danivon wrote:I don't recall such media reports. Perhaps you can link or cite a few, RJ?

Yes, I overstated it; I did read comments to articles that accused Israel; there were reports questioning the Israeli story; governments and the UN complained that Israel did not provide evidence for the allegation, and I probably read the accusation in RT or something like that, but the major western media outlets did not accuse Israel of faking the abductions.

The official Israeli reason was Hamas rocket attacks and tunnels. Hamas may well have increased those rocket attacks in reaction to events surrounding the murders, and it was clearly one cause, but not the direct one.

Other things happened in the wake of the killing of those three lads. Firstly a series of raids in the West Bsnk that increased tension as they appeared to be heavy handed snd unfocused. Secondly the revenge killing of Arab boys. Do you consider those could also have had some contributory effect?

No; the revenge killing was heavily criticized by the Israeli government. the raids into the West Bank were legitimate after the Israelis were kidnapped; the cause of the first escalation was Hamas firing rockets. When Israel discovered the tunnels into their territory they understandably launched a ground campaign. (There was no other option :) ) The reason that the cease fires have broken down is that Hamas continues to fire rockets. The reason why there is an embargo is that Hamas uses concrete to build tunnels into Israel or to obtain rockets or any other weapon they can find. Here's something that Hamas did today:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeas ... 90268.html

Given that:

a) the murders took place in the West Bank, not Gaza.
b) Hamas operate in the West Bank as well as Gaza.
c) Where Hamas do operate, they compete with and try to undermine the PLO organisations in the PA
d) Israel would presumably prefer to deal with moderates in the PA and representing the Palestinians than with Hamas....

Then surely if the invasion of Gaza was in reaction to the murders, it was the wrong response - addressing Hamas in the West Bank would be more appropriate.

So while this announcement may have some signifiance (notwithstanding freeman's clarification), I don't see why it really does make much difference in terms of Gaza.

danivon wrote:Given that:

a) the murders took place in the West Bank, not Gaza.
b) Hamas operate in the West Bank as well as Gaza.
c) Where Hamas do operate, they compete with and try to undermine the PLO organisations in the PA
d) Israel would presumably prefer to deal with moderates in the PA and representing the Palestinians than with Hamas....

Then surely if the invasion of Gaza was in reaction to the murders, it was the wrong response - addressing Hamas in the West Bank would be more appropriate.

So while this announcement may have some signifiance (notwithstanding freeman's clarification), I don't see why it really does make much difference in terms of Gaza.

Perhaps the reason was not the murders after all. Perhaps it was the repetitive rocket attacks...

Just comparing the similarities and differences between West Bank and Gaza

Gaza was firing rockets every day
West Bank was not

Hamas operates in both places
Killings have taken place in both places

Tunnels are coming from Gaza
Tunnels are not coming from West Bank (At least I have found no news on that)

Extremists are in control at Gaza
Moderates in West Bank

Where is the problem coming from?

danivon wrote:Given that:

a) the murders took place in the West Bank, not Gaza.
b) Hamas operate in the West Bank as well as Gaza.
c) Where Hamas do operate, they compete with and try to undermine the PLO organisations in the PA
d) Israel would presumably prefer to deal with moderates in the PA and representing the Palestinians than with Hamas....

Then surely if the invasion of Gaza was in reaction to the murders, it was the wrong response - addressing Hamas in the West Bank would be more appropriate.

So while this announcement may have some signifiance (notwithstanding freeman's clarification), I don't see why it really does make much difference in terms of Gaza.

I don't understand what point you are trying to make. Hamas killed 3 Innocent Israelis (2 are children using the UN's definition) and Israel responded in the West Bank against Hamas strongholds. (Perhaps the PA wasn't fully upset about this?)

In retaliation, Hamas then launched rockets against Israel. Israel responded with missiles.

Then Hamas tried to use tunnels to abduct Israeli soldiers. Israel destroyed the tunnels with a ground invasion.

It is so easy, and you are so smart, that you refuse to accept it.

P.S. I think Freeman was right the first time.

BBauska had me until he said:

Moderates in West Bank

Here's what the moderates are saying:

Palestinian Authority Envoy to Tehran Salah al-Zawawi told supporters of Gaza on Tuesday that “Israel’s annihilation has begun and the new generation in Iran will certainly witness our victory over Israel,” according to Iranian semi-official state news agency Fars.”The U.S. and the Western countries have created a fake regime in Palestine to get rid of it and have supplied it with the most advanced weapons and are seeking to create an Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates,” Zawawi said.

http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/08/12/pa ... t-started/

Ray Jay wrote:BBauska had me until he said:

Moderates in West Bank

Here's what the moderates are saying:

Palestinian Authority Envoy to Tehran Salah al-Zawawi told supporters of Gaza on Tuesday that “Israel’s annihilation has begun and the new generation in Iran will certainly witness our victory over Israel,” according to Iranian semi-official state news agency Fars.”The U.S. and the Western countries have created a fake regime in Palestine to get rid of it and have supplied it with the most advanced weapons and are seeking to create an Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates,” Zawawi said.

http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/08/12/pa ... t-started/

Moderate in comparison to each other only.

