Danivon:

Ray Jay wrote:

Yes, but had the Gazans behaved reasonably they would have gained control over their borders and airspace in time."the Gazans" were screwed over by the minorities leading them.

It's all very well to take to a moralistic high ground and tut at the Gazans, but they've been shafted from all corners for decades. And they are (understandably, if not justifiably) angry.

I'm not taking a moralistic high ground. I'm just saying that the Palestinians in Gaza have to look at their own decisions and policies instead of blaming everyone else (and especially Israel) for their problems.

I like your distinction between what is understandable and what is justifiable. Hitler's treatment of Jews and other minorities was neither understandable nor justifiable. Otherwise both sides of most conflicts are understandable. I think we both agree that both the Israelis and Palestinians are understandable. I think we both agree that Hamas's actions are not justifiable; we are debating whether Israel's actions are justifiable. Fair?

Danivon:

I don't dispute that Israel has a right to protect itself. I am opposed to the methods used and the outcome, because I see them as counter-productive.

Two Questions: (1) Are the Israeli actions moral? (2) Are they counter-productive?

(1) I think yes, but there are decisions that have been made which are questionable. I would have to understand more about the specifics of the facts on the ground to fully opine. Also, you have to distinguish incorrect decisions by a soldier vs. by the leadership, and you have to factor in the fog of war.
(2) No; the Israeli policies are the only answer. You cannot give in to Hamas. They openly say they want to wipe Israel out and then try to do it. They willingly and proudly kill innocents. You cannot appease them. You cannot agree to negotiate with them while they lob rockets at you. You have to destroy Hamas. If you cannot destroy Hamas because of Question 1 (which is the reason that Israel doesn't destroy Hamas because they can), then you retain the status quo. This is Israel's most productive course of action.

(I do disagree with Israel's policies on the West Bank, but that is a separate issue.)

Some relevant articles I came across:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestin ... _on_Israel
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/feat ... gaza200804
http://www.jmcc.org/fastfactspag.aspx?tname=13
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5594533

Sassenach wrote:

How many other groups are funded by the Israeli government that they have dealt with? That is the standard that was applied.

Oh come on, this is ridiculous. Even if I were to accept that this really is the standard, it then begs the question why is this the standard. Why only the Israeli government and not any other with potentially dubious human rights records ?

If Israel is to consider itself (as in the weird adverts the Irish embassy was putting out a few days ago) as a bastion of western-style democracy and liberty, it should be judged on those terms. If we are to have any influence on a nation, we should expect to have some over close allies and friends.

I think we should boycott nations that are committing human rights abuses. You assert that Tricyle 'would not', but I wonder if the facts are clear on whether they have or not.

It seems pretty clear that they were looking for a pretext to dissassociate themselves with the Jewish film festival by any means necessary. They initially tried to demand that all of the films had to be pre-vetted and only when this attempt at censorship was refused did they come up with the concept that the Jewish film festival organisers had to in effect publicly distance themselves from Israel.

They made both 'demands' at the same time. And they backed down on the one to view films (which may seem censorious, but we do have film censorship in this country, and galleries/venues have been bitten before by exhibits). It was not to 'publicly disassociate from Israel', but to not use Israeli government money. Both sides refused to compromise with the other 'on principle', which is disappointing on both scores - UKJFF could easily have taken other money and held the festival, Tricycle could have done something clever like use the same amount of money for another purpose.

Personally I don't agree with the Israeli boycott as a means to change minds, but I don't agree that everyone who employs it must be an anti-semite.

I didn't say "by Spurs fans", I said "at Spurs games". That does that include the antisemitic chants from opposition supporters.

Ok, point taken. It's a largely irrelevant point though because I never claimed that there aren't many more serious examples of anti-semitism in this country.

Just because I make a point, does not mean that it must be a direct contradiction of one of yours. I was suggesting that this little storm in a teacup is not as great an example of anti-semitism, and nowhere near as obvious, as thousands of blokes shouting vile words at each other once a week.

