Recent Isareli military action in Gaza

[Gorgon]

All they can achieve are symbolic victories, continuing the bombardment despite a heavy Israeli presence could be considered one, reminiscent of Hezbollah.

[Moatilliatta]

Hamas just started firing phosphorus rockets at Israeli cities (why exactly are they still trying to kill Israeli citizens when they've got an entire army down their throat?).

Because Hamas has lately only had Terror as an option for engaging Israel? If you're asking why they're continuing then the answer is that they're extremists and have no other choice in how to proceed in trying to attain their goal.

[Aponez]

All they can achieve are symbolic victories, continuing the bombardment despite a heavy Israeli presence could be considered one, reminiscent of Hezbollah.

 

Israel had to stop the attack against Lebanon before destroy Hezbollah, theorically would be the UN Forces who avoid new attacks from South Lebanon

[Killian Kalthorne]

The Hamas, like all terrorists, are cowards.

[Yuusha]

Congratulations Israeli fans! Your precious Israeli army have just reached the 1000 kill benchmark in just a little over two weeks.

 

Won't be long now until the Palestinian 'terrorists' are totally and utterly wiped off the face of the earth. G'wan now and celebrate!

 

Long live Israel!

[Walsingham]

Hamas just started firing phosphorus rockets at Israeli cities (why exactly are they still trying to kill Israeli citizens when they've got an entire army down their throat?).

 

I think it is quite revealing of their worldview and position. If they were playing for World opinion it would make far more sense to halt the rocket attacks and act all innocent. In the first couple of days even I missed the fact that they were firing rockets [the BBC have beeen shocking skewed on this topic - but keep in mind I don't track it very closely]. If they'd stopped then it could have been even more 'obvious' that Israel are the big bad guys.

 

Instead Hamas et al have continued firing rockets. This is because they have a 100% warfighting strategic attitude, and no operational thinking (like almost all amateurs). They have to continue fighting or their strategic concept is lost. They're like First World War generals.

 

Conversely, the Israelis (who have a superb grasp of operational thinking whatever else you say about them) appear determined to carry out the operational objective of nailing enough Hamas leadership to make them vulnerable domestically. Other groups may or may not rise, but so long as Hamas holds Gaza there can be no peace. This appears to be why they are pushing ahead with ground forces in spite of World opinion. The operational job isn't done yet. Once it is they can pull back, and restart peace initiatives over the next couple of years.

[Volourn]

"Congratulations Israeli fans! Your precious Israeli army have just reached the 1000 kill benchmark in just a little over two weeks.

 

Won't be long now until the Palestinian 'terrorists' are totally and utterly wiped off the face of the earth. G'wan now and celebrate!

 

Long live Israel!"

 

Unlike Hamas supporters (not the same as being peace or Palestinian supporters, btw); most 'Isreali fans' are cheering about the death toll. I know I'm not. It quite frankly sucks; but when one government (Hamas) attacks another government (Isreal) with rocket attacks the government that is having its citizens' attacked *have* to respond. Perhaps, if Palestinian Hamas supporters would ask their government to stop firing rockets on their neighbours maybe they'd have peace but most people (including alrge part of the world) would rather blame Isreal for everything including rocket attacks against it instead of SERIOUSLY telling Hamas to knock it off.

[Walsingham]

But Volo, judging by conversations I often impose on people in trains, cafes etc, a lot of people don't think Israel had to respond. Bearing in mind the danger that I am misrepresenting them, I'd say they feel two things:

 

1. Israel shouldn't exist as a state, so the defence of the state of Israel is moot

2. The Palestinian rockets rarely hit and killed anyone so they should not have been allowed to derail the peace process

 

The former point has more emotional force for most people, and I think it's predicated on an irrelevant approach to the problem; namely that this is going to be resolved in some sort of court, instead of the reality which is it can only move on in indefinite hostility, negotiated settlement or some sort of holocaust.

 

The latter point strikes me as equally ignoring the fundamental issue above. Israel couldn't ignore the rockets and press on with peace talks, because the rockets represented a clear message that peace talks had been rejected in favour of military force.

 

Yuusha? Response?

[kirottu]

I think both points are "armchair philosophy" at it

[Yuusha]

@Walsingham:

I think it is quite revealing of their worldview and position. If they were playing for World opinion it would make far more sense to halt the rocket attacks and act all innocent. In the first couple of days even I missed the fact that they were firing rockets [the BBC have beeen shocking skewed on this topic - but keep in mind I don't track it very closely]. If they'd stopped then it could have been even more 'obvious' that Israel are the big bad guys.

 

Instead Hamas et al have continued firing rockets. This is because they have a 100% warfighting strategic attitude, and no operational thinking (like almost all amateurs). They have to continue fighting or their strategic concept is lost. They're like First World War generals.

