Danivon:

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

I don't think these are parallel situations. Israel is firing at people who are terrorizing innocent citizens. They are knocking out weapon systems.They are trying to get the terrorists to stop. Hamas is firing to egg Israel on; Hamas is showing their frustration. They are trying to kill civilians. They have political reasons for doing this. They don't care about the resulting civilian deaths, no matter which side of the border.

Danivon:

secondly to try and have as much of an advantage if it does (for either proper peace negotiations or the truce failing).

And what exactly is the advantage of killing another Israeli civilian?[/quote]

The bottom line is that Hamas doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist; they don't even pretend to for PR purposes. Because of that, Hamas continually instigates conflict. I appreciate that you feel sympathy for the Palestinian people. I do as well. But blame their misery on the election of Hamas and the Hamas leadership; you haven't made a case that Israel and Netanyahu are to blame for this latest flare up.

Sassenach wrote: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 don't deny that they are firing rockets, or that they were firing rockets before. Baskin's statement said that they were firing rockets - just that they said they were firing them into 'empty spaces'.

However, they are not the only ones who are firing rockets and mortars from Gaza.

And the number being fired went down significantly on 12-13 November.

Ray Jay wrote:I don't think these are parallel situations. Israel is firing at people who are terrorizing innocent citizens. They are knocking out weapon systems.They are trying to get the terrorists to stop. Hamas is firing to egg Israel on; Hamas is showing their frustration. They are trying to kill civilians. They have political reasons for doing this. They don't care about the resulting civilian deaths, no matter which side of the border.

This 'trying to get the terrorists to stop' thing isn't working too well, though. Islamic Jihad are joining in as well, now.

Israel is also hitting civilians, whether intentionally or not. As usually happens, more Palestinian civilians have died over the past day or so than Israelis. Caring or not caring doesn't stop the bodycount going up. While Hamas are provoking it, I'm not sure how this exonerates Israel for the results of their retaliation.

secondly to try and have as much of an advantage if it does (for either proper peace negotiations or the truce failing).

And what exactly is the advantage of killing another Israeli civilian?

hrmph. I was talking generally about conflict there. It's not just about killing civilians (we all know that the vast majority of the missiles don't kill, or even hurt any persons civilian or military), but there are other objectives here - even just as a show of strength.

Anyway, do you get the point that fighting on during negotiation of a truce is not itself proof of bad intent? Nearly 100 years ago, the guns kept firing right up to 11am on 11/11/18, but both sides were agreeing to a truce.

The bottom line is that Hamas doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist; they don't even pretend to for PR purposes. Because of that, Hamas continually instigates conflict. I appreciate that you feel sympathy for the Palestinian people. I do as well. But blame their misery on the election of Hamas and the Hamas leadership;

Election? Hamas barely won the PA-wide elections held several years ago, and then were evicted from power in the West Bank but took over Gaza through force. So, the current situation is not simply blameable on the people of Palestine for voting (in a minority) Hamas - mainly in protest against Fatah corruption rather than in eagerness for more violence.

Man, I really hate victim-blaming.

you haven't made a case that Israel and Netanyahu are to blame for this latest flare up.

They are not solely to blame. But they are not blameless. But that was not my case. My case is that Israel appears to be reacting with more bellicosity (in several areas - Syria, Iran, the PA-UN vote and now this) than is really wise, and the timing of the killing really sucked.

This 'trying to get the terrorists to stop' thing isn't working too well, though. Islamic Jihad are joining in as well, now.

I think this is an interesting question that we can talk about objectively. Israel has been much more agressive against terrorism in the last 10 years than in the previous 50. They've built a fence / wall on the West Bank; they've been more vocal; they've retaliated in Gaza. Objectively speaking, I think it has been successful. Compare the damage (to Israelis) from terrorist since the Israeli's cracked down after the 2nd Intifadah. (I know this is an emotional issue for both of us, but the results have to be very important to voters and policy makers in Israel.)

Here's a NYT article. I link to it because the comments are excellent on both sides of the issue. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/16/world ... sault.html

For much of the past 50 years, Israel's problem was less terrorists than the Arab states themselves. Terrorism from Palestininans has grown since the clear failures of the Arab state forces in 67 and 73. Since then, terrorism has gradually escalated. At first it was hijackings, assassination attempts, a few bombs. Then it was more internal (during the 1st Intafada) with a lot of rioting and low intensity violence (which I would not call terrorism) along with small scale bombings and other acts.

more recently - in the last 12 years, the 2nd Intafada and the increased activity from Lebanon has meant more suicide bombings and outright attacks, and the rather newer phenomenon of missiles launched from Gaza. Given that we are seeing periods with hundreds of such missile attacks, and that's after Operation Cast Lead, I'm not sure it's really indicative of a great trend towards success.