It is not like homosexuals reclaiming 'queer' or black people reclaiming 'n-----r'. Why? Because in reality very few Spurs supporters are Jewish. So very few of the chanters are actually 'reclaiming' anything, any more than a white rapper would be for using the N word.

Sure. I already acknowledged this in my original point of course. Fact is that the intent is nevertheless clear.

And I think the intent of Tricycle Theatre was clear. They did not want to take money (even indirectly) from the Israeli government. They did not ban the Festival outright, but offered to find an alternative source of funding.

Ray Jay wrote:I'm not taking a moralistic high ground. I'm just saying that the Palestinians in Gaza have to look at their own decisions and policies instead of blaming everyone else (and especially Israel) for their problems.

There's a distinction that I am making that you are not. I don't see the Gazans as a lump, but as a group of people, not all of whom have full agency. The 'leadership', who are leaders (lest we forget) because they took power through violence, are not the same as the 'people'. The bulk of the people in Gaza are not making the decisions that you condemn. They don't even do so indirectly via the ballot box.

RayJay wrote:I like your distinction between what is understandable and what is justifiable. Hitler's treatment of Jews and other minorities was neither understandable nor justifiable. Otherwise both sides of most conflicts are understandable. I think we both agree that both the Israelis and Palestinians are understandable. I think we both agree that Hamas's actions are not justifiable; we are debating whether Israel's actions are justifiable. Fair?

That is indeed a fair summation.

RayJay wrote:Two Questions: (1) Are the Israeli actions moral? (2) Are they counter-productive?

These are indeed good questions.

RayJay wrote:(1) I think yes, but there are decisions that have been made which are questionable. I would have to understand more about the specifics of the facts on the ground to fully opine. Also, you have to distinguish incorrect decisions by a soldier vs. by the leadership, and you have to factor in the fog of war.

Well, there are some criticisms of the operation and previous IDF operations in Gaza and Lebanon in terms of moral and legal questions:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/j ... ng-experts

Andrew Exum, a former US army officer who has studied Israel's military campaigns, said the IDF had a long history of mistakes causing many civilian casualties.

"Errant artillery and air strikes have unfortunately been something of a theme in Israel's conflicts in both southern Lebanon and Gaza over the past two decades. There are good strategic reasons to avoid using air power and artillery in these conflicts: they tend to be pretty indiscriminate in their effects and make it difficult for the population under fire to figure out what they're supposed to do to be safe," said Exum, who was a defence department special adviser on the Middle East.

"I'm not sure what the issue is. In 2006 and 2008, it was pretty clear the IDF's combined armed skills – their ability to integrate artillery and air power into ground campaigns – had atrophied since the withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000. But I don't know whether the issue remains poor training, a lack of forward observers talking to the artillery batteries and aircraft, or commanders who just don't think avoiding civilian casualties is a priority."

military analysts and human rights observers say the IDF is still using unguided, indirect fire with high-explosive shells, which they argue is inappropriate for a densely populated area like Gaza – where 1.8 million people live in an area the size of the Isle of Wight. The biggest artillery weapon being used is a 155mm howitzer, mounted on tracks to make it mobile. It typically fires a fragmentation shell weighing 44kg that spreads shrapnel over a wide area. Such shells have a lethal radius of 50 to 150 metres and causes injury up to 300 metres from its point of impact. Furthermore, such indirect-fire artillery (meaning it is fired out of direct sight of the target) has a margin of error of 200 to 300 metres.

The use of indirect artillery fire in residential areas is not forbidden under international humanitarian law, but its legality depends on a balance between potential military gain against risk of harm to non-combatants. On that basis, Donatella Rovera, Amnesty International's senior crisis response adviser, said it was hard to see a military justification for its use in Gaza. "The margin of error of an artillery shell is well known. If you are shooting into a civilian area, there is a high chance of hitting civilians and a low chance of hitting your military objective, unless your military objective is to terrorise and punish a population," she said.

