza since midnight Saturday. Gaza police and medical officials reported eight fatalities.

The seven-story Zourab building bombed by Israeli aircraft early Sunday housed an office of the Hamas-run Interior Ministry. Witnesses said the building in Rafah was leveled and that the strikes caused severe damage to nearby shops, homes and cars. It was not immediately clear if anyone was wounded or killed.

Another strike hit a nearby shopping center with dozens of shops, sparking a fire that gutted the two-story building and wounding seven people. After daybreak Sunday, smoke was still rising from the site as shop owners inspected the damage. Windows and doors had been blown out in nearby buildings.

The military said the two buildings were attacked because they housed facilities linked to militants, but did not provide details. Twenty-two people were wounded in Saturday's strike on the tower in Gaza City.

Palestinian health official Ashraf al-Kidra, who confirmed the casualty figures for the strikes, said two people were killed in a pair of airstrikes near a coastal road on Sunday, including one on a group of people coming out of a mosque after morning prayers.

Two more fatalities were registered when a motorcycle following a car evacuating the wounded from the strikes was targeted, he said.

Another man was killed in an airstrike on a car, and an 18-month-old infant and a 17-year-old were killed in an airstrike on an apartment building in Gaza City. Three people were killed in an airstrike on a house in Deir el-Balah in central Gaza, police said.

Palestinians identified the man traveling in the car as Mohammed al-Ghoul. Israel said al-Ghoul was responsible for Hamas' financial transfers for "terror funds." It did not elaborate, and the claim could not immediately be verified.

The U.N. estimates that more than 17,000 homes have been destroyed or damaged beyond repair since the war began on July 8. In some of the attacks, family homes with three or four floors were pulverized.

However, the weekend strikes marked the first time large buildings were toppled.

Since the fighting began, Israel has launched some 5,000 airstrikes at Gaza, while Gaza militants have fired close to 4,000 rockets and mortars, according to the Israeli military.

More than 2,100 Palestinians, including close to 500 children, have been killed, according to Palestinian health officials and U.N. figures. Israel has lost 64 soldiers and four civilians.

Israel says it is targeting sites linked to militants, including rocket launchers, command centers and weapons depots. The U.N. says about three-fourths of the Palestinians killed have been civilians.

With the war showing no signs of winding down, educational officials in Gaza said they were delaying the start of both U.N. and government-run schools. Classes in both were supposed to begin Sunday.

The U.N. said it would begin a gradual back to school program this week "to help students and teachers start to transition into a new school year."

The nearly two-month Gaza war stems from the kidnapping and killing of three Israeli teens in the West Bank by Hamas operatives in June, which triggered a massive Israeli arrest campaign in the West Bank, followed by an increase in rocket fire from Gaza.

"Hamas is anywhere close to you? Okay, fuck you, you're now homeless, how d'ya like that you little raghead?"

[Omeganian]

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.

"We want to settle your land and pound you when you get pissed" isn't reasonable or acceptable, asshole.

How, exactly, is that relevant to what I said?

Nor are your agreements from before Hamas even existed (Egypt) or was even close to power (Jordan) relevant.

How am I supposed to understand that? That Hamas can never be as reasonable as them? In this case, what is there to discuss?

The territories they demand are ones you took by force and ones on which you're busy playing colonialism.

A lot of these territories Israel offered to give away. The neighbors refuse the honor.

And don't give me the bullshit about Hamas being unreasonable and extreme, I have sources just above here that there are moderates you can negotiate with.

And you still refuse to give evidence that this "moderation" is different from the one described here:

http://web.archive.org/web/200403061925 ... =Eircomnet

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.

Well if you aren't despicable. Thousands of people go beyond economical damage, you fucking psychopath. Go play in fucking traffic and rid this world of your kind.

Ah, so somehow I am at fault when your ramblings can be understood in any of a dozen ways with no indication which is the correct one. Where is the figure of casualties that should be ignored? One hundred thousandth of the population? One ten thousandth? Well, Israel is a country that values every single one of its citizens - Hamas know it best with the prisoner exchanges. You complain that our people are first priority for us, while Palestinians are second priority? Well, why don't you argue with Hamas, for whom Palestinians are not even fifth priority, and Israeli civilians remain first priority for killing even when military targets (which someone here claimed they would have preferred) are in front of them as far as they can see.

