What will be the result of the Israeli attacks on Gaza? [Archive]

ddt

28th December 2008, 05:57 AM

What will be accomplished from the Israeli strikes on Gaza?

In terms of breaking Hamas' strength? Not much. The first day, yesterday, had some 250 Gazans killed. Let's be generous and say they're all Hamas militants.

Now look at this analysis (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050282.html) in Haaretz:
Approximately 15,000 armed Palestinians. That's the size of the military force the Israel Defense Forces will face if a major operation in the Gaza Strip goes forward. These militants, from various Hamas factions, will presumably be aided by a few thousand militants from other Palestinian groups.

Do the math. That's 60 days, or 2 month, with the same amount of success. Provided, of course, that all those casualties are indeed militants. They're not, it'll be more like the roughly 50% success rate Israel had in previous actions, so multiply by 2.

Moreover, Israel hasn't hit the core of Hamas' military strength, the al-Qassam brigades, but the police-like forces. Let's hear Amira Hass (http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050636.html):
Training camps of the Izz-al Din al-Qassam and interrogation and detention centers were deserted when they were bombed. But police centers in the Strip, which give services to people, were teeming. No one believed that they would be bombed.

So, no, it won't significantly weaken Hamas, I think. In the end, it's another round of senseless bloodletting that makes peace a rather more distant than a closer prospect.

Thunder

28th December 2008, 08:46 AM

What about Hamas breaking the cease-fire to begin with?

Oh right, we have to be tolerant towards them, breaking cease-fire is part of their "nature". It's a cultural thing. Racist me...

Israel was supposed to allow all neccessary food, water, and supplies into Gaza. They failed to do this. So in their own way, they also broke the cease-fire.

Denying food, water, and supplies is a passive act of violence.

Tin Foil Timothy

29th December 2008, 11:19 AM

Israel was supposed to allow all neccessary food, water, and supplies into Gaza. They failed to do this. So in their own way, they also broke the cease-fire.

Denying food, water, and supplies is a passive act of violence.

Israel broke the ceasefire back in November 4th by shooting 6 Palestinians militants and rocekts were fired at Israel in response

TriskettheKid

29th December 2008, 11:42 AM

Israel broke the ceasefire back in November 4th by shooting 6 Palestinians militants and rocekts were fired at Israel in response

Well, if you want to play that game, Hamas broke the ceasefire a mere 5 days after it went into effect.

They fired off a few Qassams on June 24. Quite a bit of restraint from Hamas, considering they had agreed to a ceasefire that began on June 19.

Darth Rotor

29th December 2008, 12:04 PM

Moreover, Israel hasn't hit the core of Hamas' military strength, the al-Qassam brigades, but the police-like forces. Let's hear Amira Hass (http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050636.html):
This isn't a video game. Pure attrition isn't the only way for an army to disintegrate. Sometimes, morale breaks and they quit. (Not seeing it for Hamas, however.)
So, no, it won't significantly weaken Hamas, I think. In the end, it's another round of senseless bloodletting that makes peace a rather more distant than a closer prospect.
Senseless or not, I agree with the bolded part: more grist for the Hamas recruiting mill.

DR

BenBurch

29th December 2008, 12:52 PM

...
Denying food, water, and supplies is a passive act of violence.

Generally called a "siege."

dudalb

29th December 2008, 01:24 PM

A very short-sighted poll

I regard the current violence as another nail in the coffin of the two-state solution. It will soon be too late to resurrect that idea.

The region is on the path to a one-state solution.

And what will happen to the Jews in Israel when HAMAS takes over?
IMHO advocates of a "Single State Solution" are really advocating a "Ethnic Cleansing" if Jews from Palestine, although they won't admit that or carefully delude themselves that that will not be the final result.

Tandem Thinking

29th December 2008, 01:29 PM

I'm not sure what everyone else here was expecting when Hamas launched rockets into Israel. If Canada or Mexico launched rockets into the U.S., I'm positive we would've done more than launch air strikes.

Drewbot

29th December 2008, 01:38 PM

Israel is going to go in on the ground soon, this time they are not going to tell us when and where.

portlandatheist

29th December 2008, 01:49 PM

What about Hamas breaking the cease-fire to begin with?

Don't you read the news? When Palestinians bombard Israel with rockets, they are "threatening the cease-fire" but the cease fire is not actually broken until Israel launches rockets.

Lots of examples:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article4224397.ece
"Gaza Rockets threaten ceasefire.."

Same rules hold for peace treaties and negotiations.

Tin Foil Timothy

29th December 2008, 01:52 PM

Well, if you want to play that game, Hamas broke the ceasefire a mere 5 days after it went into effect.

They fired off a few Qassams on June 24. Quite a bit of restraint from Hamas, considering they had agreed to a ceasefire that began on June 19.

Well if you want to play that game then the Zionist Movement spent 50 years planning and implementing the creation of Israel on a land where other people lived and without regard for those people. Since it's creation Israel has spent 60 years persecuting those people in order to drive them off the land they once owned and had their livelihoods.

TriskettheKid

29th December 2008, 01:59 PM

Well if you want to play that game then the Zionist Movement spent 50 years planning and implementing the creation of Israel on a land where other people lived and without regard for those people. Since it's creation Israel has spent 60 years persecuting those people in order to drive them off the land they once owned and had their livelihoods.

That is an interesting interpretation of history.

It's also an interesting dodge to the point on hand:

The ceasefire started on June 19, Hamas broke it on June 24. I can assume, based on your dodge, that you accept this?