Now I don't expect you to agree easily with Exum and Rovera, but there are issues here - the use of fragmentation shells on a target you can't actually see but is in a built-up area that contains civilians is pretty questionable on moral grounds (even if it may be legal, and that is being queried).

Yes, the targets are Hamas sites and we know that Hamas uses sites that are near civilians for cover, as 'human shields'. But if the other side knows this is happening, still shoots and kills or injures those human shields, is there no moral culpability for it?

And the IDF itself has form on the use of 'human shields' - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_shield#Israel

Two wrongs do not make a right. Hamas' immorality is not a reason for its enemy to slip - it is a terrible fact, but war does make us more like our enemies, unless we are strong enough to guard against it.

And while I believe that it is likely that each of the strikes on UN schools that were sheltering civilians or on a beach with kids was not intentional, it was at the very least dubious for Israeli government spokesmen to immediately blame misfired Hamas rockets (as I heard them do on at least two different occasions) for what turned out to be an IDF shell's hit. Fair enough not to accept responsibility until it was established, but not fair enough to automatically assign blame without evidence as well. It reminds me of the brazen claims and counter-claims regarding eastern Ukraine at the moment.

RayJay wrote:(2) No; the Israeli policies are the only answer. You cannot give in to Hamas. They openly say they want to wipe Israel out and then try to do it. They willingly and proudly kill innocents. You cannot appease them. You cannot agree to negotiate with them while they lob rockets at you. You have to destroy Hamas..

When I read this, I am a little concerned. If you swap the words 'Israeli/Israel' and 'Hamas', it would not be far from the expressions of an angry Palestinian. I realise that you may not agree with it (and I don't), but unfortunately there are some Israelis and Israel-allies who do praise the deaths of innocents, or at least blame them for not getting out (despite the fact that it is almost impossible for a civilian to leave Gaza as the borders are heavily controlled on all sides). Otherwise, it's pretty clear - if you think that Israel is justified to want to wipe out Hamas, because Hamas wants to wipe out Israel, it becomes a spiral. Someone, anyone, needs to break that spiral, because it's killing people.

If you cannot destroy Hamas because of Question 1 (which is the reason that Israel doesn't destroy Hamas because they can), then you retain the status quo. This is Israel's most productive course of action

What other courses of action have you rejected to conclude that the current one is the 'only answer', or the 'most productive'?

For example, could the IDF have used military strength, but tried harder to avoid civilian casualties? Could they do more to strengthen the position of the non-Hamas elements of the Palestinian leadership?

And after several attempts to use deadly force to punish or eliminate Hamas or other terrorist groups - at least from the top down - is it really working? 20 years ago, Hamas had no rockets and no real influence.

And it seems to me that the result of the military incursion is in part counter-productive. Yes, tunnels are destroyed. Yes, Hamas fighters are killed and maybe their rocket launch apparatus is taken out. And yes, Hamas is expending a lot of materiel within Gaza and most of the rockets are not finding any targets.

But the high death toll among civilians (and while we may quibble about whether teenage boys are fighters or not, it's pretty clear that many more civilians in Gaza have died than the total of all Israelis killed in the past month) is going to resonate among those in Gaza. They will have left friends and family. Some of those may well forgive, and may well agree that such things happen in war. But others will not, and will blame Israel. And on top of any previous hard feelings, that is unlikely to result in a reduction of anger and hatred in the area. This is why I think it is counter-productive to employ the methods that Israel has.

An example is the UK policy of mass internment in Northern Ireland. In 1971, in the face of increased paramilitary activity from the Provisional IRA, Operation Demetrius was launched. Over two days, 33 years ago last weekend, 342 people were arrested. Many of them were just nationalist and republican sympathisers and had no provable links to terrorism. the violence sparked by the dawn raids led to 24 deaths - 2 UK soldiers, 2 IRA members, and 20 civilians. Most of these were at the 'Ballymurphy Massacre'.

