So that ceasefire didn't last long.

Albedo · Sep 14, 2014

Michael Wolfe said:
In my opinion, they are reasonable suggestions, but not as a direct response to attack. If Hamas is firing rockets at Israel, however ineffective they might be, can't you see why Israel wouldn't want to respond by making immediate concessions and hoping that will protect their citizens in the short-term?

Until Israel shows some recognition that their ongoing isolation of Gaza contributes to the rocket rain, using it as an excuse to continue the same mistreatment indefinitely is hard to swallow. They've had decades to make concessions. So have the Palestinians. Both sides are extremely bad at it, granted, but ultimately it's the Israelis, as the ones with the power in the relationship, who are going to have to make the bigger concessions. The biggest concession will be having to live with a close neighbour who won't like them much. But surely that's infinitely preferable to having to police the stateless people on your doorstep forever and ever?

J.S.F. said:
---ME. What is "Palestinian land"

Um, the bits the Palestinians live on? The West Bank. Gaza. Not sure if trick question, sorry.

and who--and how many--are the "moderates"? Keep in mind, that in the past when both sides have come together to discuss the (at that point and also now, remote) possibility of land for peace, the Palestinians always wanted more.

They may have wanted more, but seeing that Israel has continued year by year to appropriate more and more of that land, leaving less and less for them, I can understand their edginess.

And the question of why the Israelis should share a state with another state that wishes to see them gone arises.

So all Palestinians want Israel gone, now? Citation needed. And quite frankly, even if they were a whole nation of colossal arseholes, I still don't see how that would limit their right to self-determination.

---ME. Not a bad idea, but the funds would have to be managed. Keep in mind that in the past, Hamas used whatever funds they got to buy weapons and build ten-million dollar tunnels...while their people starved. When peace was there, how did the economy grow? Some sectors did well...most did not, and if you blame that all on Israel, think again.

Gaza is a 40 km long strip of sand dunes with no trees, no natural resources, no defenses, no friends, and a million people. Its two neighbours (and I don't blame Israel alone, Egypt is equally responsible for Gaza's isolation) bear great responsibility for the weeds that have sprung up on that stony ground, IMO. Hamas would not have the power and support it does if not for deliberate Israeli and Egyptian policy. Now reversing the situation is going to cost them billions, but that outlay is nothing compared to what ongoing low-level war will cost them, amortised over infinity.

---ME. Fair enough. If Hamas expects to be treated nicely during war, let them stop building tunnels to bomb/kidnap/kill Israeli soldiers and civilians. Tell them to stop hiding weapons at civilian-type locations such as hospitals and power plants, and stop using their own people as human shields. They lied about it before--they'll do it again, and to pretend otherwise means believing in something other than reality.

Let's be clear where we stand. If every second preschool, old folks' home, bingo club and dog shelter on the Strip held a cache of Hamas weapons, bombing civilian targets in a densely populated urban area would Still. Be. Wrong. YMMV.

c.e.lawson said:
Once again, excuses and minimizing to make Israel seem the only bad guy. If you call Hamas crazy or disenfranchised, then they're not evil. I get it.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm doing. Defending Hamas. Because any criticism of the Israeli state means supporting Hamas. I get it.

Did you miss the part where I called them fundamentalist paramilitary fucknuts? Do you think I think those are good things? I don't refrain from criticising my own country's human rights violations. Why the fuck should I refrain from criticising Israel? Don't tell me what crimes against humanity I can and can't oppose.

J.S.F. · Sep 14, 2014

Albedo said:
Um, the bits the Palestinians live on? The West Bank. Gaza. Not sure if trick question, sorry.
---ME. Actually, it was a bit of a trick question, as those who support the Palestinians tend to see them getting more land to live on, while others do not. Map lines and all that. YMMV.

They may have wanted more, but seeing that Israel has continued year by year to appropriate more and more of that land, leaving less and less for them, I can understand their edginess.

---ME. See my answer above. And considering that whenever the Palestinians come to the bargaining table they inevitably want half of Jerusalem as their capital--and I think they're doing it to piss the Israelis off by making that demand although I recognize that some Arab prophets' remains are there as are some Islamic holy sites--which would mean literally splitting Israel in half, according to some maps.