[eyl]

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.

What you essentially said wasn't that Israel was safe, but that Israelis were safe. That is obviously not the case (and just FYI, the reason I took the kid's death so emotionally is that my son is almost exactly the same age and with not too different luck, he might have been the one hit). If you meant the former, than I have no idea why you brought up Iron Dome, much less Iron Beam, as Israel was not facing an existential threat from the rockets before those existed. That raises the question, however, of whether you can only respond to nationally existential threats.

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.

If the US had actually found significant amounts of WMD in Iraq, would you argue their previous allegations were just luck?

The casus belli for the actual attack on Gaza was the rockets coming from Gaza. Those are a matter of public record.

Did the world condemn Israel back in 1948, 1967, 1973? I like your little "no doubt" at the end there.

Don't know about 1973. OTOH, in 1948 Israel (which was desperate to acquire weapons, IIRC it could only arm a third of its personnel) was placed under an arms embargo by the US among others. As far as 1967 is concerned, you can still find people (including on this board, if you look in pre-IvP moratorium posts) who condemn Israel the agressor in that war.

Of course, bringing those wars up is rather disengenous. A war with the Palestinians won't look like those wars, which were wars between countries; it'll look like Operations Defensive Shield, Cast Lead, Pillar of Defense and Protective Edge. Those have hardly been uncondemned.

Fatah was once classified as a terrorist organization by Israel and the US, but no longer is. It actually renounced terrorism back in the eighties. Its most high-profile member, Mahmoud Abbas, is still in charge in the West Bank, which is perfectly quiet compared to Gaza. I would guess the same could be done if more moderate people got in charge of Hamas. People like Khaled Mesha(a)l: he doesn't sound all that terroristy to me, and besides was the one to say that the Hamas covenant (you know, which calls for the destruction of Israel) was no longer relevant, but politics prevented an actual change to it. The selfsame covenant which Hamas has dropped from its political platform since 2006.

It certainly looks like a softened stance.

From the reports I've seen (mostly on TV, unfortunately, although here's one print source), Mashaal is the one blocking the efforts to obtain a cease-fire in the current conflict.

[eyl]

Cease-fire declared, we'll see how long it lasts this time.

The terms are apparently basically the same terms Hamas has been rejecting for several weeks now.

[Simon_Jester]

Good.

The reason is that palestinians have not yet been sufficiently decimated and exterminated enough, once roughly 9 out of 10 palestinians are dead we will probably see said behavior, it's just so hard to accomplish anything in private in todays modern world.

So... what state of affairs would you prefer? I mean, I don't want the Israelis to keep trying to kill off, destroy, and drive Palestinians out of their homes, I think it's filthy and wrong. But I'm honestly curious what you want the Israelis to actually do that you think would improve the situation.

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?

Case by case basis, obviously.

Well, what influences your decision? What factors do and do not matter?

Does van Creveld's metaphor reduce insurgents in general to infants? No, I don't think so; this is a comparison of physical capabilities, not of mental ones.

The problem, in my opinion, lies in the choice of words. It would be more appropriate, I think, to compare a very large and heavily armed adult to a very small and weak and poorly armed (if at all) adult. Because both sides in a guerilla war do have the power to stop fighting and do have the ability to use reason and long-term thinking to influence their actions. A child simply does not and cannot.

I think it's condescending as hell, and often misleading, to compare any nation or group that aspires to be a nation to any sort of child.

Personally I assume Hamas is fully in control of their own actions and knows quite well what they're doing... I just disapprove because I think they're doing a bad thing to their own people.

Besides, your analogy has a problem too. My involvement here started when Omeganian talked about morality, and this was about the morality of collective punishment before he sidetracked into a general IvP debate to dodge the topic (into which, I admit, I was suckered). In this light, I'd be wary of this argument; it looks like you are saying "well, of course there is no problem with the strong pounding the weak into the ground".

That's just unintended implications, though.

I can understand that. My main complaint is that if weak groups are free to shelter behind large innocent populations, while constantly attacking stronger groups, how much restraint is expected of the strong group in deciding how (or whether) to retaliate?