The interened were held without trial, and it is pretty much accepted that their treatment amounted in some cases to torture. The result was a hardening of attitudes. The IRA were boosted. The moderate nationalist SDLP called for mass civil disobedience. A few months later, a march against internment in Derry turned into Bloody Sunday, and 1972 was the deadliest year in the whole history of the 'Troubles'.

Now, the IRA were terrorists, and they did provoke the Army. And of course the UK was justified in defending its interests, and its people (and a majority of those in Northern Ireland were in favour of being part of the UK). But the methods used were immoral, illegal and counterproductive.

(I do disagree with Israel's policies on the West Bank, but that is a separate issue.)

I think in reality that Gaza and the West Bank are heavily linked, and that bad policies in one have repercussions in the other. Hamas has quite a bit of support in parts of the West Bank, and one of the precursors to the recent incursions into Gaza was the kidnap and murder of three Israeli lads in the West Bank (allegedly by identified Hamas members).

ray

I do disagree with Israel's policies on the West Bank, but that is a separate issue.)

Not to Palestinians.
Those in Gaza, and in camps out side Palestine look at the daily humiliations that West Bank Palestinians endure living in little ghettos of self govnerment (I would use the term Bantuized except the South African enclaves were larger) and they see what little temporizing begets Palestinians.

ray

: (1) Are the Israeli actions moral?

If you ask specifically ... Most are... But some are not. Israel resists investigations into war crimes because they know they are guilty in some instances...
But generally?

(2) Are they counter-productive?

This is what, the fourth or fifth major attempt at levelling the Gazan rocketing.
World opinion is turning against Israel, and the Gazans seem unbending...
All the evidence says, its counter productive to the development of a just peace.
Unless you are Israel and playing the long game, hoping that the incremental gains in th West Bank are taken as settled in a few years rather than disputed. And that at some point Palestinians will completely capitulate. Which means that Israel has no interest in a just peace.

Which brings into question the underlying morality .... If Israel has no real interest in anything except Palestinian capitulation, peace on terms dictated by Israel to a subclass of people, .... then the whole business is immoral.

Danivon:

There's a distinction that I am making that you are not. I don't see the Gazans as a lump, but as a group of people, not all of whom have full agency. The 'leadership', who are leaders (lest we forget) because they took power through violence, are not the same as the 'people'. The bulk of the people in Gaza are not making the decisions that you condemn. They don't even do so indirectly via the ballot box.

A majority did vote for Hamas, once.

BTW, none of us have full agency, and children everywhere have no agency. From the beginning of time people (and before that pre-people) have lived in groups. We've always suffered and benefited from the decisions of others. Every war has had innocents.

Danivon:

Now I don't expect you to agree easily with Exum and Rovera, but there are issues here - the use of fragmentation shells on a target you can't actually see but is in a built-up area that contains civilians is pretty questionable on moral grounds (even if it may be legal, and that is being queried).

Yes, the targets are Hamas sites and we know that Hamas uses sites that are near civilians for cover, as 'human shields'. But if the other side knows this is happening, still shoots and kills or injures those human shields, is there no moral culpability for it?

I think these are real issues and need to be better understood. I'm sure that in hindsight some Israeli actions will be considered wrong by me and fellow Zionists. There will always be soldiers who err by not following policy. That has happened in every war since the beginning of time. It certainly won't be to the same extent as the U.S. and Brits in Iraq and Afghanistan.

RayJay wrote:

(2) No; the Israeli policies are the only answer. You cannot give in to Hamas. They openly say they want to wipe Israel out and then try to do it. They willingly and proudly kill innocents. You cannot appease them. You cannot agree to negotiate with them while they lob rockets at you. You have to destroy Hamas..

