The myth of defense

[cali]

Yes, I wish the Israelis had not responded militarily to the recent rocket attacks out of Gaza. Those attacks killed one person. Israel pretty much has the ability to keep its citizens near the Gazan border safe. Of course, it's frustrating and traumatic for Israelis living in places like S'derot and Ashkelon to endure rocket attacks, but it's largely not deadly. The same can't be said of the Israeli bombing of Gaza.

I am neither pro-Palestinian nor pro-Israel. I am pro-peace and against hate. I want to see peace in the region. I want to see two secure states.

The attacks on Gaza will only result in more death and destruction in the region.

I wish we could discuss I/P in a civil manner. I hope that this thread will not become a flame war.

[spanone]

1. k&r

[tekisui]

2. Retaliation for retaliation for retaliation for retaliation........

On and on we go. It is tragic that the violence has re-ignited. I don't care who is to blame. By condemning Israel's strikes, I am not defending Hamas. And, vise versa.

I'm with you, I am pro-Peace. Unfortunately, that objective is further out of reach now than it has been in years.

[trof]

39. "He hit me first."

That's what this makes me think of.
First graders.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. If there is a "solution" it certainly isn't violence.

Both sides, or should I say, all sides, have tried violence and it as an abject failure. While the outside forces feed, and spur on, their pawns in the region.

Both sides claim moral authority because of history as a justification but neither see that history and their part in it as a failure.

The ultimate irony is that the whole region would be an unnoticed and unremarkable backwater if not for oil.

[hack89]

4. So the Israelis should wait until Hamas has deadlier weapons?

Hamas will never accept Israel - peace to them is simply an opportunity to gain the means and strength to destroy Israel

[pocoloco]

5. And vice versa.

[cali]

9. Perhaps, just perhaps, there's another response

to Hamas than airstrikes.

[wartrace]

14. Chemical weapons!

At least the air strikes can be targeted. Just saying it could be worse. I wouldn't want to live in an area that is subject the occasional rocket attack. If it were Detroit suffering occasional rocket attacks from Canada I suspect we would do the same as Israel.

[hack89]

16. Hamas declared war

I guess Israel could starve them into submission but I don't think Hamas really cares about the people of Gaza. Negotiations seem out of the question as Hamas completely rules out peace with Israel. What other options are there short of taking the rockets and watching Hamas get stronger? Israel learned with Hizbollah that it gets much harder and bloodier if you let your enemy get too strong.

[Tesha]

23. This is an amusing frame, but not strictly true, of course.

The Israelis and their friends like to portray each Israel action as
"a response to a Palestinian attack" but that's just one way to frame
it; an equally valid frame is that the Palestinians are responding to
Israeli attacks (including the Israeli's continuing blockade of Gaza
and all the harm that's doing to civilians in Gaza).

If one wanted to go back far enough, one might also consider
that the Palestinians thought they possessed a country before
the '49 partition of Palestine in favor of the Israelis. Perhaps
that was one of the earliest "actions"?

Tesha

[hack89]

30. Starting a bunch of wars which you loose doesn't help either

in any case, Hamas wants war and they got it.

[Tesha]

38. Nice attempt to dodge my point.

By the way, the word you sought was "lose".

Tesha

[hack89]

43. We can argue chicken or egg all day long

the simple fact of the matter is that 60 years down the road Israel is thriving and the Palestinians are destitute. Perhaps Hamas needs to break the cycle as their people suffer the most and have the most to lose. But Hamas doesn't really care, do they?

[Tesha]

48. I see -- you have no argument so we should just ignore my point, ehh? (NT)

[hack89]

49. No - your point is irrelevant

arguing "who started it" is a fruitless endeavor. Hamas is continuing a cycle that has brought nothing but misery to their people.

[Tesha]

55. As is Israel, if course. And doing 100x the violence that Hamas is doing. (NT)

[hack89]

59. But Israel is winning

Hamas has the most to lose. Israel not so much. This is not a war between equals - wars have winners and losers. If Hamas is not careful they will lose in a big way.

[chimpymustgo]

61. So should we arm Hamas so they can fight back? I don't understand your logic.

Hamas doesn't want to see its' children killed - as is happening now.