Whether or not Hamas is in the habit of using human shields on the tactical level, it's hard to deny they're using them on the strategic level. It is their policy to avoid open battle with Israel, and to keep the bulk of their total forces mixed in with the Palestinian civilian population. They have to know as well as anyone, if not better, that IF the Israelis respond with any kind of violent counterattack, that will result in a lot of death and damage in Palestinian lands.

So if we're in the business of judging what it's right or wrong for nations to do... well, what do we do with people who act that way? Granted the humanitarian issue, granted we WANT to avoid a needless slaughter, especially of innocents, and that this is one of the most important and just goals possible. So the question is... if I'm willing to use them, just how much protective benefit should I get from my use of human shields? Infinity? A lot? A little? None at all?

And at what point do we encourage Group X to get more of its own people killed and thus actively show contempt for the noncombatants of their own side, by giving them extra benefits that kick in when they mingle with said noncombatants? Isn't there a risk that this will backfire?

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?

Fatah was once classified as a terrorist organization by Israel and the US, but no longer is. It actually renounced terrorism back in the eighties. Its most high-profile member, Mahmoud Abbas, is still in charge in the West Bank, which is perfectly quiet compared to Gaza. I would guess the same could be done if more moderate people got in charge of Hamas.

I wouldn't mind that at all. My objection is to negotiating with terrorists, not to negotiating with some particular group.

There's nothing magic about the name "Hamas" that makes it somehow repulsive or evil. The problem is that right now, Hamas seems to be pursuing a strategy of causing small but lethal and costly attacks on Israeli citizens and property, then drawing down a large Israeli retaliation. Then they get Israel to yield to shocked foreigners who hate the bloodshed, resulting in Israel making concessions that allow Hamas to grow in strength.

If that strategy starts to work, it may cause Hamas to reverse any softening trend it's started to exhibit... because there's nothing like winning a war against a bigger stronger enemy and getting spoils and glory by doing so to convince you that your basic strategy is working.

...It [Hamas policy] certainly looks like a softened stance.

Yes, well, I'm quite prepared to believe that, but "rocket barrage" and "softened stance" don't mix very well.

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.

Well if you aren't despicable. Thousands of people go beyond economical damage, you fucking psychopath. Go play in fucking traffic and rid this world of your kind.

I think I see Omeganian's point. If bloodshed matters, compare bloodshed. If destroyed homes and property matter, compare those too. But Omeganian was objecting because he thought you were saying property damage is totally irrelevant when it happens to one side, but profoundly important when it happens to the other.

So basically, it's a matter of not comparing apples to oranges.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

Note, I'm going to sleep soon, responses to eyl and Omeganian are pending.

Well, what influences your decision? What factors do and do not matter?

I think I've restated this: a desire for peace, which leads to wondering who has to back down first (this being a vicious cycle and all). Look at the power dynamic in the conflict: Israel has nuclear weapons, while Palestine isn't even recognized as a state by the UN. Palestinians have settlers put on their lands (whose existence leads to more conflict and more settlements) and cannot even formally protest at the international community. If there is one who can give, one who can break the cycle, who do you think it is?

The problem, in my opinion, lies in the choice of words. It would be more appropriate, I think, to compare a very large and heavily armed adult to a very small and weak and poorly armed (if at all) adult. Because both sides in a guerilla war do have the power to stop fighting and do have the ability to use reason and long-term thinking to influence their actions. A child simply does not and cannot.

I think it's condescending as hell, and often misleading, to compare any nation or group that aspires to be a nation to any sort of child.

Personally I assume Hamas is fully in control of their own actions and knows quite well what they're doing... I just disapprove because I think they're doing a bad thing to their own people.

Of course. I didn't mean to dispute that phrasing was unfortunate. I disputed that van Creveld's intention was to make it so. Further, his point stands: the power disparity makes the big guy look silly at best, evil at worst.

I can understand that. My main complaint is that if weak groups are free to shelter behind large innocent populations, while constantly attacking stronger groups, how much restraint is expected of the strong group in deciding how (or whether) to retaliate?

Yeah, I definitely restated this. UK, the Troubles, effective, a paradigm of counterinsurgency, the works.