 

[Killian Kalthorne]

Well, if Hamas, the rulng goverment of Gaza, didn't attacked Israel in the first place. If the Palestinians took out Hamas themselves instead of having Israel do it maybe there wouldn't be as many Palestinian deaths. Just maybe if the Palestinians in Gaza didn't support Hamas in the first place and refuse to give them any sort of power over them maybe Israel wouldn't have to come in and do it for them. A nation has the right to protect itself from all harm, and if a nation is incapable of doing so then it has no right to be a nation.

[Gorgon]

The latter point strikes me as equally ignoring the fundamental issue above. Israel couldn't ignore the rockets and press on with peace talks, because the rockets represented a clear message that peace talks had been rejected in favour of military force.

 

 

It seems to me that a weeks foray into Gaza would do very little long term to curb the rocket problem, getting at the core would probably mean an occupation and policing the population. Israel doesn't want a mess like that. It's easier to give Gaza a quick shake every once in a while, regardless of whether doing so costs 1000 Palestinian casualties to the, what, 10 Israeli lost to Hamas rockets in the same period.

Edited January 15, 2009 by Gorgon

[howling1]

The latter point strikes me as equally ignoring the fundamental issue above. Israel couldn't ignore the rockets and press on with peace talks, because the rockets represented a clear message that peace talks had been rejected in favour of military force.

 

 

It seems to me that a weeks foray into Gaza would do very little long term to curb the rocket problem, getting at the core would probably mean an occupation and policing the population. Israel doesn't want a mess like that. It's easier to give Gaza a quick shake every once in a while, regardless of whether doing so costs 1000 Palestinian casualties to the, what, 10 Israeli lost to Hamas rockets in the same period.

 

Methinks that the Israelis *are* thinking longterm. In the Egyptian brokered ceasefire talks now underway, the Israelis are insisting that the Turks be brought in to moniter the Egyptian-Gaza border. The Israeli know that the Turks wont put up with Hamas's crap ( Or Egyptian attempts to smuggle in more weapons ). The Arabs should remember just how darn mean the Turks were when they owned the Arab territories for a good four to five centuries. Turks take no crap from nobody...

[Wrath of Dagon]

I think what the Israelis want is a multi-national force on the border that can't be bribed like the Egyptian border guards.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

1. Israel shouldn't exist as a state, so the defence of the state of Israel is moot

 

Lolz. It's like saying: "I think that the U.K. should not exist as a state, thus I can attack it!"

 

2. The Palestinian rockets rarely hit and killed anyone so they should not have been allowed to derail the peace process

 

Lolz. It's like saying: "I'm going to fire my hunting rifle at your house and, as long as no one is killed, you cannot retaliate or call the police!"

[Volourn]

"Israel

[howling1]

"Israel

[howling1]

I think what the Israelis want is a multi-national force on the border that can't be bribed like the Egyptian border guards.

 

That's why the Israelis want the Turks in there, not only can the Turks not be bribed but they wont tolerate Hamas trying to break the agreement. The Turks havent forgotten that when they suffered that massive earthquake a dozen years back, the Israelis sent rescue teams and aid to Turkey. The Arabs didn't give a damn. The Turks remember this. And when the US & EU turned down Turkish requests for new fighter planes, the Israelis upgraded the Turkish F-4E fleet to F-15 standards...

 

Tis good to be a friend of the Turks & most unwise to be their enemies...

 

And when the Arabs tick off the Turks again...

 

As Gromnir would say :

 

HA! Good Fun...

Edited January 16, 2009 by howling1

[Yuusha]

@Walsingham:

1. Israel shouldn't exist as a state, so the defence of the state of Israel is moot

2. The Palestinian rockets rarely hit and killed anyone so they should not have been allowed to derail the peace process

1. Israel definitely exists. The fact that it exists due to land theft and other war crimes is beside the point. Should a country be allowed to defend itself? Yes, it goes without saying.

 

But Israel now, more than ever, is perceived by a large part of the world as a Rogue State. A rogue state habitually violates international law, possesses weapons of mass destruction, and practices terrorism (the use of violence against civilians for political purposes). Israel fulfills all of these three criteria, evident in its recent military activities in Gaza.

 

In short: The (non Arab/Muslim) world is getting sick and tired of Israel's arrogance, atrocities and insanity. Israel have just signed its own death warrant.

 

2. Israel has demonstrated time and time again that they have no intention on adopting the two state solution (I can elaborate on this if you want). Basically, by its continued defiance, Hamas has managed to dent Israel

[Trenitay]

So do you think Hamas would quit attacking Israel if Israel quit attacking them? Hamas is just a bunch of little angels to you isnt it?