So all Palestinians want Israel gone, now? Citation needed. And quite frankly, even if they were a whole nation of colossal arseholes, I still don't see how that would limit their right to self-determination.

--ME. Did I say ALL Palestinians? My bad. Let's see, Hamas certainly wants Israel gone. And when I see Palestinian civilians in the news chanting "Palestine" over and over...I don't think they're referring just to the West Bank and the Gaza strip. Some talk about co-existence...some don't.

Gaza is a 40 km long strip of sand dunes with no trees, no natural resources, no defenses, no friends, and a million people. Its two neighbours (and I don't blame Israel alone, Egypt is equally responsible for Gaza's isolation) bear great responsibility for the weeds that have sprung up on that stony ground, IMO. Hamas would not have the power and support it does if not for deliberate Israeli and Egyptian policy. Now reversing the situation is going to cost them billions, but that outlay is nothing compared to what ongoing low-level war will cost them, amortised over infinity.

---ME. Not quite true on this. While Israel hasn't been all that giving, you also have to examine the leadership of the Palestinians before Hamas or Fatah ever got involved. Or rather, the lack of leadership and the corruption rife within that area. That has nothing to do with Israel, and everything to do with Arab leaders who prefer to have an identifiable enemy (Israel, mainly), who don't care about their own people, who've failed to educate them...the list goes on. So if you think the Arab leaders are pure in this regard, you're sadly mistaken.

ns supporting Hamas. I get it. (This part was directed at someone else)

Did you miss the part where I called them fundamentalist paramilitary fucknuts? Do you think I think those are good things? I don't refrain from criticising my own country's human rights violations. Why the fuck should I refrain from criticising Israel? Don't tell me what crimes against humanity I can and can't oppose.

---

See above, please.

While we're at it, let's examine your opening quote. You wrote:

"Until Israel shows some recognition that their ongoing isolation of Gaza contributes to the rocket rain, using it as an excuse to continue the same mistreatment indefinitely is hard to swallow. "

Well, how about the deliberate kidnapping and murder of soldiers and civilians? While some people tend to focus on the overwhelming military superiority the Israelis have--no denying it--those same people tend to forget the militant Palestinians willingly blowing shit up, detonating bombs, burrowing into Israel itself to cause mayhem, killing their own people in order to do it, Using their citizens as human shields, lying about it to their people and to the UN, pocketing the cash among their leaders while feeding their hapless citizenry the same old bullshit about Israel being evil all the while getting a little richer in the process. Corruption is rife there...but the ordinary worker or housewife will never know...their leaders won't tell them the whole story.

"They've had decades to make concessions. So have the Palestinians. Both sides are extremely bad at it, granted, but ultimately it's the Israelis, as the ones with the power in the relationship, who are going to have to make the bigger concessions. The biggest concession will be having to live with a close neighbour who won't like them much. But surely that's infinitely preferable to having to police the stateless people on your doorstep forever and ever?"

Every single time the land for peace idea has been broached--and I'm repeating what I wrote above--the Palestinians have always agreed in principle--and then demanded more. The late Yassir Arafat was no stranger to this kind of bargaining, and his successors employ the same tactic. As for an inch, then take a yard.

You also have to think about notions of trust--on both sides...not much--and who will lead the Palestinians. If it's Hamas, then you can figure out the answer. Why live next door to someone when they (Hamas) is hellbent on destroying you? That's tantamount to suicide.

raburrell · Sep 14, 2014

J.S.F. said:
Every single time the land for peace idea has been broached--and I'm repeating what I wrote above--the Palestinians have always agreed in principle--and then demanded more. The late Yassir Arafat was no stranger to this kind of bargaining, and his successors employ the same tactic. As for an inch, then take a yard.

You also have to think about notions of trust--on both sides...not much--and who will lead the Palestinians. If it's Hamas, then you can figure out the answer. Why live next door to someone when they (Hamas) is hellbent on destroying you? That's tantamount to suicide.

If there's no bargaining with the Palestinians, what's the solution?
While I recognize the difficulties here (to put it mildly), and have always been very reluctant to use this term in regards to Israel, the eventual consequence of that stance is apartheid.