Whether or not Hamas is in the habit of using human shields on the tactical level, it's hard to deny they're using them on the strategic level. It is their policy to avoid open battle with Israel, and to keep the bulk of their total forces mixed in with the Palestinian civilian population. They have to know as well as anyone, if not better, that IF the Israelis respond with any kind of violent counterattack, that will result in a lot of death and damage in Palestinian lands.

No, it's pretty easy to deny even at the strategic levels. You have to consider that there's no place in Gaza that's safe from the IDF; you cannot put military installations or amass troops in the open because you'll get bombed, that's the basic idea behind guerilla warfare. If you factor in pop density as well, Hamas can only operate mixed in with civilians. If Israel claims Hamas can wage war elsehow, they are deluded or sinister.

Besides, I really don't see how this absolves Israel of responsibility in causing these civilian deaths.

I wouldn't mind that at all. My objection is to negotiating with terrorists, not to negotiating with some particular group.

There's nothing magic about the name "Hamas" that makes it somehow repulsive or evil. The problem is that right now, Hamas seems to be pursuing a strategy of causing small but lethal and costly attacks on Israeli citizens and property, then drawing down a large Israeli retaliation. Then they get Israel to yield to shocked foreigners who hate the bloodshed, resulting in Israel making concessions that allow Hamas to grow in strength.

If that strategy starts to work, it may cause Hamas to reverse any softening trend it's started to exhibit... because there's nothing like winning a war against a bigger stronger enemy and getting spoils and glory by doing so to convince you that your basic strategy is working.

That's my take on Hamas' strategy too, perhaps we disagree on the necessity of it.

But see, Hamas hardening its stance because of victory isn't speculation I'll just accept without very solid reasoning. Just look at their demands; even assuming they get everything they ask for (no blockade, no settlements, 1967 borders, UN recognition), Hamas won't turn into the Juggernaut and the IDF can still defeat them handily in a future conflict. It's just as likely Hamas will finally have something to lose out of a war, and this will instill some caution.

Yes, well, I'm quite prepared to believe that, but "rocket barrage" and "softened stance" don't mix very well.

Nothing in the Middle East does . Seriously though, it is still a change.

I think I see Omeganian's point. If bloodshed matters, compare bloodshed. If destroyed homes and property matter, compare those too. But Omeganian was objecting because he thought you were saying property damage is totally irrelevant when it happens to one side, but profoundly important when it happens to the other.

So basically, it's a matter of not comparing apples to oranges.

Omeganian was stupid enough to read "flattening half of Gaza every two years" and decide it implied nothing about human costs. Don't drag yourself there.

[Simon_Jester]

Note, I'm going to sleep soon, responses to eyl and Omeganian are pending.

Well, what influences your decision? What factors do and do not matter?

I think I've restated this: a desire for peace, which leads to wondering who has to back down first (this being a vicious cycle and all). Look at the power dynamic in the conflict: Israel has nuclear weapons, while Palestine isn't even recognized as a state by the UN. Palestinians have settlers put on their lands (whose existence leads to more conflict and more settlements) and cannot even formally protest at the international community. If there is one who can give, one who can break the cycle, who do you think it is?

That's a true argument but I don't think it's a complete one.

The other half of it is, it is... at best wishful thinking and at worst willful ignorance of human nature to expect a large group of people to agree to give up something for nothing. It's usually possible to convince people to sacrifice something for something, or nothing for nothing, but not something for nothing.

And in 2005 or so, I think it would be relatively simple to argue that the Israelis simply needed to stop all aggression against Palestinian lands, cease the settlements, pull back the settlements, allow the Palestinians to build functional economies and so on. They would presumably give up something (the ability to enforce control and suppress enemies in Palestinian territory), in exchange for something (an end to the war).

In my opinion, the Gaza Strip pullout and its aftermath have greatly complicated the picture, though. In Gaza we have a sort of prototypical image of what a Palestinian state may look and act like. And frankly, it looks a lot like it's at war with Israel... or trying to be, at least.

So the Israelis now have to look at Gaza and say "if we give up our stranglehold on the Palestinians, is more of this what we have to look forward to?" And to a large extent if they decide to give up that stranglehold, they are gambling with the lives of their own countrymen.