Ray Jay wrote:

danivon wrote:Given that:

a) the murders took place in the West Bank, not Gaza.
b) Hamas operate in the West Bank as well as Gaza.
c) Where Hamas do operate, they compete with and try to undermine the PLO organisations in the PA
d) Israel would presumably prefer to deal with moderates in the PA and representing the Palestinians than with Hamas....

Then surely if the invasion of Gaza was in reaction to the murders, it was the wrong response - addressing Hamas in the West Bank would be more appropriate.

So while this announcement may have some signifiance (notwithstanding freeman's clarification), I don't see why it really does make much difference in terms of Gaza.

I don't understand what point you are trying to make.

That Hamas' admission that the murders were carried out by their members is not really that significant (because with or without it events would likely have taken a similar course.

And that if the murders were the proximate cause of the action in Gaza, it was the wrong reaction.

But we know it wasn't the proximate cause don't we!
You show that below

Hamas killed 3 Innocent Israelis (2 are children using the UN's definition) and Israel responded in the West Bank against Hamas strongholds. (Perhaps the PA wasn't fully upset about this?)

In retaliation, Hamas then launched rockets against Israel. Israel responded with missiles.

Then Hamas tried to use tunnels to abduct Israeli soldiers. Israel destroyed the tunnels with a ground invasion.

It is so easy, and you are so smart, that you refuse to accept it.

P.S. I think Freeman was right the first time.

Hmm.

bbauska wrote:Just comparing the similarities and differences between West Bank and Gaza

Gaza was firing rockets every day
West Bank was not

Hamas operates in both places
Killings have taken place in both places

Tunnels are coming from Gaza
Tunnels are not coming from West Bank (At least I have found no news on that)

Extremists are in control at Gaza
Moderates in West Bank

Where is the problem coming from?

Of course I was not suggesting that Israel attack the West Bank or parts of it as they did Gaza. There are alternatives.

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:Just comparing the similarities and differences between West Bank and Gaza

Gaza was firing rockets every day
West Bank was not

Hamas operates in both places
Killings have taken place in both places

Tunnels are coming from Gaza
Tunnels are not coming from West Bank (At least I have found no news on that)

Extremists are in control at Gaza
Moderates in West Bank

Where is the problem coming from?

Of course I was not suggesting that Israel attack the West Bank or parts of it as they did Gaza. There are alternatives.

I was suggesting why Gaza was retaliated against, and not West Bank. Do you think that is why Gaza was retaliated against and not West Bank?

Indeed, bbauska. I was making the point that Israel was reacting to what was happening in/from Gaza when it attacked Gaza. RJ was suggesting that an event in West Bank was significant. My response is if that was really the case, then they should have done something in the West Bank.

danivon wrote:Indeed, bbauska. I was making the point that Israel was reacting to what was happening in/from Gaza when it attacked Gaza. RJ was suggesting that an event in West Bank was significant..

Yes, the murder of 3 individuals is significant.

My response is if that was really the case, then they should have done something in the West Bank

They did. As I recall you did not approve. .

The central issue is simple: did Israel (forgetting about everything else) have cause to go into Gaza once Hamas escalated the firing of missiles? I think the answer is yes. We can speculate about the subjective intent of Israel's leaders, but what difference does it make if objectively Israel had cause to go into Gaza? In search and seizure law, they do not look to see the subjective intent of an officer in making a traffic stop, instead they look at whether the officer had objective facts that justified the stop (whether he was stopping the vehicle as a pretextual search for drugs or not, if registration is expired he has cause to stop the vehicle). Same principle here.

Ray Jay wrote:

danivon wrote:Indeed, bbauska. I was making the point that Israel was reacting to what was happening in/from Gaza when it attacked Gaza. RJ was suggesting that an event in West Bank was significant..

Yes, the murder of 3 individuals is significant.

Not normally enough to trigger warfare.

My response is if that was really the case, then they should have done something in the West Bank

They did. As I recall you did not approve. .

Because doing 'something' is not the same as doing 'anything'. In the same way that Israel had just cause to do 'something' about Gaza does.not mean I have to approve of the actual 'something' they do. Seriously, life is not a set of binary choices, and neither did Israel only have the choice to do nothing, or only take the acton they did.

Freeman - I agree on the principle. My point is actually that it's not the 'justification' that is the issue, it is the action. Stretching your analogy, what if the officer didn't just search and seize, but physically assaulted the suspect. It may not affect the justification for the stop, but it casts questions over whether the officer is acting properly.

I was making the point that Israel was reacting to what was happening in/from Gaza when it attacked Gaza. RJ was suggesting that an event in West Bank was significant. My response is if that was really the case, then they should have done something in the West Bank.

That's exactly what they did. The Gaza incursions started because Hamas chose to escalate things by launching attacks from Gaza in response to Israel targeting Hamas members in the West Bank.

But you know this of course, which makes your remarks puzzling to say the least.