Michael Wolfe · Sep 14, 2014

Albedo said:
Until Israel shows some recognition that their ongoing isolation of Gaza contributes to the rocket rain, using it as an excuse to continue the same mistreatment indefinitely is hard to swallow. They've had decades to make concessions. So have the Palestinians. Both sides are extremely bad at it, granted, but ultimately it's the Israelis, as the ones with the power in the relationship, who are going to have to make the bigger concessions. The biggest concession will be having to live with a close neighbour who won't like them much. But surely that's infinitely preferable to having to police the stateless people on your doorstep forever and ever?

Agreed, but this dodges the main objection I brought up. Go back to what I quoted and responded to earlier.

Gaza is a diplomatically and economically isolated enclave with no functioning government, no standing army, no navy, and no air defense. When a country with all those things makes war on one without, it is acting disproportionately by definition.

The dots aren't well connected, imo. A response to Hamas attacks in the long-term picture might reasonably include a political solution of some kind. But take one of your suggestions, for example: the suggestion of investing money in Palestinian state-building. That's a good short-term response? Israel should respond to rocket fire by handing over money?

The statement I quoted doesn't allow Israel to return fire right away, at all. I don't see any other away to interpret it, given what you said later.

3. If military action is still required after they give the Palestinians some dignity back, pay a bit more than lip service to their own vaunted standards of clean warfare. Don't bomb power stations, sewerage plants, hospitals, or beaches where kids play.

Bolding mine. I'm with you, Albedo. I support a two-state solution, and I support a freeze on settlement building, too. I oppose civilian casualties in warfare. But Israel couldn't have followed your suggestions without some kind of military response in the short-term. If the response to the rocket fire is immediate capitulation, does anyone really think that bodes well for Israel in future dealings with Hamas?

Albedo · Sep 14, 2014

J.S.F. said:
---ME. Actually, it was a bit of a trick question, as those who support the Palestinians tend to see them getting more land to live on, while others do not. Map lines and all that. YMMV.

---ME. See my answer above. And considering that whenever the Palestinians come to the bargaining table they inevitably want half of Jerusalem as their capital--and I think they're doing it to piss the Israelis off by making that demand although I recognize that some Arab prophets' remains are there as are some Islamic holy sites--which would mean literally splitting Israel in half, according to some maps.

That's not why they want East Jerusalem. The thing with E. Jerusalem is, no-one except Israel sees it as part of Israel. No other country on Earth accepts their annexation of E. Jerusalem. The thoroughly mainstream, default international position is that it is a part of the West Bank that was illegitimately annexed (much as Golan was from Syria). Of course the Palestinians want it back. It's got nothing to do with pissing Israel off.

Whereas, sometimes my inner cynic thinks that Israel's ongoing settlement program has got everything to do with pissing the Palestinians off further ....

--ME. Did I say ALL Palestinians? My bad. Let's see, Hamas certainly wants Israel gone. And when I see Palestinian civilians in the news chanting "Palestine" over and over...I don't think they're referring just to the West Bank and the Gaza strip. Some talk about co-existence...some don't.

You certainly implied it, by suggesting any Palestinian state will necessarily be hellbent on 'seeing them gone'. When in reality what passes for the Palestinian state has recognised Israel since the Oslo Accords.

---ME. Not quite true on this. While Israel hasn't been all that giving, you also have to examine the leadership of the Palestinians before Hamas or Fatah ever got involved. Or rather, the lack of leadership and the corruption rife within that area. That has nothing to do with Israel, and everything to do with Arab leaders who prefer to have an identifiable enemy (Israel, mainly), who don't care about their own people, who've failed to educate them...the list goes on. So if you think the Arab leaders are pure in this regard, you're sadly mistaken.

I didn't say anything about Palestinian purity. I've been talking more about the conspicuous Israeli lack of.

But okay, the whole Palestinian statehood experiment, from the days of the PLO to the present, has been a historically unprecedented clusterfuck. There, acknowledged. Now, when will both Israel and Palestine stop treating Palestinians like shit?