When I read this, I am a little concerned. If you swap the words 'Israeli/Israel' and 'Hamas', it would not be far from the expressions of an angry Palestinian. I realise that you may not agree with it (and I don't), but unfortunately there are some Israelis and Israel-allies who do praise the deaths of innocents, or at least blame them for not getting out (despite the fact that it is almost impossible for a civilian to leave Gaza as the borders are heavily controlled on all sides). Otherwise, it's pretty clear - if you think that Israel is justified to want to wipe out Hamas, because Hamas wants to wipe out Israel, it becomes a spiral. Someone, anyone, needs to break that spiral, because it's killing people.

It's not the same. Hamas's charter calls for the destruction of Israel and the killing of all Jews. Their charter is worse than Hitler's, but their capability is less. I don't want to kill Palestinians. I just don't expect Israel to be nice to them while they are lobbing rockets indiscriminately.

Hamas = ISIS = al Qaeda = Boko Haram.

If you cannot destroy Hamas because of Question 1 (which is the reason that Israel doesn't destroy Hamas because they can), then you retain the status quo. This is Israel's most productive course of action

What other courses of action have you rejected to conclude that the current one is the 'only answer', or the 'most productive'?

For example, could the IDF have used military strength, but tried harder to avoid civilian casualties?

Probably. Perhaps they could have reduced their civilian kill numbers by 250 if they tried harder and lost a few more IDF soldiers as a result.

Could they do more to strengthen the position of the non-Hamas elements of the Palestinian leadership?

Yes.

And after several attempts to use deadly force to punish or eliminate Hamas or other terrorist groups - at least from the top down - is it really working? 20 years ago, Hamas had no rockets and no real influence.

20 years ago Fatah engaged in terrorism. Sometimes you have to choose the best of many bad options.

Danivon:

Now, the IRA were terrorists, and they did provoke the Army. And of course the UK was justified in defending its interests, and its people (and a majority of those in Northern Ireland were in favour of being part of the UK). But the methods used were immoral, illegal and counterproductive.

Yes, I don't know much about this conflict, but they didn't want to kill every Brit and make London their capital. They wanted Northern Ireland to be their home. The Gazans don't want to all live in Gaza. They want to live in West Jerusalem and the rest of Israel proper. Isn't that why they and their supporters talk about Gaza being a concentration camp, or like the Warsaw Ghetto or a generic ghetto. When we talk about the density, we are really saying that it is unfair that 1.8 million people live in Gaza. Where precisely do you think they should live? Isn't that what this is really about.

Ricky:

Which means that Israel has no interest in a just peace.

Which brings into question the underlying morality .... If Israel has no real interest in anything except Palestinian capitulation, peace on terms dictated by Israel to a subclass of people, .... then the whole business is immoral.

Based on what I've read about in the Israeli press and the Israelis that I have spoken to, Israel is very interested in a just peace. Absolutely, and to the core, for the majority.

"Peace Will Come to Us" is a very popular song in Israel: I think it made it to #1 in the pop charts. The Arab word "Salaam" is in the chorus. It is sung in many Synagogues. Contrast that to Arab popular culture. What songs are they singing and what TV shows are they watching? I can see that they are posting on blogs.

You have to distinguish with the aspiration of peace and the reality of the conflict with the other side. Until 1977 the more dovish party ruled Israel. Likud came to power in 1977 partially as a result of failed economic policies, but also because the society reacted to Arab intransigence and terrorism. Based on history there is little confidence that the Arabs and Palestinians will ever choose peace.

The annihilation of the state of Israel has begun, said the official Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) envoy to Tehran, Salah al-Zawawi.

“The US 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, whose organization dominates the Palestinian Authority headed by President Mahmoud Abbas, was quoted as saying by the Iranian semi-official news agency Fars on Tuesday.