[hack89]

68. Then Hamas needs to stop shooting rockets into Israel

governments are responsible for their choices - Hamas ignored Israeli warnings to stop the shelling and their people are now paying the price.

[wuushew]

11. you have an unfounded fear of Hamas as an organization

think of all the organizational, technical and monetary requirements to have a decent offensive capability. Always it is nation states which develop and maintain such capability.

What deadlier weapons do you suspect? Long range artillery, ballistic missiles? Chemical agents?

These are things which are unlikely to arise natively in Gaza. Any weapons of true effect would never be supplied by an outside power because the net result would be counter productive to that power's strategic position versus Israel.


Mortars and small arms are the likely pattern for the foreseeable future and these things certainty are not capable of destroying Israel.

[hack89]

15. Iran is the real threat here

Hamas is Iran's proxy - if Israel was to open Gaza to unfettered commerce, do you doubt for a second that Iran would arm Hamas with the most sophisticated, long range rockets they can. Look to Lebanon and Hezbollah to see what Israel is trying to prevent in Gaza.

[sixmile]

26. I've read all your comments and reached a conclusion:

Your username is appropriate.

[hack89]

32. Personal insults are your only contribution to the topic?

many would view it as validation when people can't respond logically to your posts and have to resort to insults.

[sixmile]

58. It is pointless to argue with propaganda

as it is pointless to argue with the propagandized.

[hack89]

75. Isn't there propaganda on both sides?

or are you arguing that the pro-Palestinian side has the monopoly on truth in this matter? Your knee jerk reaction is certainly indicative of one who has drunk the kool aid - despite your weak after the fact justification.

I am willing to discuss the issues? Why aren't you? Are you looking for an echo chamber instead of a discussion board?

[Mosby]

18. Hamas already has longer range missiles

and are now able to reach military and industrial areas in Israel.

Most of these new missiles are smuggled into the strip from Iran.

[wuushew]

20. So? Are you impressed by the results?

Good missiles are complex, expensive and conspicuous targets. Here is a list a ballistic rockets in the Iranian arsenal.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/mrl-iran.htm


Rocket Range Diameter Warhead Comment
km mm kg
Arash 122 Katyusha MRL
Fajr-3 45
Fajr-5 45
Haseb 9 107 8
Mushak-120 130 500
Naze'at-4 90
Naze'at-5
Naze'at-6 105 355 850 FROG
Naze'at-10 140 450 250 FROG
Noor 18 122 18
Oghab 34-45 230 70
Shahin-1 13 333 190
Shahin-2 20 333
Zelzal-2 100


Supposedly Hezzbollah had some variant of the Fajr-5 fired from Lebanon, yet even then do you claim that their use was satisfactory? There aren't that many bigger or better missiles to choose from.


Stop freaking out.

[Tesha]

21. Deadlier than the hundred-plus nuclear weapons Israel has? Not likely to happen soon, is it?

But that's an amusing hypothetical and might make a good strawman, ehh?

Tesha

[hack89]

34. Totally irrelevant

considering that nukes have no place in this conflict. It really bothers you that Israelis are not dieing at the same rate as Palestinians, doesn't it?

[Tesha]

40. No, it bothers me that Israelis are deliberately*KILLING Palestinians at more than a 100:1 ratio*...

...to the rate that some Palestinian governmental and non-
governmental actors are killing Israelis. A proportionate
response might be acceptable, but 100:1 isn't. A response
that actually managed to target Palestinian combatants and
spare non-combatants might be acceptable. But the Israelis
clearly aren't interested in either of those things.

The world should bring war crimes charges against both
sides in this conflict, but the US assures that our client
state will never be touched and as a result, the rest of
the world is loathe to move against Hamas, Hezbollah,
and other militant groups.

Tesha

[hack89]

42. Isn't that the point of war?

Hamas can stop the killing in a second - they want war instead.

[Tesha]

47. To kill civilians and other non-combatants? Really?

I thought that was the sort of thing that was often deemed a
war crime, at least when it's the losers killing non-combatants.