While we're at it, let's examine your opening quote. You wrote:

"Until Israel shows some recognition that their ongoing isolation of Gaza contributes to the rocket rain, using it as an excuse to continue the same mistreatment indefinitely is hard to swallow. "

Well, how about the deliberate kidnapping and murder of soldiers and civilians? While some people tend to focus on the overwhelming military superiority the Israelis have--no denying it--those same people tend to forget the militant Palestinians willingly blowing shit up, detonating bombs, burrowing into Israel itself to cause mayhem, killing their own people in order to do it, Using their citizens as human shields, lying about it to their people and to the UN, pocketing the cash among their leaders while feeding their hapless citizenry the same old bullshit about Israel being evil all the while getting a little richer in the process. Corruption is rife there...but the ordinary worker or housewife will never know...their leaders won't tell them the whole story.

These are all bad things! I don't know where you're getting the idea I might think differently.

Here's a dangerous idea: the badness of your enemy excuses none of your badness towards your enemy.

I'll state it again. The badness of your enemy excuses none of your badness towards your enemy.

The badness of your enemy excuses none of your badness towards your enemy.

robeiae · Sep 14, 2014

raburrell said:
If there's no bargaining with the Palestinians, what's the solution?
While I recognize the difficulties here (to put it mildly), and have always been very reluctant to use this term in regards to Israel, the eventual consequence of that stance is apartheid.

Well, no. There are lots of other potential consequences, most of them pretty bad.

Regardless, I don't think it's an issue of it being impossible to bargain with the Palestinians, from an Israeli perspective. It's the apparent nature of the "who" being bargained with, combined with the history of Israel, the history of the Jews in general, and the shit that continues to run out of the mouths of people in other places (especially those in nearby countries).

There's plenty of things to fault the Israelis for, imo. The settlements are certainly near the top of that list. But the sentiments Albedo and others express with regard to what Israel should/must do assume the above should just be forgotten, ignored, or the like.

Consider the idea of Apartheid for a moment, since you brought it up. The actual institution of Apartheid in South Africa was not a simple thing. There's a lot of background to consider, social, political, and economic. But the justification of Apartheid by Afrikaners is familiar enough: religion. It was God's will that the races be kept separate and the white race was the chosen race, the superior race, thus fully justified in treating non-white races differently. Pseudo-science played a role, as well.

Still, the religion angle was the common justification for those that needed it. I note this because when people toss the Apartheid label out there with regard to Israel/Palestine, they tend to just see the Israeli world-view. Because as we know, there is a huge religious angle here, as well: the Promised Land.

But there's another one: that of "Death to the Jews." In this respect, I think the Apartheid gambit comes apart. As I alluded to above, there are people--lots of them--who view the Jews as evil, period. They believe the Jews should be destroyed, should bepushed into the sea, should "vanish from the page of time" (to quote Mr. Laughs).

It's easy to say the Israelis should just ignore those spouting such garbage. It's harder--imo--to explain why they should. So when someone suggests that Israel should give in and be the "bigger person: and just forget about those talking about destroying Israel and the Jews as a whole...

Afrikaners of course could come up with reasons why they feared the non-white population in South Africa. But they weren't facing a mainstream ideology in those populations--and in the rest of the world--that called for the absolute destruction of their race.

raburrell · Sep 14, 2014

robeiae said:
Well, no. There are lots of other potential consequences, most of them pretty bad.

Well, it leaves the two-state solution out, so in the long run, that essentially leaves either one-state option A - a Jewish state in which Palestinians have diminished rights (which is the apartheid equivalent) or one-state in which one side or the other has obliterated its rival. Is there one I'm missing?

Consider the idea of Apartheid for a moment, since you brought it up. The actual institution of Apartheid in South Africa was not a simple thing. There's a lot of background to consider, social, political, and economic. But the justification of Apartheid by Afrikaners is familiar enough: religion. It was God's will that the races be kept separate and the white race was the chosen race, the superior race, thus fully justified in treating non-white races differently. Pseudo-science played a role, as well.

While I don't think Israel is 'there' at the moment, I think there are elements of this at play, and if Israel at some point simply annexes Gaza and the West Bank completely and declares, as Netanyahu has come pretty close to recently, IMO the distinctions start to fall away.

Still, the religion angle was the common justification for those that needed it. I note this because when people toss the Apartheid label out there with regard to Israel/Palestine, they tend to just see the Israeli world-view. Because as we know, there is a huge religious angle here, as well: the Promised Land.