That's a reality, even if we can rightly stand outside the dispute shouting that for God's sake, the Israelis are strangling those poor Palestinians, and that they're the only ones who are remotely equipped to unilaterally end the cycle. That reality that while only the Israelis could possibly end it unilaterally, they have reason to wonder whether their attempt to do so would work, or whether it would just make things worse for themselves.

I think this reluctance to risk giving up something for nothing is a big factor in Israel's decisions.

Of course. I didn't mean to dispute that phrasing was unfortunate. I disputed that van Creveld's intention was to make it so. Further, his point stands: the power disparity makes the big guy look silly at best, evil at worst.

Well, honestly I think people sometimes subconsciously come up with analogies like this because it's fun to side with the little guy and say the big guy is in the wrong; there's a certain pleasure in condemning a big nasty villain. Especially for modern intellectuals who mostly think violence is categorically wrong and favor peaceful compromise in pretty much all situations.

But it's important to watch the words we use, so we don't frame the debate in a way that impairs our objectivity. Such as thinking of competent statesmen and guerilla warfare experts as though they were a bunch of children, incapable and ignorant of strategic thinking, and not responsible for their own actions.

I can understand that. My main complaint is that if weak groups are free to shelter behind large innocent populations, while constantly attacking stronger groups, how much restraint is expected of the strong group in deciding how (or whether) to retaliate?

Yeah, I definitely restated this. UK, the Troubles, effective, a paradigm of counterinsurgency, the works.

Except that the Troubles were a quite different situation.

Israel is dealing with areas full of hostile displaced populations that have a huge irredentist thing going in which a lot of them want to claim all the land Israel now occupies. And the displaced people have a nearly 100% disapproval of Israel and would probably be perfectly happy if all the Israelis jumped off a cliff*.

Meanwhile, in Northern Ireland during the Troubles, the UK faced a divided population in Northern Ireland, where part of the population was Unionist and part was Irish-nationalist, and where they could basically adopt a position of neutrality while trying to combat specific acts of terrorism on the part of the Irish nationalists. They didn't have to worry about, for example, the IRA forming a semi-independent state in County Antrim and firing masses of random mortars and rockets into Belfast, let alone London.

So it's very questionable whether it's even realistic to think of the Troubles as an analogy for the situation in Palestine. The UK had a lot of options that Israel doesn't.
_______________________

*And frankly I don't blame the Palestinians for feeling that way. I'd most likely feel the same way. But we've got to at least comprehend what the consequences of that are.

Whether or not Hamas is in the habit of using human shields on the tactical level, it's hard to deny they're using them on the strategic level. It is their policy to avoid open battle with Israel, and to keep the bulk of their total forces mixed in with the Palestinian civilian population. They have to know as well as anyone, if not better, that IF the Israelis respond with any kind of violent counterattack, that will result in a lot of death and damage in Palestinian lands.

No, it's pretty easy to deny even at the strategic levels. You have to consider that there's no place in Gaza that's safe from the IDF; you cannot put military installations or amass troops in the open because you'll get bombed, that's the basic idea behind guerilla warfare. If you factor in pop density as well, Hamas can only operate mixed in with civilians. If Israel claims Hamas can wage war elsehow, they are deluded or sinister.

My point is that Hamas's entire decision to fight entails being mixed in with the civilians. And yes, this is a common aspect of guerilla warfare... which, frankly, is a real problem with guerilla warfare.

Guerilla war invariably compels the enemy army to choose between total defeat by a much weaker force, or actually trying to fight the guerillas and therefore causing heavy civilian casualties.

We tend to lionize guerillas because we associate them with causes that in hindsight were clearly in the right- such as the various resistance movements against the Nazis, or the anticolonialist rebels of the 1950s and '60s. We therefore see the civilian casualties that resulted from the decision to wage guerilla war as martyrs to the cause of freedom, and the armies the guerillas fought as villains for killing them. Which is perfectly reasonable... as applied to those guerilla movements.

But that doesn't mean we can look at all guerilla movements the same way. In Hamas's case, the most basic form of their cause (Palestinian independence) is symapthetic and falls under 'freedom fighter' in many minds... but at the same time, it's pretty obvious that they're not in any real sense "resisting" an army that occupies their people. At least, not in southern Israel away from the West Bank.

Besides, I really don't see how this absolves Israel of responsibility in causing these civilian deaths.

