Ray Jay wrote:wow ... both weird and part of living in 2012. I hope it makes it harder to recruit his replacement.

I think it's likely one is already in place.

I'm not sure what Israel is doing at the moment. This, Iran, and for some reason making a big deal out of PA recognition. And while Syria is boiling up (with the likelihood of repercussions in Lebanon), it seems like Israel's government is picking as many fights as it can.

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:wow ... both weird and part of living in 2012. I hope it makes it harder to recruit his replacement.

I think it's likely one is already in place.

I'm not sure what Israel is doing at the moment. This, Iran, and for some reason making a big deal out of PA recognition. And while Syria is boiling up (with the likelihood of repercussions in Lebanon), it seems like Israel's government is picking as many fights as it can.

Hamas has been firing missiles at Israel -- 750 this year alone. On Saturday they injured 4 soldiers. This guy had innocent blood (Israeli and probably American) on his hands. I don't see how this is different than the US taking out Bin Laden.

Re Syria, they fired into Israel, so Israel fired back. Again, that's within their rights. It also supports the Israeli decision to not return the Golan Heights without a credible peace.

It's not Israel that is picking the fight as far as I can tell.

Danivon, how is Israel picking a fight?

Have you seen the Foreign Minister's statements about what the PA being given UN recognition would be?

With Syria, it seems that stray rounds have gone into Israel/the occupied Golan Heights, and Israel responded with a deliberate one. Maybe 'within their rights', but not necessarily a good thing for reducing tensions.

With Iran, I repectfully have to disagree with the thesis that says Israel is being sensible to openly discuss an attack.

With Hamas, I know full well that they have been firing more missiles lately. Perhaps the leader was briefly in the right place for a strike and it is similar to hitting Bin Laden (although the method was more likely to affect a random passing civilian than the US raid in Pakistan was), but the timing of it means that it comes at the same time as the other three, and it's the confluence of then that I think will turn heads.

I agree with you on the PA.

Re Syria, I think they are telling the Syrians to be more careful.

Re Hamas, Israel doesn't have the US capability for a Bin Laden style raid.

Re confluence, I think you should focus on the confluence of Iran, Syria, and Hamas all being regimes that regularly kill their own people.

There are many confluences. However, I'm not sure Israel's actions are related to what those regimes do to their own people. I could, as you suggest, focus on that aspect, but surely Israel is not - they are looking at what those regimes have done/will do/might to to Israel.

The PA recognition issue, and particularly some of Lieberman's suggested responses against the PA should the UNGC vote for non-member status, really could do with being cooled down by Israel.

We are seeing today escalation of conflict between Hamas and Israel, with civilian deaths on both sides. While I understand wanting to restrict Hamas by taking out senior people, the timing and the manner of it are very unfortunate.

And I really do not trust the current government of Israel not to be playing internal politics with some of these issues.

I point to the confluence because it informs the Israelis -- and should inform others -- about what they are dealing with. Rulers that could care less about the deaths of their own people aren't going to care about the deaths of their sworn enemies. I think we both agree that it is the job of the Israeli government to look at what those regimes have done / will do / might do to Israel and its citizens.

I'm under the impression that the timing of the Hamas take out is a reaction to their renewed firing missiles into Israel with the goal of hitting civilians. That would be terrorism. Israel is aiming for the perpretrators. There's no moral equivalence here.

The treatment of the PA is a point of contention in the election, as it should be. How to respond to Iran is also a point of contention. The firing on Hamas is not controversial amongst the mainstream Israeli political parties. They started it. They are terrorists who openly call for the destruction of Israel. They hide and launch their weapons from civilian areas at civilian areas.

'They started it', is perhaps an unfortunate line of argument. 'it' has been going on for so long that who 'started it' is far less relevant than who is escalating it (which is both sides) and isn't going to be clearly definable anyway.

Yes, Hamas recently increased missile attacks. Did they do so out of the blue, or was there something they reacted to? If the latter, and that was an Israeli act, was that spontaneous, or in reaction to something Hamas did?

Your suggestion that this is simply tit for tat is silly (for the sake of our friendship I've toned down the word). States have the right to defend themselves against terrorists. In their charter, Hamas calls for the killing of ALL Jews. They want all of Palestine and are still smarting from 1948. They murder any internal dissent in their own country. They regularly engage in acts of terror. They have no conscience and they cannot be appeased.

Haaretz has reported that Gershon Baskin, who helped negotiate the release of Gilad Shalit, claims Al-Jabari had just been handed the text of a 'long-term truce' agreement proposal, and also that the Israeli government knew about it (although they were not involved in the negotiations). If that is the case, and if there was any chance that such truce may have come about - or worse, if Israel took advantage of knowledge about Al-Jabari's movements from those negotiations in order to target him - the timing looks very bad indeed.

Hamas may be all that you say (although the dehumanising is laid on a little thick), but it is civilians on both sides of the border who are getting really punished the most.

My suggestion that there is a large element of tit-for-tat is based largely on observation. When one side does something, the other responds with a little more, and so on, until there's a big conflict which Israel usually 'wins' or at least does a lot of damage in, and things calm down to a 'background' level of hostility while both sides use the last episode as more grist to the mill of hatred and distrust.