But there's another one: that of "Death to the Jews." In this respect, I think the Apartheid gambit comes apart. As I alluded to above, there are people--lots of them--who view the Jews as evil, period. They believe the Jews should be destroyed, should bepushed into the sea, should "vanish from the page of time" (to quote Mr. Laughs).

Security issues were cited during South African apartheid as well (as you note below). I don't 'toss out that label' lightly by any stretch, as I said, but I do think that given Netanyahu's recent statements, last month's massive land grab, etc, this is the course that's been set. And yes, Hamas is a large part of the reason why.

It's easy to say the Israelis should just ignore those spouting such garbage. It's harder--imo--to explain why they should. So when someone suggests that Israel should give in and be the "bigger person: and just forget about those talking about destroying Israel and the Jews as a whole...

I'm not asking them too. I'm asking them to stop grabbing land in the West Bank. For starters.

Afrikaners of course could come up with reasons why they feared the non-white population in South Africa. But they weren't facing a mainstream ideology in those populations--and in the rest of the world--that called for the absolute destruction of their race.

Yes. All true. But it doesn't change the parallels to what Israel might become if they continue on the path to a one-state situation.

robeiae · Sep 14, 2014

raburrell said:
Well, it leaves the two-state solution out, so in the long run, that essentially leaves either one-state option A - a Jewish state in which Palestinians have diminished rights (which is the apartheid equivalent) or one-state in which one side or the other has obliviated its rival. Is there one I'm missing?

Lots. Israel could simply attack until there is no more Hamas, no more threats. There's also many different ways Israel could approach the isolating of Palestinian territories. But whatever Israel does, there will be reactions from without, which could vary based on many other factors.

So again, if Israel just stops bargaining in total, there are many potential consequences. And again, most (maybe all) are pretty bad, particularly the first.

I'm not suggesting this course of action--stop negotiating--in the least, just noting that we can't say it will lead only one place.

raburrell · Sep 14, 2014

robeiae said:
Lots. Israel could simply attack until there is no more Hamas, no more threats. There's also many different ways Israel could approach the isolating of Palestinian territories. But whatever Israel does, there will be reactions from without, which could vary based on many other factors.

So again, if Israel just stops bargaining in total, there are many potential consequences. And again, most (maybe all) are pretty bad, particularly the first.

I'm not suggesting this course of action--stop negotiating--in the least, just noting that we can't say it will lead only one place.

I don't think the bolded is realistic, personally - an offensive at that level is simply going to create a hydra (well, moreso than it already does). And yes, reactions from outside are going to become increasingly dangerous. And again, a perpetual state where Israel controls these territories to the point of isolation... it's really not much different from the endpoints I described.

Albedo · Sep 14, 2014

Michael Wolfe said:
Agreed, but this dodges the main objection I brought up. Go back to what I quoted and responded to earlier.

The dots aren't well connected, imo. A response to Hamas attacks in the long-term picture might reasonably include a political solution of some kind. But take one of your suggestions, for example: the suggestion of investing money in Palestinian state-building. That's a good short-term response? Israel should respond to rocket fire by handing over money?

The statement I quoted doesn't allow Israel to return fire right away, at all. I don't see any other away to interpret it, given what you said later.

I think there are a world of degrees in between doing nothing about the attacks (which I have not advocated) and the wholesale destruction we saw. Police action. Targeted assassinations. Israel has a wonderfully effective missile shield; the rockets can't possibly affect its national survival, which would be the only possible justification for the pounding Gaza just endured.

J.S.F. · Sep 14, 2014

Albedo said:
I think there are a world of degrees in between doing nothing about the attacks (which I have not advocated) and the wholesale destruction we saw. Police action. Targeted assassinations. Israel has a wonderfully effective missile shield; the rockets can't possibly affect its national survival, which would be the only possible justification for the pounding Gaza just endured.

---

Let's take one problem at a time. Hamas is what it is. A terrorist organization, nothing more and nothing less. Their charter is to wipe Israel off the face of the map. Never mind that they can't do it, that's what they want and on the surface, that's all they want. Playing nice with them won't work. Bargaining and negotiating with them won't work.