It is my opinion that BOTH sides are responsible and NEITHER side can realistically impose peace unilaterally. As a consequence it may be impossible to impose peace at all... or not. I'm not sure.

I wouldn't mind that at all. My objection is to negotiating with terrorists, not to negotiating with some particular group.

There's nothing magic about the name "Hamas" that makes it somehow repulsive or evil. The problem is that right now, Hamas seems to be pursuing a strategy of causing small but lethal and costly attacks on Israeli citizens and property, then drawing down a large Israeli retaliation. Then they get Israel to yield to shocked foreigners who hate the bloodshed, resulting in Israel making concessions that allow Hamas to grow in strength.

If that strategy starts to work, it may cause Hamas to reverse any softening trend it's started to exhibit... because there's nothing like winning a war against a bigger stronger enemy and getting spoils and glory by doing so to convince you that your basic strategy is working.

That's my take on Hamas' strategy too, perhaps we disagree on the necessity of it.

But see, Hamas hardening its stance because of victory isn't speculation I'll just accept without very solid reasoning. Just look at their demands; even assuming they get everything they ask for (no blockade, no settlements, 1967 borders, UN recognition), Hamas won't turn into the Juggernaut and the IDF can still defeat them handily in a future conflict. It's just as likely Hamas will finally have something to lose out of a war, and this will instill some caution.

Maybe- but it's very hard to say. Essentially, you're asking Israel to roll the dice on the good faith and peaceable intentions of people who are actively trying to kill them.

Which is a LOT to ask of anyone, without some gesture of good faith by the other side... even if said other side is in no position to make gestures.

Yes, well, I'm quite prepared to believe that, but "rocket barrage" and "softened stance" don't mix very well.

Nothing in the Middle East does . Seriously though, it is still a change.

What, softening one's rhetorical stance while continuing the rocket bombardment? I'm skeptical.

I think I see Omeganian's point. If bloodshed matters, compare bloodshed. If destroyed homes and property matter, compare those too. But Omeganian was objecting because he thought you were saying property damage is totally irrelevant when it happens to one side, but profoundly important when it happens to the other.

So basically, it's a matter of not comparing apples to oranges.

Omeganian was stupid enough to read "flattening half of Gaza every two years" and decide it implied nothing about human costs. Don't drag yourself there.

If you want to compare human costs, fine, go for it.

[His Divine Shadow]

Good.

The reason is that palestinians have not yet been sufficiently decimated and exterminated enough, once roughly 9 out of 10 palestinians are dead we will probably see said behavior, it's just so hard to accomplish anything in private in todays modern world.

So... what state of affairs would you prefer? I mean, I don't want the Israelis to keep trying to kill off, destroy, and drive Palestinians out of their homes, I think it's filthy and wrong. But I'm honestly curious what you want the Israelis to actually do that you think would improve the situation.

Prefer? Well I would prefer the state of Israel be dissolved and its leaders tried for war crimes, then a new not-israel not palestine state formed under international military control ala post-war europe with its own marshall style plan to build up the neglected palestinian areas. That's what I'd prefer.

[Simon_Jester]

So, what happens to the individual Israelis under this plan?

[His Divine Shadow]

Why would anything happen to them anymore than what happened to the individuals in postwar europe?

[Beowulf]

So, what happens to the individual Israelis under this plan?

Pogroms, a couple years down the line.

[His Divine Shadow]

So basically the only way the israelis can live and feel safe is to oppress others and commit pogroms the other way (I guess firing a tank into a bazar counts as a pogrom like action of sorts). Brilliant long term plan.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

So, what happens to the individual Israelis under this plan?

You know, this has long descended into a "better you than me" game that if a clean restart does not work, nothing would at all.

Better to just burn the whole area with atomic fire and be done with it. At this point, the entire area is a bloody minded eye sore and the only circumstance both sides are happy with seems to be "no solution at all, just keep shooting".

We can all argue the morality of this situation day and night and I have no doubt that there's plenty of immorality on both sides but really, is there a point of the arguments at all after a while? Israel most certainly has descended into a "I don't give a shit any more. I will just take what I want." and Hamas responds with "Why bother with peace? Just keep shooting." If that's what everyone is happy with, then burn the whole place down.