Darth Rotor

29th December 2008, 02:06 PM

Don't you read the news? When Palestinians bombard Israel with rockets, they are "threatening the cease-fire" but the cease fire is not actually broken until Israel launches rockets.

Lots of examples:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article4224397.ece
"Gaza Rockets threaten ceasefire.."

Same rules hold for peace treaties and negotiations.
It seems that Hamas and Gaza are in deed at war with Israel, if I wish to play dictionary definition lotto today.
A ceasefire (or truce) is a temporary stoppage of any armed conflict, where each side of the conflict agrees with the other to suspend aggressive actions. Ceasefires may be declared as part of a formal treaty, but they have also been called as part of an informal understanding between opposing forces.
One can argue that there had to be a war before they could agree a ceasefire. One could.

This raises an interesting point regarding how this conflict is covered. As I understand it, a ceasefire ceases when firing begins. PA, thanks again for pointing this out. Careless use of language is part of a misinformation campaign, whomever uses it.

You'd think even a journalist knows this mechanism about cease and fire. Then again, maybe a cease fire isn't broken until both sides fire? Is that the idea? :confused:

That would mean that North Korea could start shelling Seoul, and the cease fire would still be in effect until the US and South Korea fired back.

Yeah, that's it. It also means the US can shell North Korea without breaking the cease fire.

Hell, let's roll! :)

(Kidding)

ddt

29th December 2008, 02:36 PM

Deus Ex Machina

29th December 2008, 02:42 PM

In terms of breaking Hamas' strength? Not much. The first day, yesterday, had some 250 Gazans killed. Let's be generous and say they're all Hamas militants.

Now look at this analysis (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050282.html) in Haaretz:

Do the math. That's 60 days, or 2 month, with the same amount of success. Provided, of course, that all those casualties are indeed militants. They're not, it'll be more like the roughly 50% success rate Israel had in previous actions, so multiply by 2.

Moreover, Israel hasn't hit the core of Hamas' military strength, the al-Qassam brigades, but the police-like forces. Let's hear Amira Hass (http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050636.html):

So, no, it won't significantly weaken Hamas, I think. In the end, it's another round of senseless bloodletting that makes peace a rather more distant than a closer prospect.

A good post all in all I think.

But I disagree with your last sentiment. I do not think it moves peace closer or further away. I do not think the current set up can lead to peace.

Hamas is an organization founded on the aim of the destruction of the state of Israel. AS someone in Isreael once said "Our enemies want us to die. We wish to live. there is not much room for compromise"

How the hell can there be peace between a two countries when one of them has the stated aim of destroying the other?

At some point an Arab leader has to arise who has something constructive to offer the Palestinians, something other than the endless round of privation, destruction death and popverty.

When THAT person arrives then, possibly, there is hope for peace.

portlandatheist

29th December 2008, 03:30 PM

Did you actually read the article?

The ceasefire was between Hamas and Israel.

Try google:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS241US241&q=rockets+threaten+cease+fire&btnG=Search

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/3933368/Hamas-fires-at-Israel-threatening-hopes-of-renewed-ceasefire.html
Hamas fires at Israel, threatening hopes of renewed ceasefire

IMHO, the "ceasefire" was broken with the rocket attacks against Israel, but that's just me.

BirdStrike

29th December 2008, 03:36 PM

IMHO, the "ceasefire" was broken with the rocket attacks against Israel, but that's just me.

{sarcasm on}

Naaaaa. 60 rockets in one day is not breaking the ceasefire portlandatheist. ;)

Twenty-four homemade rockets and a mortar shell were fired into Israel from Gaza on Wednesday, causing shrapnel wounds to three shoppers near a supermarket.

The attacks came as a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas that has existed in name only since early November was set to expire on Friday.

nationalpost (http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/story.html?id=1087438)

Naaaaaaaaaaa... 24 rockets isn't breaking the ceasefire either. :hb:

Palestinian militants have fired rockets into Israel, hours after an unexpected ceasefire was called between the two sides.

The ceasefire came into effect at 0600 (0400 GMT) after the Palestinian Authority said groups would end attacks and Israel agreed to halt hostilities.

Hamas' armed wing said it launched the attacks because some Israeli troops were still in Gaza, east of the town of Jabaliya, despite the Israelis saying they had pulled out all their troops overnight.

BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6184882.stm)

Nope. No broken ceasefire either. :bwall

During the year 2006 alone, 1000+ rockets were launched. As of May 2008, over 3,000 rockets had been launched[3]

wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Qassam_rocket_attacks)

dudalb

29th December 2008, 04:45 PM

I notice that there was not much outrage when Hamas launched rockets into Israel.
When the Euros talk about how the US should be more even handed in the Arab Israeli conflict, my answer is "We Will If You Will".
BTW it really does not matter if creating Israel was a good idea or not. You have Five Million Jews there, and that little fact is not going away, and sort of makes going back to 1948 impossible, unless a little genocide is applied.

Pardalis

29th December 2008, 06:26 PM

The ceasefire was between Hamas and Israel.

IMHO, the "ceasefire" was broken with the rocket attacks against Israel, but that's just me.

I may be wrong, but I think what DDL is arguing is that Israel has to negociate ceasefires with two different political entities now... :boggled:

ddt

29th December 2008, 06:53 PM

I may be wrong, but I think what DDL is arguing is that Israel has to negociate ceasefires with two different political entities now... :boggled:

ddt is the name.