Keep in mind that Hamas effectively rules the Gaza strip and its mindset is pretty pervasive. No, not all Palestinians agree with Hamas and some (how many, I don't know for sure) have voiced their disagreement. Still, when faced with disagreement for its policies, Hamas has its own system in place: assassination of its own people as so-called "collaborators" or "informants". It's just as vicious toward its own people as it is towards Israelis. So if that's the kind of spokesgroup the Palestinian people want, then they'll have to take the consequences of their spokesgroup's actions.

Now, was the pounding of Gaza overkill? Yes, it was, but what other choice is there? In a war--as I stated before--the idea is to destroy the enemy. Proportionality is really not a concern. Naturally, civilian lives should be spared if at all possible, and yes, I think Israel did go overboard in this regard.

However, Hamas deliberately placed their own people--let me repeat that, their own people--in harm's way. They hid stashes of weaponry at hospitals and schools and other non-military buildings. They've built tunnels to invade Israel and kidnap or kill people and not just soldiers, and they've done the bombing and human bombing thing more times than I can remember. If there is to be a two-state solution, then Hamas has got to go and even then it's a crapshoot.

Really, what it all comes down to is a matter of trust on both sides. And while the Israelis are no angels, they're a whole lot more trustworthy than Hamas has proven itself to be.

Michael Wolfe · Sep 15, 2014

Albedo said:
I think there are a world of degrees in between doing nothing about the attacks (which I have not advocated) and the wholesale destruction we saw.

Right.

Police action.

Too vague to be very meaningful, imo.

Targeted assassinations.

Sure. Israel does this as much as anyone.

Israel has a wonderfully effective missile shield; the rockets can't possibly affect its national survival, which would be the only possible justification for the pounding Gaza just endured.

They went too far, just like they went too far during Cast Lead. But the rockets don't need to constitute some sort of existential threat to justify wanting to end them, imo. And Israel probably couldn't have done that without a war, imo. Do you think they could have achieved a cease fire deal via "police action" and targeted assassinations? How soon?

Michael Wolfe · Sep 15, 2014

J.S.F. said:
---

Let's take one problem at a time. Hamas is what it is. A terrorist organization, nothing more and nothing less. Their charter is to wipe Israel off the face of the map. Never mind that they can't do it, that's what they want and on the surface, that's all they want. Playing nice with them won't work. Bargaining and negotiating with them won't work.

Negotiating with Hamas is difficult, but certainly Israel has been willing to do it, anyway. That's to their credit, imo.

Keep in mind that Hamas effectively rules the Gaza strip and its mindset is pretty pervasive. No, not all Palestinians agree with Hamas and some (how many, I don't know for sure) have voiced their disagreement. Still, when faced with disagreement for its policies, Hamas has its own system in place: assassination of its own people as so-called "collaborators" or "informants". It's just as vicious toward its own people as it is towards Israelis. So if that's the kind of spokesgroup the Palestinian people want, then they'll have to take the consequences of their spokesgroup's actions.

I don't know. The fact that Hamas is undemocratic makes me think we should sympathize more with the ordinary people of Gaza, if anything. Many, many people in Gaza are dissatisfied with Hamas.

However, Hamas deliberately placed their own people--let me repeat that, their own people--in harm's way. They hid stashes of weaponry at hospitals and schools and other non-military buildings. They've built tunnels to invade Israel and kidnap or kill people and not just soldiers, and they've done the bombing and human bombing thing more times than I can remember. If there is to be a two-state solution, then Hamas has got to go and even then it's a crapshoot.

All true. Personally I don't think merely storing weapons in a school or a hospital justifies bombing it, though. The weapons are just sitting there, after all. Certainly when a rocket is being fired from a school, that's a much more difficult situation, imo.

J.S.F. · Sep 15, 2014

Michael Wolfe said:
Negotiating with Hamas is difficult, but certainly Israel has been willing to do it, anyway. That's to their credit, imo.

--ME. Negotiating with Hamas is the only option right now as they effectively control the Gaza strip and their people through fear and intimidation. They were elected by their own people, though, so that's that. If elections were held tomorrow and they were voted out, would they suddenly turn peaceful? We both know the answer to that.

I don't know. The fact that Hamas is undemocratic makes me think we should sympathize more with the ordinary people of Gaza, if anything. Many, many people in Gaza are dissatisfied with Hamas.