[cosmicalstorm]

So basically the only way the israelis can live and feel safe is to oppress others and commit pogroms the other way (I guess firing a tank into a bazar counts as a pogrom like action of sorts). Brilliant long term plan.

There are Israelis who wish that the country had performed a proper genocide and expulsion right at the start of the country to avoid the current situation. But right now, Israel is not executing pogroms of Palestinians. I don't think there is any other country in history that has restrained itself as much as Israel under the same circumstances. 99 times out of 100 in our history in a similar situation, the Palestinians would be killed and expelled right away with no remorse.

A never ending low level riot is a better way to describe the situation.
Gaza has basically quadrupled it's population as of lately, hardly what you do when being in the middle of a relentless genocide.

[His Divine Shadow]

One barely knows how to respond to posts like these, basically just gaping at the screen.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

So basically the only way the israelis can live and feel safe is to oppress others and commit pogroms the other way (I guess firing a tank into a bazar counts as a pogrom like action of sorts). Brilliant long term plan.

There are Israelis who wish that the country had performed a proper genocide and expulsion right at the start of the country to avoid the current situation. But right now, Israel is not executing pogroms of Palestinians. I don't think there is any other country in history that has restrained itself as much as Israel under the same circumstances. 99 times out of 100 in our history in a similar situation, the Palestinians would be killed and expelled right away with no remorse.

A never ending low level riot is a better way to describe the situation.
Gaza has basically quadrupled it's population as of lately, hardly what you do when being in the middle of a relentless genocide.

You must have a very low key definition of "restrained".

[Omeganian]

[quote="Dr. Trainwreck"Omeganian was stupid enough to read "flattening half of Gaza every two years" and decide it implied nothing about human costs. Don't drag yourself there.[/quote]

Then what did it imply? I asked whether the Palestinian casualties are an existential threat. What did you answer? You talked about damage to a city, and not a word about people. My stupidity... or your goalpost shifting?

[Thanas]

I don't think there is any other country in history that has restrained itself as much as Israel under the same circumstances. 99 times out of 100 in our history in a similar situation, the Palestinians would be killed and expelled right away with no remorse.

Nope, no history of ethnic tensions being solved without ghettos in the multiethnic states of Europe, everybody.

[gigabytelord]

I was just reading this and thought it might add to the conversation a little.

There are some very interesting things to be heard coming out of the mouths of american officials. Usually they'd be to afraid to lose their jobs for saying something like this, but it's becoming more common in every part of the government except congress of course.

“Eleven battalions of IDF artillery is equivalent to the artillery we deploy to support two divisions of U.S. infantry,” a senior Pentagon officer with access to the daily briefings said. “That’s a massive amount of firepower, and it’s absolutely deadly.” Another officer, a retired artillery commander who served in Iraq, said the Pentagon’s assessment might well have underestimated the firepower the IDF brought to bear on Shujaiya. “This is the equivalent of the artillery we deploy to support a full corps,” he said. “It’s just a huge number of weapons.”

Artillery pieces used during the operation included a mix of Soltam M71 guns and U.S.-manufactured Paladin M109s (a 155-mm howitzer), each of which can fire three shells per minute. “The only possible reason for doing that is to kill a lot of people in as short a period of time as possible,” said the senior U.S. military officer. “It’s not mowing the lawn,” he added, referring to a popular IDF term for periodic military operations against Hamas in Gaza. “It’s removing the topsoil.”

[cosmicalstorm]

I don't think there is any other country in history that has restrained itself as much as Israel under the same circumstances. 99 times out of 100 in our history in a similar situation, the Palestinians would be killed and expelled right away with no remorse.

Nope, no history of ethnic tensions being solved without ghettos in the multiethnic states of Europe, everybody.

They could have taken another path if everyone involved had wanted that at the start. Looking at what is happening to the other multi-cultures in the region right now I'm not sure even if that would have worked in the end.
But the momentum brought them to today's place where there will be no forgiving and no real solution. The one time an Israeli PM wanted peace he was gunned down as a traitor.

Israel will continue the slowmotion expelling of Palestinians and Palestinians will continue hating the Jew for the foreseeable future. I would not be surprised if a global climate disaster or something similar sent the conflict into genocide mode.