Tesha

[hack89]

50. Deliberate killing of civilians is a war crime

these attacks are not war crimes. If Israel's goal was to "kill civilians and other non-combatants" then the dead would number in the tens of thousands. Go read your international law.

[mudesi]

60. THE POINT OF WAR?

Why are you not tombstoned?

[hack89]

67. Because I live in the real world perhaps?

Hamas and Israel are fighting a war. People will be killed until one side decides they don't want to fight anymore. Can't be any simpler.

[Statistical]

44. God help the American soldiers if you ever became Sec of Defense

The point of war is to destroy the enemy quicker than they are destroying you.

In WWII when we pushed Japan back did we stop and make it easy on them so we could get back to a 1:1 casualty ratio? Just to be fair? It is insane.

Someone else posted an article showing the damage to the Hamas terror network that the strikes achieved:
* top commanders dead
* 50%+ of rocket launchers destroyed
* multiple weapons caches
etc....

The point of war is to destroy the other sides ability to wage it. Not to try and achieve balance.

If Israel forced 200+ Jews into Gaza to "even out the kills" would that somehow make it ok for you?

Hamas could simply stop firing rockets (regardless of number of people they kill) and Israel would stop bombing.

Why don't they? Oh yeah Hamas stated mission is the destruction of Israel and extinction of the Jews.

Then again I guess Israel could simply exterminate all of the Palestinians once and for all; Death camp style. As long as they also exterminate 1.5 million Jews then it would be all "fair".

[Tesha]

46. Kill all the combatants you want. But the Israelis are killing NON-COMBATANTS

at a shockingly high rate. And the only reason we (the Allies) didn't
face war crimes charges over Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki
is that we won the war and war crimes are rarely prosecuted against
the winners, only the losers in wars.

Tesha

[Statistical]

51. Or you don't really understand the rules of war

Israel isn't intentionally targeting civilians or using weapons to increase number of non combatant deaths - both war crimes.

Israel has access to 2000lb bombs, and MLRS (multiple launch rocket system) they could have turned Gaza into a graveyard Cheyna style within an hour. They didn't. Their intent was to take out military/terrorist targets.

The fact that they used the new high yield, high penetration smart bomb only reinforces that fact.

Just because someone throws out the word WAR CRIME on DU doesn't make it real. Sad reality is civilians die in war; every war. Not every civilian death is a war crime.

From the reports FROM HAMAS the IDF hit legitimate military targets. Nothing in rules of war requires an attacking country to wait that civilians are free from battlefield or ensure their survival. Cold but true.

[Tesha]

57. A callous disregard for the lives of non-combatants is equally bad as deliberately targeting them.

As I've said, the only reason we Allies weren't prosecuted for
several of our actions during WWII is that we had the good
fortune to emerge victorious.

Tesha

[whopis01]

53. Both sides are killing non-combatants. n/t

[Tesha]

56. Correct. But that doesn't justify either side's actions, not even the Israelis. (NT)

[whopis01]

66. I never claimed that it did. n/t

[madokie]

6. They can't kill their way to peace

thats so elementry that I'm surprised they haven't seen that already.

[wuushew]

19. delete

[Statistical]

52. Well technically you can...

It is HAMAS' goal to wipe Israel off the map and exterminate all the Jews.

If the succeed their will be peace (at least until they find another ground to hate).

Israel "could" do the same thing but unlike Hamas they have no intention in committing genocide.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

7. The real problem in the Middle East is that those who want war

are the ones in power. People who have worked for peace, trying to build bridges, have been threatened or jailed into silence. I know of a Sufi shaykh who was getting Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs together to do zkr who was silenced by the then in power PLO. And we know of many Israeli who has refused to fight and has been jailed because of it. The Jews and Arabs that wish to have joint economic ventures are discouraged and run out of business.

When the majority of the people on both sides realize that those in power only want war, maybe they will be voted out. But those who want peace need to be vigilant, or they will be assassinated by those who are only interested in war.

[Hippo_Tron]

71. I wish I could recommend replies

Hamas loves this perpetual state of war because that's how they retain their power. Likud, which have really just become an arm of the neocons, are more or less the same way. Conflict is what these people thrive on and oppose peace simply because it means an end to the conflict.