I was arguing that the case portlandatheist showed was not a case where Hamas itself lobbed the rockets, but Fatah did. To continue with the analogies here about Mexico and the US: it's as if a Mexican druglord would lob a rocket over the Rio Grande. Would the US also see that as a breach of the peace between the two countries?

Pardalis

29th December 2008, 07:02 PM

ddt is the name.

Oups, my apologies, what does it stand for btw?

korenyx

29th December 2008, 07:50 PM

Israel was supposed to allow all neccessary food, water, and supplies into Gaza. They failed to do this. So in their own way, they also broke the cease-fire.

Denying food, water, and supplies is a passive act of violence.

If you treat people like rabid dogs you shouldn't be suprised when they turn into rabid dogs.

gdnp

30th December 2008, 06:16 AM

If you treat people like rabid dogs you shouldn't be suprised when they turn into rabid dogs.

I think of it more as whacking on a beehive and then acting surprised when you get attacked by the bees.

yairhol

30th December 2008, 06:27 AM

How come I never see posts started by ddt and co. when Hamas fires rockets at Israel when ceasefire is in action?
Posts only appear when Israel retaliates.

ddt

30th December 2008, 06:47 AM

How come I never see posts started by ddt and co. when Hamas fires rockets at Israel when ceasefire is in action?
Posts only appear when Israel retaliates.

What about a deal? You accomplish there will be a ceasefire again. Then I will maintain a thread here and document in it every infraction of the ceasefire - Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Fatah, Israel, Martians, whoever.

Darth Rotor

30th December 2008, 08:07 AM

What about a deal? You accomplish there will be a ceasefire again. Then I will maintain a thread here and document in it every infraction of the ceasefire - Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Fatah, Israel, Martians, whoever.
Freakin' Martians, can't they get involved in their own darned dispute? Do they have to crowd into one that's already full of attitude cases? :boggled:

DR

Policenaut

30th December 2008, 08:56 AM

Darth Rotor

30th December 2008, 09:01 AM

Even if they get the majority of Hamas targets they will just probably step up suicide attacks for years until they can rebuild. What are the chances Hamas will be voted out of power? I gotta think the average Gazan now sees that electing them was a poor choice.
Or, the average Gazan sees it as

Hamas was right, those ****** Israelis are bombing us again.

@ parky:

I finally voted, and given the poor choices, all I could come up with is "Hamas will keep on doing rocket attacks" since I am unsure how good they are at the moment in recruiting suicide bombers.

DR

ravdin

30th December 2008, 09:03 AM

To continue with the analogies here about Mexico and the US: it's as if a Mexican druglord would lob a rocket over the Rio Grande. Would the US also see that as a breach of the peace between the two countries?

If the Mexicans harbored said druglord and provided material aid and comfort, then yes.

Policenaut

30th December 2008, 09:10 AM

Or, the average Gazan sees it as

Hamas was right, those ****** Israelis are bombing us again.

DR

Probably but that would be very dumb considering that Hamas is the reason why Gaza is being bombed. Then again the whole situation is very dumb.

DrBaltar

30th December 2008, 09:38 AM

Enough is enough. Ideally both sides could see the error in their ways and realize there is no god and say oops, sorry for the last 3000 years of insanity. But that's not going to happen.

Another idea is we could use the area as a nuclear waste dump so the whole area will be uninhabitable for the next 100,000 years until both sides forget about the dispute.

But I'd say let Israel completely wipe out Hamas. They are fundamentally incapable of honoring a cease fire. The bright side is Hamas can win the Darwin Award in 2009.

gdnp

30th December 2008, 09:49 AM

But I'd say let Israel completely wipe out Hamas.

About as likely as the residents of New York City killing all the rats.

DrBaltar

30th December 2008, 10:17 AM

"Israel Considers Offering Hamas a Cease-Fire"
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,473868,00.html

Oh come on! Do you like dealing with barbarians outside your country year after year? Finish them off!

ddt

30th December 2008, 11:33 AM

If the Mexicans harbored said druglord and provided material aid and comfort, then yes.

Thanks, I was waiting for that reaction. :D

You may note that in the same newspaper article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article4224397.ece), a Hamas spokesperson criticized the perpetrator of the rocket attack:
"It has become clear that some Palestinian parties do not want this calm deal to succeed and they do not want the siege to be lifted," Mushir al-Masri, a Hamas spokesman, said

I note also that on 18 September, the UN rapporteur said in the UNSC:
The one area where there is positive news is security. The ceasefire has continued to hold during the reporting period. Hamas has made efforts to prevent the launching of rockets and mortars into Israel and, during the reporting period, two rockets and one mortar were launched.

So, to continue the analogy with Mexico: that would be that Mexico tried to catch said druglord, but they don't yet get him and he manages to launch two rockets.

I'm not saying this is the picture for the whole period of the ceasefire. Hamas certainly has broken it on a couple of occasions. But the newspaper article presented is no such case.

WildCat

30th December 2008, 11:52 AM

Millions of pages of debate on the internet, that's what!

30th December 2008, 11:54 AM

Finish them off!

and that makes you a non barbarian?

Texas

30th December 2008, 06:38 PM

A very short-sighted poll

I regard the current violence as another nail in the coffin of the two-state solution. It will soon be too late to resurrect that idea.

The region is on the path to a one-state solution. Well those pulling for the Palestinians had better hope that does not end up being the case because in a one state solution it will be Israel as the last man standing. Israel could wipe out every Palestinian in 48 hours even without nukes.