“Israel’s annihilation has begun and the new generation in Iran will certainly witness our victory over Israel,”

What they are reading in Israel.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/israels-an ... to-tehran/

Not sure you can reliably say that Likud were less dovish in 77. Begin (Likud) signed the Camp David Accords in 1978 which led to the pullout from Sinai and peace with Egypt. Mapai was the dominant party until 1968, when it merged with other left of centre parties to form Labor, and as leader of Mapai and the Israeli government, Ben-Gurion was no dove (he was PM in 1956 when Israel attacked Egypt). Equally the coalition and Labor governments of 65-77 were the ones that fought the 6-day War, and while they did not preempt the Yom Kippur war, they hardly capitulated.

If anything the 77 change brought in a more dovish party.

After then, Labor in opposition did become more dovish (and at the same time the wconomic policy moved from socialism/social democracy to a more centrist and pro-business line). However, under Ehud Barak, Labor were fairly hawkis at times and he certainly was when serving under Netanyahu as Defence Minister.

In Israel there was an absolutely massive peace movement. However, in the current political climate those who question current policy are marginalised.

One thing I thought was interesting in going back and reading some of the history (I have doing more reading than posting because I didn't really have anything definitive to say) is the casualties in the Second Intifada. There were something like 3,000 Palestinians killed and about 1,000 Israelis. It appears that since the Second Intifada Israel has mostly buttoned down, tried it make as invulnerable as possible to the Palestinians, and prepared itself for an indefinite low-intensity conflict. Peace may be hoped but may be not really, because there is greater risk in any agreement.

I strongly suspect that if the Palestinians said they are willing to live in peace with Israel, that they recognize Israel's borders, they will make some reasonable agreements about security agreements--that moderates in Israel would force the government to parley with the Palestinians. If they insist on playing the all or nothing game out of pride, well, ok. As RJ said it is not like Northern Ireland or any colonial situation where you can win by making it uncomfortable for the other side--they have to militarily defeat Israel. Israel is essentially unbeatable at this point. Throw in the towel and make an agreement--or is martyrdom a more attractive option? The sympathies of western liberals are not going to change things much, if at all.

There are some psychological troubling aspects for Israel as well. I previously linked to an article indicating the health problems for Israelis that live in the border town that received a lot of the missile attacks. Also the dehumanization of the Palestinians, a process that occurs in all wars, but it is particularly troublesome when you have almost absolute power. Are a few more IDF casualties worth avoiding 100 civilian casualties, a 1000 civilian casualties...even to discuss this sinks one into a moral quagmire.

The Palestinians need peace so that they have their own country...Israeli needs peace...for their collective soul. But I think what is really needed is a great Palestinian leader who can transcend history and do what is best for his/herpeople and that is realize the facts on the ground and make a deal with Israel.

Freeman very well put. Amen.

آمين

I talked about an Israeli pop song earlier and heard this story about Israel's #1 pop song now in the car ride home. http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-08-13/h ... summer-hit

The song, “Carry Out Terror Attacks," is actually a remake of a Hamas oldie named “Shake Israel’s Security. It came out in 2012 during the last war in Gaza. It was a big hit among Hamas supporters and garnered more than a million views on YouTube.

So when war broke out last month, Hamas released a updated version for the Israeli enemy. The video features masked militants, rockets and lyrics that are essentially battle cries — translated into Hebrew this time: “Try to make contact with the Zionists. Burn camps and soldiers. Shake the security of Israel.”

Israelis love it.

Palestinians have put out other war songs before, replete with Arabic lyrics such as "Hold Your Head High, That's Your Weapon" and “Strike Strike Tel Aviv” — but none have caught on quite like this one.
...
“They tried to frighten us. To say, ‘We know your language, we know how to talk to you, and we will promise you death and destruction,’” Henkin says. “Of course, when you listen to the lyrics, they are quite awful. You have modern Hebrew with ancient Hebrew with some things that are not Hebrew at all. And all in very bad accent and extremely bad diction.”
...
“The Hamas band wanted to mock the Israelis, but it happened to create a tune that mocks Hamas and says, 'Those guys, they don’t have a clue,'” Henkin says. “If you don’t have a clue, you don’t have a strategy. And if you don’t have strategy, or it’s at odds with reality, your chances of getting to achieve your strategy are pretty slim.”