--ME. This is probably true. But at the same time, the average Gazan has an extremely jaundiced view of Israel. They're fed the usual lies about Israelis, and yes, Israel hasn't helped itself much by blowing the shit out of Gaza. Still, in a war you do what you can to demoralize the opposition. It's terrible that so many civilians had to die, but Hamas bears much of that responsibility for putting their own people in harm's way.

All true. Personally I don't think merely storing weapons in a school or a hospital justifies bombing it, though. The weapons are just sitting there, after all. Certainly when a rocket is being fired from a school, that's a much more difficult situation, imo.

---

As　to your last point, that being weapons stored in civilian buildings, some people in the Western world were convinced that Hamas did what it did, hoping the Israeli army wouldn't fire or would be fooled into thinking it was just a hospital. And the leaders of Hamas are really not that dumb. They knew the Israelis would fire on them, anyway, and they won a PR war--of sorts--at the outset.

And what were the Israelis supposed to do? Walk into Gaza and say "Hey, you've got weapons stored at hospitals with human shields?" I mean, really. Hamas may not have the might of the Israeli army, but on the ground in their own territory they're effective enough, and I'm sure the Israeli army commanders were thinking "Why risk our soldiers when bombing is easier and almost as effective?" You do what you can in a war to minimize casualties to your side. That's what Israel did. It is just very unfortunate that many civilians had to get injured and killed.

But the time to sugarcoat things is over. Hamas is a group of liars. Their history has proved it, their tactics have proved it, and they lied, lied, pure and simple to the UN, lied to their own people, and they'll continue to lie. As long as they rule Gaza and the Palestinian people, they'll do whatever they can to scuttle any possibility of peace talks. Bibi ain't that much better, by the way. But I'm pretty sure that the other third-party countries (i.e. the US, Canada, and even the Russians) know that Israel can be trusted to a greater degree than the Palestinians. JMO.

RichardGarfinkle · Sep 15, 2014

Police Action has two meanings. One is a euphemism for open warfare one does not want to admit is warfare. The other is policing the area. But that's what the occupation is.

When in police mode, Israel treats the Palestinian territories as its own territory that is controlled by dangerous street gangs. They set up checkpoints, search people coming in and out. They conduct house to house searches. They hunt down and capture or kill leaders, etc. Those are also tactics that have earned them international opprobrium.

In practical terms, policing demands occupation.

Michael Wolfe · Sep 15, 2014

RichardGarfinkle said:
Police Action has two meanings. One is a euphemism for open warfare one does not want to admit is warfare. The other is policing the area. But that's what the occupation is.

When in police mode, Israel treats the Palestinian territories as its own territory that is controlled by dangerous street gangs. They set up checkpoints, search people coming in and out. They conduct house to house searches. They hunt down and capture or kill leaders, etc. Those are also tactics that have earned them international opprobrium.

In practical terms, policing demands occupation.

Right. Note that both meanings seem opposed to the earlier policy recommendations being suggested:

Albedo said:
1. Stop isolating Gaza. Acknowledge the full, unconditional independence of the Palestinian state. Work with Palestinian moderates. For the love of God, stop building illegal settlements on Palestinian land.

2. Invest massively in Palestinian state-building. While Hamas is the only effective provider of social services in Gaza, they will have support.

3. If military action is still required after they give the Palestinians some dignity back, pay a bit more than lip service to their own vaunted standards of clean warfare. Don't bomb power stations, sewerage plants, hospitals, or beaches where kids play.

I don't see how acknowledging Palestinian independence can be squared with occupying Gaza. That leaves military strikes, which aren't an option until after Israel recognizes Palestinian independence and invests massively in Palestinian state-building. So I'm still left wondering what Israel can do in the short-term to put an end to the rocket attacks. Targeted assassinations are great, but is that enough? Personally I don't see how.

c.e.lawson · Sep 15, 2014

I don't know. The fact that Hamas is undemocratic makes me think we should sympathize more with the ordinary people of Gaza, if anything. Many, many people in Gaza are dissatisfied with Hamas.

Well, your source was from mid-July. The following is from more recently.

Poll: Hamas popularity surges after war with Israel

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...amas-popularity-surges-after-war-with-israel/

A new poll appears to show that support for Hamas has surged among Palestinians – in spite of (or perhaps due to) a huge Israeli military operation that battered Gaza and left many of the militant group's fighters dead.