The invasion of Lebanon in 2006 appears to have resulted in fewer missile attacks from there, and Hezbollah having moved northwards, but in terms of Palestine, I don't see much improvement.

The wall, which is not 'aggressive', but passive (and perhaps in the wrong place and overzealously policed) has indeed reduced suicide attacks, which has indeed reduced civilian casualties in Israel itself. Which is a good thing, I agree. But it is not so much that building of a wall that I think provokes a violent response, it's the air strikes and periodic ground assaults, which are directly aggressive.

As I said, there was a peak of attacks on the 11 Nov (coincidentally shortly after the two civilian deaths that I cited above). Then there was a lull on 12 and 13 Nov. Then Al-Jabari was killed on the 14 Nov. On 14 and 15 Nov there was a much larger number of missile attacks. Clearly the assassination of Hamas' military leader did not impact the ability of militants to send rockets and mortars over, and appears to have resulted in more. The threat of more violence from Israel doesn't seem to be leading to any abatement (it's more likely that any reduction in frequency is down to lack of supply of materiel, even if a few launch apparatus have been hit).

You seem to be thinking about days whereas hopefully the Israelis are thinking longer term. They are telling Hamas and others that terrorism will not succeed. Hamas needs to internalize that. There's no other way.

Al-Jabari killed innocent people. He is now dead. If others want to follow in his footsteps they will also be killed.

The reality is that Israel has no territorial ambitions in Gaza. If Israel could be assured that no strikes would ever come from Gaza again, the blockade would be lifted and the Palestinians could live in peace in Gaza. If there isn't enough room in Gaza for that, there are millions of open acres in Arab or western lands to which they can move. After all these years, there just isn't a practical way to resettle significant numbers in Israel proper. It's been almost 70 years and in some cases several generations. That's the reality. Hamas can either accept that reality or continue with terrorism. They've chosen terrorism.

I do distinguish Gaza from the West Bank where, truth be told, Israelis seem to have territorial ambitions and have resisted legitimate overtures.

Going back to an earlier point, confligating Israeli conscription with Hamas's conscription (or whatever you call it) is insulting. Israel is a democracy and have overwhelmingly chosen conscription as a policy. It's now part of the social fabric, and works fairly well. There are exemptions (and one can argue too many or too few, but that's tactical policy) for those who for military, ethical, or political reasons (i.e. they are Arabs) will not or should not serve. That's very different than forcing kids to serve or be shot.

Going back to another earlier point, the notion that the Gazans get a free pass for electing Hamas because only 50% voted for them, or because they did so out of frustration with Fatah is not a good argument. All democracies face this challenge all the time. I didn't vote for the guy who decided to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, but I was stuck with the decision. Only 1/3rd of Germans voted for Hitler, but Germans still feel and felt collective responsibility. I know that it is not the individual's fault, but our entire world system is based on nation states. Part of democracy is recognizing that the winner makes the decision. I'm sorry for those Palestinians who genuinely want peace -- and I know there are many -- but nation states have to deal with the reality of the existing power structures that they confront.

I was not 'confligating' the conscription in an effort to equate them. I was pointing out that in both cases casualties among them will be people who did not choose to join up a fighting force. I agree that conscription agreed to as part of a democratic pocess is better than coercion by a violent regime. But my point was really about the distinction between civilians and people who have taken up arms, and was made to show that even soldiers in the IDF and some of the people on the other side are not that far from being civilians and did not have fully free choice.

I think your sensitivity is leading you to assume anything I say that does not explicitly include something to the effect of 'and Israel is morally better than the Arabs' means I am equating them, and it appears to contributing to you missing what I mean to say. If you have a doubt, please ask me to clarify, rather than take your inference as an insult.

There are different levels of blame here. But even though Israel is generally less to blame than Hamas, they are not blameless. Just because in many ways they are morally superior to Hamas does not mean they always act morally.

Neither was I giving anyone a 'free pass' for the election outcome. Your statement on Iraq is part of my point. On Germany, there's a lot of collective guilt being shown by people who weren't even alive, or at least were not adults, at the time. Personally, I think the Germans have too much guilt thrust upon them by themselves and others, despite the level of complicity by many people of the 30s and 40s. A large number of the victims and those who survive them were also German. Perhaps you feel differently about that.

But on the election, I was clarifying why it is not always right to blame 'the people' even in a democracy. Collective punishment on that basis is wrong (and we learnt that between the end of WWI and the end of WWII). I don't blame 'Americans' for Iraq. I blame your government, I am disappointed that the President was re-elected, but I don't see why all Americans, or even a majority of them should be held accountable. If anything, that absolves the people who actually do wrong (Bush and his administration, the Nazis, Hamas, etc).

Let me boil it down. Hamas are bad. Evil, even. But their acts of evil, and evil intent does not alone justify any acts of evil by others. It is similar to the 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' fallacy: 'fighting evildoers does not mean you are given a pass on your own evil).