No surprise that the current mess happened under the Bush regime who also love wars.

[LeftishBrit]

8. I agree.

I can see the frustration and indeed fear when Hamas keep on with their attacks on Israel; but this action will not really defend Israel, and on the contrary just escalates the situation.

The same on the other side; the rocket attacks on Israel do not help the Palestinians get a state, and may help Netanyahu get elected.

The right-wing hawks on either side just reinforce the right-wing hawks on the other side, and the situation just escalates on and on. With lots of innocent bystanders getting killed.

'I am pro-peace and against hate. I want to see peace in the region. I want to see two secure states.'

Hear hear!

'The attacks on Gaza will only result in more death and destruction in the region.'

I fully agree.

'I wish we could discuss I/P in a civil manner.'

So do I!


Here is a link that might interest people concerned about this subject:


www.allmep.org

[Raster]

10. Thank you for the link. Any information about the crisis in the M.E. is good.

[lostnotforgotten]

12. Rinse, Wash, Repeat - The Pattern Is Pretty Obvious

eom

[originalpckelly]

13. Violence begets violence.

How are people on either side supposed to get over the loss of their families?

Just imagine what kind of a powerful message it would be if a non-violent demonstration was had on the part of the Palestinians? Someone must teach them the message of non-violence if the world is to hear their pain.

[gravity]

17. What would you do if your neighborhood was attacked by rockets?

Ignore it and hope it doesn't happen again?

I recognize that violence can lead to more violence, but you also can't let others get away with attacking innocent civilians. There aren't always easy solutions to these problems which is why that area is in such a great mess in the first place.

[Hanse]

22. By killing 200 innocent people.

Duh.

[TahitiNut]

24. Gee... I guess a total blockade is the only 'solution' huh?

Blockade them from the sea. Blockade them from the land. Surround them with military force. Let them die of starvation and lack of medical supplies.

What a wonderful 'solution'! God forbid ANYONE actually talk to Hamas!

[gravity]

35. Hamas initiated the attacks

It would be nice if this situation would end with talks, but it requires Hamas to actually talk instead of firing rockets.

Israel overreacted with its retaliation and shouldn't have put civilians in harms way, but they have some justification for attacking back. This isn't a black and white issue.

[TahitiNut]

45. Nonsense. Funny how "In the beginning..." so often launches statements of belief ...

... instead of facts. :shrug: I guess it's convenient for denial.

For example, it was Golda Meier (among others) who denied the very existence of Palestine. This was (and is) a very common attitude among Israelis. (But we always hear the shoe being put on the other foot.)

[Tesha]

25. Remind me again: In these rocket attacks, how many hundreds died? (NT)

[gravity]

36. What would you do if your neighbors house exploded?

And you fear for the safety of your children.

[Tesha]

37. Answer the question, don't throw up another strawman.

The answer, BTW, is that in this latest round of rockets, apparently
*ONE* Israeli has been killed, while the Israeli "retaliation" has now
cost the lives of several *HUNDRED* Palestinians. So perhaps your
strawman question is better offered as "What would a Palestinian
neighbor do?"

If the Israelis had any sense, they'd want to make some sort of
peace out of this disaster that the last 59 years have created.
But based on their actions, one can only conclude that they
really want to see the elimination of all Palestinians, even if
the ultimate cost is the destruction of Israel.

Tesha

[killbotfactory]

27. I would slaughter anyone stupid enough to live near the area of the attacks, of course

Then I would make it my mission to lay siege to their territory and deny them the means of survival until anyone left alive gives up and leaves. Then I would use the land for better purposes that suit me and my neighbors.

What better possible solution could there be?

If they didn't want to get bombed and slaughtered they should have thought of that before they moved in next to rocket wielding terrorists.

[sixmile]

29. You're kiddin', right?

If so please use a sarcasm alert.

[uppityperson]

31. While sarcasm smiley isn't always needed, it can be very helpful with hot issues like this.

Since it would not be beyond what has been posted, it is difficult to tell if you are serious or sarcastic.

[Hippo_Tron]

69. Even though this is sarcasm, you might have a point

Perhaps Israel should relocate all of its civilians living within a certain radius of Gaza but keep the IDF there.