DrBaltar

30th December 2008, 09:05 PM

and that makes you a non barbarian?

The Israelis have a right, just like everyone else on the planet to live in peace as long as they don't intrude on other people's rights to live in peace. Hamas has forfeited their right to live in peace by continuously seeking conflict and aiming for the extermination of the Jews. Therefore, Hamas must be eliminated.

JoeTheJuggler

30th December 2008, 09:14 PM

Yup. . . more violence.

A point I made before: why is that people think the enemy can be cowed into submission by violence, but "we" are different and will fight back?

And yeah, I think it's absurd when someone calls anyone who criticizes Israel's actions an "anti-semite" when the Palestinians are arguably more semitic than modern Israelis.

30th December 2008, 09:23 PM

The Israelis have a right, just like everyone else on the planet to live in peace as long as they don't intrude on other people's rights to live in peace. Hamas has forfeited their right to live in peace by continuously seeking conflict and aiming for the extermination of the Jews. Therefore, Hamas must be eliminated.

like everyone else on this planet, does that include the Palestinian people?

as long as they don't intrude on other people's rights to live in peace.

and i gues alot Palestinians feel intruded.

JoeTheJuggler

30th December 2008, 09:26 PM

Hamas has forfeited their right to live in peace by continuously seeking conflict and aiming for the extermination of the Jews. Therefore, Hamas must be eliminated.
I'm certainly no friend of Hamas, but this is absurd.

Two points. . .

One: I don't think Hamas is aiming for the extermination of the Jews. I think their most extreme position calls for an end to the state of Israel which is NOT the same thing as what you're saying. If you can show evidence that Hamas actually advocates the extermination of the Jews, I'll admit I was wrong. (Everyone seemed to support free elections for the Palestinians until they actually exercised that right and voted Hamas into power.)

Two: The violence has gone both ways. If you want to go back to "who started it" (which is unproductive, imho), you'd have to point to events in 1948. If you look at the death tolls since this has begun, it's pretty lopsided as to who has been getting killed. Just off the top of my head, I seem to recall seeing the figure 6 to 1 since 1967. Anyone have better info? And then there's the matter of Israel's actions that show that they do not want just to live in peace as sovereign neighbors--bulldozing homes, illegal settlements, the wall, checkpoints, etc.

ETA: When you say Hamas must be eliminated, are you calling for the extermination of the Palestinians?

Texas

30th December 2008, 09:31 PM

Yup. . . more violence.

A point I made before: why is that people think the enemy can be cowed into submission by violence, but "we" are different and will fight back?

. Well Japan, Italy and Germany must be exceptions to the rule not to mention every war fought since cavemen picked up a club. Violence can subdue ANY enemy if violent enough.

30th December 2008, 09:33 PM

Well Japan, Italy and Germany must be exceptions to the rule not to mention every war fought since cavemen picked up a club. Violence can subdue ANY enemy if violent enough.

Violence can subdue ANY enemy if violent enough. ?
are those your thoughts or did you quote Hamas?

Texas

30th December 2008, 09:46 PM

Violence can subdue ANY enemy if violent enough. ?
are those your thoughts or did you quote Hamas? No I just pointed out an immutable fact.

30th December 2008, 10:11 PM

No I just pointed out an immutable fact.

do you think violence is a good solution?

Texas

30th December 2008, 10:14 PM

do you think violence is a good solution?I think violence is an effective solution that has been tested since the dawn of man. Peace at any cost has failed on every occasion since the dawn of man.

DrBaltar

30th December 2008, 10:33 PM

When you say Hamas must be eliminated, are you calling for the extermination of the Palestinians?
I'm talking about Hamas, the subset of Palestinians who's charter is "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad."

And this goes back further than 1948. More like since about 1150 BC when they were called the Philistines.

DrBaltar

30th December 2008, 10:35 PM

and i gues alot Palestinians feel intruded.Why should they? They were the ones who first invaded Gaza 3000 years ago.

30th December 2008, 10:53 PM

Why should they? They were the ones who first invaded Gaza 3000 years ago.

so you think Palestina should still belong to Egypt?

DrBaltar

30th December 2008, 10:58 PM

I think Hamas should honor the cease fire and pursue something else other than Israel's destruction for a change. But since they can't... he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.

30th December 2008, 11:00 PM

I think Hamas should honor the cease fire and pursue something else other than Israel's destruction for a change. But since they can't... he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.

yeah i dont mind the Hamas guys geting killed. I think more about those Palestinians without swords.

Slayhamlet

30th December 2008, 11:16 PM

And this goes back further than 1948. More like since about 1150 BC when they were called the Philistines.

Why should they? They were the ones who first invaded Gaza 3000 years ago.

Just when you thought an Israel/Palestine thread couldn't get any stupider.

Slayhamlet

30th December 2008, 11:20 PM

Looks like "Texas" and "DrBaltar" won't be satisfied with anything less than a Palestinian equivalent of the Hama massacre. Jesus.

portlandatheist

30th December 2008, 11:25 PM

If Hamas had the power, there would be no Israel and there would be peace. Decisive victories bring peace. Stalemates, standoffs, ceasefires, and middle east peace treaties are recipes for continued violence.
There is a huge difference between Hamas and Israel. Israel is perfectly willing to abide by peace treaties and ceasefires and leave well enough alone.
Hamas will never follow through on any peace deal or cease fire agreement and will never be willing to peacefully coexist with Israel as its neighbor. Hamas's ideology is most clearly racist, sexist, fascist, and violent.
Come on people, everybody who is asking for a "ceasefire" knows exactly what that means, the same as the "ceasefire" that was previously negotiated. A ceasefire will just mean Israel continues to be bombarded with rockets and no withdrawal of troops, ending the blockade, or land exchange is going to change that.
Remember all the people who claimed that if Isreal left the Gaza strip, that would bring them peace? yeah right...There is absolutely nothing Israel can do sans ceasing to exist, that would end Hamas's campaign against them. A peace deal would not be worth the paper it is written on.