If you want to as what I think Israel (and by that I mean it's governments) has done that is evil, I will say the collective punishment of Gazans (and West Bank Palestinians and Lebanese) for the crimes of militants and terrorists; subverting the Palestinian Authority; demonising and dehumanising their opponents; ratcheting up tensions in an already tense period; supporting some of the people who committed atrocities in Lebanon over the past few decades; funding what became Hamas in the 70s and 80s; assassination by use of air strikes which result in civilian bystander casualties; denial of civil rights to people in areas under their control.

I'm sure you could take issue with some of that, or try to rationalise it as 'legitimate' response to the evil of others, or as being nothing like as bad as those Arabs. All debateable, to a point. But we should beware of a 'white hat v black hat' mentality, and accept that sometimes even good people do bad things - which means we should not be afraid to point out those bad things.

Intent is not even an exoneration. Ther road to Hell being paved with good intentions, after all. The ends do not justify the means.

Danivon:

I'm sure you could take issue with some of that, or try to rationalise it as 'legitimate' response to the evil of others, or as being nothing like as bad as those Arabs. All debateable, to a point. But we should beware of a 'white hat v black hat' mentality, and accept that sometimes even good people do bad things - which means we should not be afraid to point out those bad things.

I agree. And I don't think the Israelis are perfect by any means. But you should also agree that one cannot be an angel in the midst of the intentional killing of innocents by Hamas. The Israelis have to act and protect their population. They need to take out the missiles that are firing on their population, and if the missiles are hidden in civilian areas, the Israelis cannot be expected to paralyze themselves and not take them out at all. When you are on the front line it's different than when you are looking on from afar.

If you compare the Israelis strategy of striking at the rocketeers, to that of US drones striking terrorists in Pakistan (say), there is legitimacy to the strategy.
However there are also consequences. Though they could be minimized and managed.
If Israel continues to inform Gazans that rocket sites will be attacked, and advises the populace that they will endevour to attack without harming civilians.... but that if rocketeers are close to the populace this will be impossible..... the strategy might work long term. The populace, some of it, will start to resist when rocketeers appear near them. They will start to link civilian damage to the actions of the rocketeers not just the reactions of the Israelis.
But they need to have a constant broadcast of this message throughout Gaza. And they need to be consistent. And they need to acknowledge their mistakes and apologize for them.....
In Pakistan civilian deaths by drones have made the US less popular then ever in Pakistan. But they also appear to be having the effect of making the terror groups parriahs....
Invading Gaza would be a disaster. Invariably there will be another captured Israelis soldier and the drama of the hostage will unfold again.
Long term the only way for peace to develop is that Israel decide that it will help raise up the Palestinians with investments in Palestinian infrastructure, schools and Palestinian industry. It will require working closely and cooperatively with a Palestinian government interested in development of what they have...and it will probably depend upon Israel taking the first steps...
Short term, maybe the solution is to offer Gaza to Egypt? The Egyptian army might have the resources and legitimate authority to stop the mad men rocketeers... That would require thousands of boots on the ground in Gaza, who are tolerated by Gazans. Could the Egyptian army play this role? Would they want to?

What would happen to Egyptian/Israeli relations when a sovereign country launches rockets at another sovereign country.

Does Egypt have control of Gaza give the responsibility to Egypt to contain the "Newly Egyptian" populace or pace political and military conflict? Personally I see that as a bad course of action.

You say Israel should give Gaza to Egypt for the short term solution, but continue to develop infrastructure in the long term. Wouldn't that be Egypt's responsibility to develop infrastructure?

Short term, maybe the solution is to offer Gaza to Egypt? The Egyptian army might have the resources and legitimate authority to stop the mad men rocketeers... That would require thousands of boots on the ground in Gaza, who are tolerated by Gazans. Could the Egyptian army play this role? Would they want to?

Egypt wouldn't want that, and Hamas wouldn't accept it either. It would effectively mean an acceptance of Israel's current borders and an end to the dream of a right of return for the Palestinian refugees (who have never been given citizenship by any of the neighbouring arab countries). Gaza joining Egypt would obviously be in the interests of the people in Gaza, but since when did that make a difference ?

I think the Israelis would be ecstatic if Egypt annexed Gaza.

bbauska

You say Israel should give Gaza to Egypt for the short term solution, but continue to develop infrastructure in the long term. Wouldn't that be Egypt's responsibility to develop infrastructure?

It would be foreign aid.....Lots of prosperous countries aid those less fortunate...
However, by assisting their neighbors to a better life, Israel would also contribute to its own security and long term prosperity.
And it would happen both in Gaza with the Egyptian governments direction and in the West bank.
(I don't hold out much hope for this scenario happening..... I'm just imagining a solution to an intractable problem)

How much has Egypt given Gaza? I could not find any specific data.

I am sure that the weapon, metal, and fuel aid shipments coming from Gaza are benefiting Israel.