So, let me get this straight. All wars are the same, and we can shrug off (or wait for 'hindsight') what the IDF does as down to individual soldiers not following the rules...

But we can't possibly draw any useful analogies from the heavy handed way that another Western democracy tried to deal with terrorism, because it was a 'colonial' dispute and there is little in common with Israel/Palestine (notwithstanding the influx of 'settlers' or colonists into the West Bank, or a longstanding occupation militarily in both the West Bank and Gaza)?

Maybe I misunderstand, but it seems that you guys are using generalised truisms on the vague idea of war, and specific differences with other conflicts involving terrorism and insurgency as simultaneous means of handwaving away criticism of IDF strategy and tactics. Correct me if I am wrong there.

I get your points on Hamas. Whether the 1988 Covenant still stands or has been superceded by changrs in the leadership, approach and commitments of Hamas since could be debated, but let us assume that it.does, and they are intent on destroying Israel not just as a Jewish state but as a people, and all other Jews into the bargain. Let us agree that while they target the IDF or other military assets, they also have and continue to target civilians

We should not judge Israeli actions by their enemy. We should judge them by yhe standard Israel sets itself. In this article: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/a ... man-rights an Israeli government official describes the IDF as "the most moral of armies".

Now whether it is right for someone to be able to avoid military service by working for B'Tselem is debateable, and even though the timing of the move to ban is more significant than the impact (apparently only.one person is taking advantage of it at the present time), but there is a worrying trend here to not only censor dissent, but to frame it as subversive. This is not the act of a liberal democracy.

I feel you did not answer.my question, RJ. When I asked what options you had rejected to conclude that the action taken was the 'only' course, I was hoping for more than a vague mention of trading lives. How about this: would the change of policy to cease or reduce the use of fragmentation warheads when firing into a built up residential area where civilians are likely to be lead to more IDF casualties? If so, why? If you don't know, why present your 'thinking' in such terms?

By the way, the claim that the IDF is "the most moral of armies" does not.just come from the guy in charge of who and how one can avoid conscription.

Ehud Olmert claimed it in 2006 Ehud Barak claimed it in 2009. FrontPage Magazine claimed it in 2011. It seems to be a popular mantra among Israelis.

This article from a former air-force officer challenges whether that can still be the case, and describes how it is not about individual soldiers, but about the policies and commands. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... difference

ray

Based on what I've read about in the Israeli press and the Israelis that I have spoken to, Israel is very interested in a just peace. Absolutely, and to the core, for the majority.

Sure. But is the definition of what the Isrelis and Palestinians call a just peace have any similarity?
Does the notion of an ISraelis just peace include the annexation of the "settlements"? Does it include jeruselum as an Israelis city. Perhaps Capital. Does it include access to water resources beyond what was negotiated in theb Oslo accords>?
Does it allow the right of return or at least compensation for arabs who lost land in 47? (by the way, apparently polls have shown that most Palestinians would accept some from of compensation and decide to remain in Jordan .... Only a few would accept living in Israel and no compesation other than a return of their land ...
I suspect that Palestinians idea of just peace is very different. And I suspect neutral third parties are somewhere in between.
But Israel isn't interested in somewhere in between. And as they feel they are in the adcendancy will not compromise.
Which makes me suspicious of their general aspirations for a Just Peace.
(I also exclude the crazies who lead Hamas from consideration as potential partners in a slotuion. But unless Israel bends and accepts something less then their "ideal solution", Palestinians will sympathize with the crazies and many will follow as they become more and more embittered.
What about the following as a definition of a just peace?
http://afsc.org/document/principles-jus ... d-israelis