30th December 2008, 11:29 PM

sounds like a some are asking for an Endlösung

30th December 2008, 11:40 PM

I think violence is an effective solution that has been tested since the dawn of man. Peace at any cost has failed on every occasion since the dawn of man.

and some seem to have not evolved at all since the dawn of man.

Texas

30th December 2008, 11:51 PM

Looks like "Texas" and "DrBaltar" won't be satisfied with anything less than a Palestinian equivalent of the Hama massacre. Jesus.
It is not what I want it is what Israel is willing to do. It can decide that it will fight "Hamas" and not the people that support them while Hamas and the people that support them fight Israel as a whole OR Israel can fight an actual war. In WW2 it was country against country, there were no "innocent civilians" London, Stalingrad, Dresden, Tokyo and Hiroshima showed that. Palistine, the entity is at war with Israel Israel has to decide if it is at war with Hamas or the entity Palestine. Anything less will just lead to decades more of the on again off again reprisals with no resolution. That situation will lead to more death and destruction than deciding the issue once and for all.

30th December 2008, 11:55 PM

It is not what I want it is what Israel is willing to do. It can decide that it will fight "Hamas" and not the people that support them while Hamas and the people that support them fight Israel as a whole OR Israel can fight an actual war. In WW2 it was country against country, there were no "innocent civilians" London, Stalingrad, Dresden, Tokyo and Hiroshima showed that. Palistine, the entity is at war with Israel Israel has to decide if it is at war with Hamas or the entity Palestine. Anything less will just lead to decades more of the on again off again reprisals with no resolution. That situation will lead to more death and destruction than deciding the issue once and for all.

alot germans thought similar crap in 40's.

Texas

30th December 2008, 11:56 PM

and some seem to have not evolved at all since the dawn of man. Really, it is the essence of evolution that the strong survive.

30th December 2008, 11:59 PM

Really, it is the essence of evolution that the strong survive.

i thought it was "survival of the fittest"

Texas

31st December 2008, 12:01 AM

alot germans thought similar crap in 40's. And like Hamas they wrote checks their military could not cash. The only thing preventing Israel from stamping its enemy into surrender is Israel itself. There is not another nation on earth that would exhibit the restraint Israel has shown. Whether that is a strength or weakness on Israel's part is yet to be determined. History is against it though.

31st December 2008, 12:04 AM

And like Hamas they wrote checks their military could not cash. The only thing preventing Israel from stamping its enemy into surrender is Israel itself. There is not another nation on earth that would exhibit the restraint Israel has shown. Whether that is a strength or weakness on Israel's part is yet to be determined. History is against it though.

i think you have alot in common with Hamas way of "thinking"

Texas

31st December 2008, 12:16 AM

i think you have alot in common with Hamas way of "thinking"
You may be right. Hamas has no illusions about who it is at war with and I have no illusions that you can wage war on just the military of a country. Wars end when one country unconditionally surrenders... full stop. Anything else just leads to years of death and destruction by attrition. War is life or death, soldier or civilian, and to pretend otherwise is the most cruel stance a nation or individual can take. When war is declared there are NO humane alternatives but to end it as quickly and decisively as possible.

31st December 2008, 12:23 AM

You may be right. Hamas has no illusions about who it is at war with and I have no illusions that you can wage war on just the military of a country. Wars end when one country unconditionally surrenders... full stop. Anything else just leads to years of death and destruction by attrition. War is life or death, soldier or civilian, and to pretend otherwise is the most cruel stance a nation or individual can take. When war is declared there are NO humane alternatives but to end it as quickly and decisively as possible.

so Martin Luther King Jr.'s Spiral of violence is noncence?
you dont have to brake the spiral ro stop feeding it, you have to totaly kill your enemy.

if they would do so, could mabye Iran think it should come to help to the Palestinians? maybe even others might join then.

Texas

31st December 2008, 12:30 AM

so Martin Luther King Jr.'s Spiral of violence is noncence?
you dont have to brake the spiral ro stop feeding it, you have to totaly kill your enemy.

if they would do so, could mabye Iran think it should come to help to the Palestinians? maybe even others might join then. Yes he found that out on a motel balcony. Well you may notice that the Muslim nations have been very quiet on that front. They have no stomach to take on a nuclear power given their disastrous campaigns against Israel over the last 60 years. As to Iran, you will notice that they are NOT sending their military into the fray they are telling "students" to sign up. Cannon fodder is not an effective weapon.

31st December 2008, 12:39 AM

Yes he found that out on a motel balcony. Well you may notice that the Muslim nations have been very quiet on that front. They have no stomach to take on a nuclear power given their disastrous campaigns against Israel over the last 60 years. As to Iran, you will notice that they are NOT sending their military into the fray they are telling "students" to sign up. Cannon fodder is not an effective weapon.

i am speachless.
he found out on the balcony.....
lucky not all people have such barbarian thoughts like you have.

when you have troubles at home, do you also solve it with violence?