It's a stark shift. If presidential elections were held today with just the two top candidates, the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PCPSR) found that 61 percent of Palestinians would vote for the militant's leader Ismail Haniyeh over current Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. That's a big increase over a poll conducted in June, which found that 53 percent supported Abbas and 41 percent supported Haniyeh. PCPSR note that it's the first time that Haniyeh has received a majority in the eight years they have asked the question.

The sudden shift in support seems to be a direct result of the recent war with Israel that left thousands of Palestinians and dozens of Israelis dead. Despite the huge destruction wrought in the Gaza Strip, the poll found many Palestinians were supportive of how Hamas handled the conflict. Ninety-four percent of those polled said they were satisfied with Hamas' military engagement of Israeli troops, and 86 percent supported the firing of rockets into Israeli. Remarkably, 79 percent said that Hamas had "won" the conflict. These results support on-the-ground reporting from The Post's Sudarsan Raghavan, who noted that "virtually every Palestinian interviewed during the hostilities praised the militants’ fight against Israel" in mid-August.

Michael Wolfe · Sep 15, 2014

c.e.lawson said:
Well, your source was from mid-July. The following is from more recently.

Poll: Hamas popularity surges after war with Israel

Seems fairly normal that support would spike during a time of war. The article acknowledges that much of the extra support is likely to revert back. But still, I think the main thing I'd want to emphasize is that you'll never have a situation where there are no innocent people in Gaza. Even if one thinks it's fair to blame Gazans for supporting Hamas, not every Gazan is even capable of doing so (children, for example).

Excepting a small elite, life in Gaza is quite difficult and there is plenty of reason to sympathize with many of the people there, imo.

J.S.F. · Sep 15, 2014

Michael Wolfe said:
I don't see how acknowledging Palestinian independence can be squared with occupying Gaza. That leaves military strikes, which aren't an option until after Israel recognizes Palestinian independence and invests massively in Palestinian state-building. So I'm still left wondering what Israel can do in the short-term to put an end to the rocket attacks. Targeted assassinations are great, but is that enough? Personally I don't see how.

---

"That leaves military strikes, which aren't an option until after Israel recognizes Palestinian independence and invests massively in Palestinian state-building."

See, this is the part I have trouble with. Let's assume for argument's sake that Israel does what many think it should do--give the Palestinians their own land. And then they would spend billions--as would some other countries, of course--to rebuild the infrastructure there. Would that stop the attacks? Would it stop the mindset many Palestinians have of Israel (and the other way 'round) and would it stop the cycle of violence?

Doubtful. I do think a two-state solution will eventually result, mainly because of demographics, but it's a long way off...and so is the trust factor.

Michael Wolfe · Sep 15, 2014

J.S.F. said:
---

Let's assume for argument's sake that Israel does what many think it should do--give the Palestinians their own land. And then they would spend billions--as would some other countries, of course--to rebuild the infrastructure there. Would that stop the attacks? Would it stop the mindset many Palestinians have of Israel (and the other way 'round) and would it stop the cycle of violence?

Doubtful.

I share your pessimism. For one thing, even in the (unlikely) event that Israel gives up a large portion of the West Bank, there are other things the Palestinians are looking to get that Israel will simply never agree to (the right of return, namely). And you're right, the mutual distrust is not something that can fade away overnight. But you have to start somewhere. And giving up the West Bank (or at least most of it) would be a good step, simply because it's the right thing to do imo, even if the political benefits aren't what some would crack them up to be.

So that ceasefire didn't last long.

Albedo

Alex

J.S.F.

Red fish, blue fish...

raburrell

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee

Michael Wolfe

Jambo Bwana

Albedo

Alex

robeiae

Touch and go

raburrell

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee

robeiae

Touch and go

raburrell

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee

Albedo

Alex

J.S.F.

Red fish, blue fish...

Michael Wolfe

Jambo Bwana

Michael Wolfe

Jambo Bwana

J.S.F.

Red fish, blue fish...

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes

Michael Wolfe

Jambo Bwana

c.e.lawson

Michael Wolfe

Jambo Bwana

J.S.F.

Red fish, blue fish...

Michael Wolfe

Jambo Bwana