Maybe Hamas are objectively worse on moral grounds, but 'being less evil that the very evil' is not a great benchmark.

By the way, I also respect you enough as a friend not to have pointed out who is best known for saying 'they started it'. I think we can continue to discuss this sensibly and agree to differ. It is an emotive issue, and clearly you are vested in the welfare of Israel as a state, as well as the people of Israel. Likewise, my sympathies lie with the largely lower class victims in the civilian populations on both sides (and hey, given that Israel conscripts and Hamas probably coerces people into fighting, a lot of the military casualties too).

danivon wrote:Haaretz has reported that Gershon Baskin, who helped negotiate the release of Gilad Shalit, claims Al-Jabari had just been handed the text of a 'long-term truce' agreement proposal, and also that the Israeli government knew about it (although they were not involved in the negotiations). If that is the case, and if there was any chance that such truce may have come about - or worse, if Israel took advantage of knowledge about Al-Jabari's movements from those negotiations in order to target him - the timing looks very bad indeed.

As I understand it, Al-Jabari was involved in the lobbing of 80 missiles during the last 3 weeks. If he was serious about peace, he wouldn't have done so. Baskin says that Hamas intentionally lobbed these missiles into open space. That doesn't pass the credibility test to me.

Danivon,
Do you have links for your deductions about why Israel killed Al-Jabari? Or is that just conjecture?

I have links about the validity of Hamas starting the hostilities, but they should not be needed as it is current events. Is there an Israeli attack on Hamas that was not covered by the press?

Ray Jay wrote:As I understand it, Al-Jabari was involved in the lobbing of 80 missiles during the last 3 weeks. If he was serious about peace, he wouldn't have done so.

Hmm. I'm not sure that's such a determinitive test. If you are in conflict, it's quite common to keep fighting until a truce has been agreed, even as you argue for that truce. Firstly in case it doesn't come off, secondly to try and have as much of an advantage if it does (for either proper peace negotiations or the truce failing).

I mean, "If Israel were serious about peace, they wouldn't have killed him" is no less valid a statement (and just as unproven).

Baskin says that Hamas intentionally lobbed these missiles into open space. That doesn't pass the credibility test to me.

Hamas are not the only people firing missiles. The Popular Resistance Committees are not Hamas, and have been responsible for a fair proportion of recent rocket launches (and have had several of their members killed by return fire). The PRC are rivals to Hamas, in fact, being derived from militant Fatah members and with links to Hezbollah. While Hamas 'control' Gaza, they don't have total hegemony, and they would also be taking on a big task to try and rein in other groups, or to tell them when and where to fire. It's not really a 'government' out there, so much as a load of gangs.

And maybe you can dispute Baskin's statement here (although quite a lot of missiles do indeed land in empty space), but is he really without credibility?

Danivon,
Do you have links for your deductions about why Israel killed Al-Jabari? Or is that just conjecture?

Meaning what? The link to the Haaretz article is here: Israeli peace activist: Hamas leader Jabari killed amid talks on long-term truce. However, I did not make 'deductions' about 'why' Israel killed him. I was talking about the circumstances around it. I didn't even assume it was true, although the implications if it is are quite serious.

Even if Al-Jabari was not working for peace, others in Gaza may have been. If some of them were negotiating and Israel's attack blundered all over that, it could make it harder for Hamas members or others to trust even independent negotiations. Especially if there's a hint the Israeli knowledge of them helped them to target a leader.

I have links about the validity of Hamas starting the hostilities, but they should not be needed as it is current events. Is there an Israeli attack on Hamas that was not covered by the press?

Which 'start' are you talking about. This situation didn't start a few weeks ago, it's been going on for years.

However, there have been several events over the past few weeks, as well as the firing of rockets by Gazan militants. For example, from Wikipedia... Operation Pillar of Cloud : 5th-13th November Background:

On 5 November, Israeli soldiers shot and killed a 20-year-old Palestinian who approached a fence near Gaza's side of the border with Israel, reportedly ignoring warning shots and instructions to leave the area. He reportedly suffered from learning difficulties.[25][26] On 8 November, an Israeli short-range incursion into Gaza after finding explosive devices along border led to a gun battle with the Popular Resistance Committees.[27] The IDF stated they had found and defused three explosive devices during a routine patrol and had returned fire into a nearby field. During the exchange a 12-year-old Palestinian was killed by Israeli fire from a helicopter during the clashes.

Notice that it's not always Hamas who are launching attacks or being attacked - it's also the PRC.

Maybe the death of a man with learning difficulties and a 12 year old boy are being used as pretexts for more violence, and certainly it's an over-reaction. But, after dozens of rockets on 11 November, the attacks were reduced over the next two days (which was allegedly when truce negotiations were taking place), until the attack on Al-Jabari on the 14th.

Anyway, the comments of Baskin are a 'current event' so how come I need to provide a link for it but you don't? Is google broken where you are?

They interviewed a Hamas spokesman on Channel 4 news tonight and he certainly didn't deny that they were the ones who'd been firing the rockets.

I was saying I didn't need to provide a link to rocket attacks. Sorry you misunderstood that, Danivon.