31st December 2008, 12:42 AM

Texas

31st December 2008, 12:54 AM

Pakistan could take it up with Israel by pushing a little button.

i guess we would have to accept that then, its the most human way to solve that problem isnt it.

so why is everyone upset about achmedinejad? he just wants to solve the problem in the most human way. Pakistan is more worried about India than Israel The Paks could throw their nukes at Israel along with the fall-out hitting all of the Muslim nations in the area while India is tossing theirs into Islamabad. As to Iran, the dinner jacket hasn't got enough in his checking account to write that check yet. You haven't thought this through very well have you?

Texas

31st December 2008, 12:57 AM

i am speachless.
he found out on the balcony.....
lucky not all people have such barbarian thoughts like you have.

when you have troubles at home, do you also solve it with violence?

It is an historical fact. Gandhi met the same fate. In the case of Gandhi all he accomplished was 2 nations with nukes pointed at each other.

31st December 2008, 12:58 AM

Pakistan is more worried about India than Israel The Paks could throw their nukes at Israel along with the fall-out hitting all of the Muslim nations in the area while India is tossing theirs into Islamabad. As to Iran, the dinner jacket hasn't got enough in his checking account to write that check yet. You haven't thought this through very well have you?

as if you thought true your Endlösung.
thats insane and radical.

Texas

31st December 2008, 01:00 AM

when you have troubles at home, do you also solve it with violence?

If someone is dead set on harming me and my family yes, I would settle it with all the violence I could muster. You have an odd view of what violence is used for.

31st December 2008, 01:56 AM

so that extreme use of violence you are such a fan of, you would use that also against the Civilian population?

Texas

31st December 2008, 01:59 AM

so that extreme use of violence you are such a fan of, you would use that also against the Civilian population?
Which civilian population are you talking about? I fully support the extreme violence used to win WW2 though I doubt you would agree.

31st December 2008, 02:02 AM

Which civilian population are you talking about? I fully support the extreme violence used to win WW2 though I doubt you would agree.

Palestinian woman and Children, also men that are not terrorists.

i dont agree about nuking civillian citys.

Damien Evans

31st December 2008, 02:03 AM

Oups, my apologies, what does it stand for btw?

Possibly this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT

Texas

31st December 2008, 02:17 AM

Palestinian woman and Children, also men that are not terrorists.

i dont agree about nuking civillian citys. How about just fire bombing cities? You appear to have this odd view about what war is. It is life or death for the parties involved. If you are not in it to win then either quickly surrender OR don't start a chain of events you have no intention of carrying out. The I/P conflict is probably the longest war of attrition in modern history and it is because, so far, one side doesn't have the means ie, the Palestinians or the resolve ie. the Israelis to put an end to it once and for all. It is neither humane or rational to keep kicking the can down the road for the next generation to deal with.

There is another resolution and it has been on the table for years and that is for the Palestinians to finally decide that Israel is a legitimate state and start to build their own country. The entire world would pour almost unlimited resources into helping them do just that.

chillzero

31st December 2008, 02:40 AM

Bickering moved to AAH. Please keep it civil, and on topic.

FireGarden

31st December 2008, 03:23 AM

Well those pulling for the Palestinians had better hope that does not end up being the case because in a one state solution it will be Israel as the last man standing. Israel could wipe out every Palestinian in 48 hours even without nukes.

If you had bothered to read the OP of the other thread you responded in, you would know that this is what Olmert thinks about the one-state solution:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/929439.html

"If the day comes when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights (also for the Palestinians in the territories), then, as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished," Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told Haaretz Wednesday, the day the Annapolis conference ended in an agreement to try to reach a Mideast peace settlement by the end of 2008.

"The Jewish organizations, which were our power base in America, will be the first to come out against us," Olmert said, "because they will say they cannot support a state that does not support democracy and equal voting rights for all its residents."

There is not another nation on earth that would exhibit the restraint Israel has shown. Whether that is a strength or weakness on Israel's part is yet to be determined. History is against it though.

1) Britain showed much more restraint than Israel. And I know, you will say that our "troubles" were nothing like Israel's. Well, D'uh! That's because we didn't escalate them to those high levels. Even when the IRA hit a hotel where Thatcher was staying. (And Norman Tebbit, see below).

Many British governments swore they would not negotiate with the IRA. Sinn Fein were not allowed to speak on TV -- their voices had to be dubbed. Crazy.

So crazy it couldn't go on. Talks happened. Change happened. And we haven't had an IRA bomb in a long time.

You may think that peace with the IRA was a simple matter. That it was natural for them to stop bombing. They're european terrorists, after all -- so much more reasonable.

Perhaps you should meet with Norman Tebbit. I have sympathy for his views. But I am glad his views did not stand in the way of peace.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4344461.stm
(From 2005)

Former Tory chairman Lord Tebbit has attacked Tony Blair for suggesting the Tories are soft on terror while himself making "no move" against the IRA.

[...] Lord Tebbit was among 34 people wounded in the 1984 attack which killed five.

[...] Lord Tebbit, whose wife Margaret was paralysed, told the newspaper the IRA had killed more British people than al-Qaeda killed Americans in the 11 September attacks.

He said: "Considering Blair is the man who let out of prison a whole battalion of murderers, including the man that crippled my wife, that nearly killed me and murdered my friends, I find it difficult to take his claims seriously."

"I feel a sensation of nausea that a man so detached from reality and truth could be the prime minister of this country."