[Aram]

Yuusha, you're a lot like that Yrkoon guy. You completely suck and all your arguments have the complete opposite effect on people's perceptions that you think they do.

[Walsingham]

Yuusha, you acknowledge that Israel has a right to defend itself in practical terms, but I don't see the logical follow through in your statements. If the Gazans elect a party dedicated to total annihilatory war with Israel, how can it be inconsistent for Israel to prosecute war in return? I agree that civilian casualties are an issue, but do you accept in principle that military action is justified? That you would simply urge different military action?

 

The question of national legitimacy is completely moot, IMO. Show me a country in human history that wasn't forged in blood, fire and suffering.*

 

As for Israel not accepting a two state solution, I've already addressed this. In negotiation terms I agree with you. But it's as much down to the fact that both sides feel the existence of the other in any form constitutes an unexploded bomb, and neither side has the capacity to enforce a peace deal beyond the short term.

 

As for the surrounding states I think you are massively misjudging the times. All the surrounding states have far more important economic and social issues to worry about without rearming. It's not 1964 any more. The Soviets and Chinese aren't looking to waste billions of dollars of aid on guns. They'll be quite content to remain very vocal on the issue of the Palestinians while continuing to do sod all to help them practically.

~~

 

Gorgon, you make an interesting point about the length of the action. In fact I believe the Israelis have learned that garrisoning the area is dangerous, and difficult. Their aim appears to be to sweep and clear out the huge stockpiles of military grade BM122s and Fahr rockets, as well as bagging as many Hamas people and intel as possible. They're also gambling on the idea that after this intervention the West Bank will be more determined than ever not to become aggressive, and the Gazans will take a while to sort themselves out. It's not intended to be a solution, just one more chapter.

 

 

*Yes, and I'm including Disneyland.

[Calax]

Saw a Daily Show (with John Stewart!) where they interviewed a guy from newsweek. According to said gentleman, Popular opinion polls show that a two state solution is supported by most Arabic governments, and the Civvies on both sides of this conflict.

 

I'm not sure how the Israeli government is attempting to put a long term solution in place when their entire strategy is to allow terror groups to build up in Palestinian zones, then to show us all that they're capable militarily, they roll in and wipe out the stockpiles the groups made. Then they try to starve/make live a living hell for those not of their faith.

 

Also the gentleman from newsweek said that the concept of Terrorism and hitting back after terror attacks is just a infinite loop, they attack you hit back hard, and make more of the terrorists than you took apart, and in retaliation for your retaliation, they attack again. What you're supposed to do against terror attacks is not to do what America did after 9/11 and declare war on anyone who remotely dislikes us, but rather to simply take it and do your best to move on. By taking the Bush stance ("We'll show no fear by beating the living crap out of a country that's so far below us militarily that they can't see our tanks!") we actually IMHO show that the terror attack worked and thus incite more people to attack us exactly because it sparks a reaction.

 

And if you say I'm full of crap, look how India is responding to the Mumbai attacks.

Edited January 16, 2009 by Calax

[Walsingham]

You report an interesting perspective. I do think that the use of terror on any side is inherently flawed. People build a resistance to it, and ever increasing 'doses' are required. But that's not the same as operationally aware use of force. If you're interested, Gen. Rupert Smith has written a fine book on the subject called The Utility of Force.

 

Failing to apply force leaves only a negotiated settlement. But you can't realistically negotiate with a group or standpoint which refuses to recognise your basic right to exist. Which, before you pounce correctly on this as a justification for the use of terrorism by militants against Israel I DON'T condone terrorism. Because:

 

1. Terrorism explicitly targets civilians as valuable targets in their capacity as civilians

2. Terrorism seeks to prevail through imposing chaos, disorder and fear

3. Terror very rarely succeeds under any circumstances where other means would not achieve the job sooner. The example would be Scotland and Ireland. Scotland had a working regional parliament before Northern Ireland without any terrorism, or thousands dead and injured.

[Gorgon]

The State of Israel gained full independence following a terrorist attack which killed the ranking English administrators.

 

September 11 was an overwhelming success on the symbolic level, and terror is all about perception,the casualties themselves are insignificant, at least until the dreaded nuclear terrorist event actually happens. One attack could hardly have hoped to achieve more.

 

So, terror is effective, but rarely so. It needs to be spectacular, out of the ordinary, and it needs to succeed in nudging events just so in the desired direction. Another suicide attack against an Israeli city has been done so many times before it people are numb to it. A retaliatory incursion like this one with a massive civilian death toll does a lot more to move public perception, or in this case world opinion, since that conflict is as seminal as ever.