[NorthernSpy]

65. What would you do if an occupying army starved your family?

Look: we're not going to get anywhere on this until people are willing to acknowledge the extent to which Israeli actions have provoked hostilities.

[Poll_Blind]

28. I always found it worth noting that Israeli raids always seem to kill so many civilians when...

...they, unlike the radical offshoots of Hamas, use top-shelf state of the art laser or GPS-guided munitions. Simple facts like these are most definitely NOT lost on the rest of the world.

PB

[deaniac21]

33. Championships are won with defense.

[H2O Man]

41. I support both.

It is evident that the current strategies and tactics are not working. There needs to be new attempts to resolve the issues involved, which protect everyone involved. Easier said than done, I know. But easier than the current horrors. Both sides have to be willing to admit to previous errors, and be willing to negotiate in good faith.

[Raksha]

72. You noticed!!!

Re It is evident that the current strategies and tactics are not working.

In 60 years, numerous variations of "the current strategies" have consistently failed. So it's pretty safe to assume they will to continue to fail. The definition of insanity and all that...

[Forkboy]

74. "Both sides have to be willing to admit to previous errors"

I was afraid of that.

[LeftishBrit]

54. There's a petition on Avaaz, if people wish to sign it

https://secure.avaaz.org/act/index.php?r=act

[pelsar]

62. yet your solution is not reasonable....

Israel pretty much has the ability to keep its citizens near the Gazan border safe.

from what i gather your saying the israelis along the border should be "satisfied" (given the other options) to play russian roulette with the incoming kassams..have their days interrupted (showers, dinners, classes) with a 15 second run to the nearest shelter..not go out to work in the fields, not have a social life...or at least make sure they've got that 15 second sprint ready to the shelter if they do....

i dont think its reasonable to let so many people live in a world where missiles fall at random..where kids outings no longer happen,birthday parties are cancelled since no parent wants that responsibility on their shoulders, board meetings don't happen as there is no shelter for everyone, etc

furthermore its reasonable to assume that the hamasnikim will be perfecting their guidance system and increase the range (as we now know they can....today over 500,000 israelis are now in range of the kassams (estimated). and what happens when they do actually hit school, a hospital, a grocery store...

and despite your neither "pro or con"...you've chosen....one side should live under the constant threat, and the other,who is actually doing the shooting, should live in peace and security...that doesnt sound a bit "upside down to you?"

[JuniperLea]

63. There needs to be more talking

There never has been and never will be a violent solution. There needs to be talking, negotiations, give and take, compromise... you know, all of those things Bush has been against for the past eight years. The "he hit me first" bullshit needs to end. How about an honest "I sought peace" argument? There is no more honor in this fighting than there is in LA gang turf wars... or wild dogs in a pissing match. Human lives are being lost.

When I was a kid I honestly thought modern civilization would become actually civilized in my lifetime. I'm starting to lose the dream.

[Javaman]

64. I love when attacking someone is called a defense.

I can thank george w. moron* for that.

[Raksha]

73. It predates George W. Moran by many years.

Re I love when attacking someone is called a defense.

Our current euphemistically-named "Department of Defense" used to be called the Department of War...a much more honest label in my opinion. Can anyone recall the last time it was actually used for DEFENSE???

[TheKentuckian]

70. The demand for proportionate is fucking stupid.

Israel is being pretty careful to attempt to limit civilian deaths or there would be tens of thousands. Its not like Hamas has a bunch of hard targets in separate areas. They are using the civilian population as shields, which is the only strategy available to them, otherwise they'd be crushed in moments but along with that comes the price of setting up innocents to get blown up.
There's nothing for it. The Israeli people are apparently almost infinitely patient because most populations would have demanded much more aggressive action to ensure their safety.

This is not about tit for tat but about removing a threat. I see Israel as using a scalpel rather than TNT but some pretend that good intentions and turning the other cheek will result in peace.
The only way you can have unilateral peace is by rolling over and dying. Which I assume is what most of those that are calling Israel out really want.

I'd say the Palestinians should be thankful that the response is not much, much, much less proportionate. I can't imagine a citizenry that would remotely put up with what the Israelis have.