And a more personal statement from the same year:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4727129.stm

I would probably illustrate the point better with statements from the 80's and 90's. But they're never on the frontpage of google.

2) you say History is against Israel. What do you mean? That the methods Israel has chosen hardly ever win?

31st December 2008, 03:52 AM

How about just fire bombing cities? You appear to have this odd view about what war is. It is life or death for the parties involved. If you are not in it to win then either quickly surrender OR don't start a chain of events you have no intention of carrying out. The I/P conflict is probably the longest war of attrition in modern history and it is because, so far, one side doesn't have the means ie, the Palestinians or the resolve ie. the Israelis to put an end to it once and for all. It is neither humane or rational to keep kicking the can down the road for the next generation to deal with.

There is another resolution and it has been on the table for years and that is for the Palestinians to finally decide that Israel is a legitimate state and start to build their own country. The entire world would pour almost unlimited resources into helping them do just that.

so the whole conflict is the fault of only one side?
accordig to your ideology it is Israels fault, they didnt finish their jop in the war and erase the palestinians from the map, or not?

gdnp

31st December 2008, 07:43 AM

a_unique_person

31st December 2008, 08:22 AM

I think violence is an effective solution that has been tested since the dawn of man. Peace at any cost has failed on every occasion since the dawn of man.

Sounds like you agree with Hamas following it's present course of action.

chillzero

31st December 2008, 03:03 PM

Off topic posts split to:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=131897
Please post on topic in this thread from here.

Texas

31st December 2008, 08:06 PM

Sounds like you agree with Hamas following it's present course of action. That is an interesting point. It may be one I would agree with. As of today Hamas has brought a knife to an F16 fight. The knife has done some damage to Israel but Isreal can failry easily destroy Hamas completely should it have the will to do so. That is the decision the leaders of Israel are struggling with now. They can either simply hurt Hamas of kill it once and for all.If they only hurt Hamas and then revert to the status quo then given enough time Hamas can come back with a gun and then later with a guided missile and then later with chemical weapon until Israel has lost its advantage of overpowering military superiority. But if Hamas is killed now it will be far less bloody and far more likely that a peace process can be achieved. So maybe I am urging Hamas to continue poking Israel with its knife.

gdnp

31st December 2008, 08:47 PM

That is an interesting point. It may be one I would agree with. As of today Hamas has brought a knife to an F16 fight. The knife has done some damage to Israel but Isreal can failry easily destroy Hamas completely should it have the will to do so.

Fairly easy? About as easy as NYC exterminating all the rats. In fact, it would require similar tactic.

Texas

31st December 2008, 08:48 PM

Fairly easy? About as easy as NYC exterminating all the rats. In fact, it would require similar tactic. That is true. But it would be closer to methods used by the allies in WW2.

Darth Rotor

1st January 2009, 06:28 AM

Looks like "Texas" and "DrBaltar" won't be satisfied with anything less than a Palestinian equivalent of the Hama massacre. Jesus.
1. It worked.

2. Haffez Assad was left alone after he did that, wasn't he? No Hague trial for him, eh?

3. Does it begin to sound to you like Milosevic got a raw deal? :p

4. Dr Baltar says that which you fear: that the only solution may be by blood and iron. What woo is this that you follow, what unreasoned belief that conflict must needs only be solved by bloodless means?

The significant downside to his proposal is political, and profoundly important. Once such a bloodletting is complete, it can't be undone, and the sun rises the next day. Play is continuous. Can Israel survive politically if that is the case? My guess is that in Tel Aviv, the answer is: no. If it were "yes" they'd probably do it.

DR

ddt

1st January 2009, 07:28 AM

The significant downside to his proposal is political, and profoundly important. Once such a bloodletting is complete, it can't be undone, and the sun rises the next day. Play is continuous. Can Israel survive politically if that is the case? My guess is that in Tel Aviv, the answer is: no. If it were "yes" they'd probably do it.

I think I outlined that scenario a year ago (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3346784&postcount=118).

(please no new discussions about accuracy in details. It was only meant as black humor)

Slayhamlet

2nd January 2009, 09:14 PM

1. It worked.

Yes, I know. That's why I mentioned it, as I suspect a similar amount of carnage would be necessary for Israel to win on the terms of certain posters here.

2. Haffez Assad was left alone after he did that, wasn't he? No Hague trial for him, eh?

Yes, but Syria was already a longtime international pariah in the eyes of the West. Israel isn't. If Israel were to become some rogue dictatorship there'd be no Hague trials either, until someone conquered them. What's that got to do with my post?

3. Does it begin to sound to you like Milosevic got a raw deal? :p

You mean his being tried for war crimes when Hafez al-Assad wasn't? It's not so much that Milošević got a raw deal as it is al-Assad getting out of jail free. But that's just because the jailers could never get to him in the first place.

4. Dr Baltar says that which you fear: that the only solution may be by blood and iron. What woo is this that you follow, what unreasoned belief that conflict must needs only be solved by bloodless means?

What kind of silly straw-man is this? And yes, I do "fear", by which I mean strongly disapprove of, wanton disregard for innocent lives, as I think most decent people do. That doesn't mean I don't think Israel has a right to defend herself.

The significant downside to his proposal is political, and profoundly important. Once such a bloodletting is complete, it can't be undone, and the sun rises the next day. Play is continuous. Can Israel survive politically if that is the case? My guess is that in Tel Aviv, the answer is: no. If it were "yes" they'd probably do it.

DR

Yes, exactly. Are "Texas" and "Doctor Baltar" even cognizant of these consequences? I doubt it.

Texas

2nd January 2009, 09:53 PM

Yes, but Syria was already a longtime international pariah in the eyes of the West. Israel isn't. If Israel were to become some rogue dictatorship there'd be no Hague trials either, until someone conquered them. What's that got to do with my post?

Yes, exactly. Are "Texas" and "Doctor Baltar" even cognizant of these consequences? I doubt it.
I clipped this part because it is so inaccurate. Since when has Israel NOT been an international Pariah? Name a single nation outside of the United States (for now), a single international body including the UN, a single "Human Rights Organisation" and a single member of Academia that does not consider Israel a rouge nation oppressing "helpless" Palestinians?

RandFan

2nd January 2009, 10:17 PM

If you always do what you've always done.
then you will always get what you've always got.

What do I think?

More of what has happened for decades.

The specifics?

Who cares?

MattusMaximus

2nd January 2009, 11:26 PM

If you always do what you've always done.
then you will always get what you've always got.

What do I think?

More of what has happened for decades.

The specifics?

Who cares?

Agreed. Let them kill each other, for all I care. But do it without our (the United States') support for either side, of which there is all too much, imo.

gtc

3rd January 2009, 12:20 AM

I clipped this part because it is so inaccurate. Since when has Israel NOT been an international Pariah? Name a single nation outside of the United States (for now), a single international body including the UN, a single "Human Rights Organisation" and a single member of Academia that does not consider Israel a rouge nation oppressing "helpless" Palestinians?

Australia has a pretty good record of support for Israel's right to exist and its right to security.

Texas

3rd January 2009, 12:21 AM

Australia has a pretty good record of support for Israel's right to exist and its right to security. As does Great Britain but it is fading.

FireGarden

3rd January 2009, 03:02 AM

As does Great Britain but it is fading.

And no-one knows why?

Except that RandFan is wrong:

If you always do what you've always done.
then you will always get what you've always got.

I think that things are changing.
Support for Israel is not what it was. This attack will not maintain the status quo.

Israel has suffered less in the last couple of years than Britain did during the worst of "the troubles". And, yes, Britain committed attrocities like Bloody Sunday. But never anything on the scale Israel has unleashed.

More people are seeing that.

Klimax

4th January 2009, 02:37 AM

DrBaltar

4th January 2009, 10:02 AM

Yes, exactly. Are "Texas" and "Doctor Baltar" even cognizant of these consequences? I doubt it.
Israel is damned if they do and damned if they don't. They can either be criticized by the world while getting shot at and bombed several times a year or just be criticized by the world. They might as well put a permanent end to the constant threat that has been on them for 3000 years and see what it's like not to get shot at all the time.

WildCat

4th January 2009, 10:23 AM

Agreed. Let them kill each other, for all I care. But do it without our (the United States') support for either side, of which there is all too much, imo.
You sure post a lot about it for someone who doesn't care.

The Atheist

4th January 2009, 12:20 PM

What will be accomplished from the Israeli strikes on Gaza?

Strong growth at Stormfront.

Work for body-bag manufacturers.

Bluefire

5th January 2009, 12:58 PM

If you always do what you've always done.
then you will always get what you've always got.

Instead of continuing in the current vicious cycle of violence, or hoping for a mass massacre to end it all, (or for that matter, hoping against hope for Palestinians to leave their fractioned thugocracy and become something more nationlike by themselves) why not go "back in time"?

Return Gaza to Egypt.

Return most of west bank to Jordania.

We already have the historical example of Israel returning conquered territory for peace. Well, both Egypt and Jordania have peace with Israel, and both the territories were conquered from these countries.

Also, there was (AFAIK) no movement for a sovereign Gaza (or west bank) when they were ruled by other Arab countries.

I guess Hamas wouldn't be satisfied, but I also think Egypt could handle keeping them in check...

Policenaut

5th January 2009, 03:19 PM

Egypt doesn't want to deal with any Palestinians entering their country let alone an area inhabited by terrorists who will make their war against Israel Egypt's war against Israel.

Darth Rotor

5th January 2009, 05:02 PM

Name a single nation outside of the United States (for now), a single international body including the UN, a single "Human Rights Organisation" and a single member of Academia that does not consider Israel a rouge nation oppressing "helpless" Palestinians?
Kiss and make up, that's what's needed. Oh, wait, maybe they aren't a rouge nation or they'd have done that already. ;)

(Sorry, I could not resist.)

Tha

gumboot

6th January 2009, 01:18 AM

Instead of continuing in the current vicious cycle of violence, or hoping for a mass massacre to end it all, (or for that matter, hoping against hope for Palestinians to leave their fractioned thugocracy and become something more nationlike by themselves) why not go "back in time"?

Return Gaza to Egypt.

Return most of west bank to Jordania.

We already have the historical example of Israel returning conquered territory for peace. Well, both Egypt and Jordania have peace with Israel, and both the territories were conquered from these countries.

Also, there was (AFAIK) no movement for a sovereign Gaza (or west bank) when they were ruled by other Arab countries.

I guess Hamas wouldn't be satisfied, but I also think Egypt could handle keeping them in check...

And here in lies the crux of the matter. The rest of the Muslim world couldn't give a flying fig about the Palestinians. Frankly, they despise them. But they're useful idiots for championing hatred against Israel, so the rest of the Arab world bleat about their poor Palestinian "brothers". If you think the Palestinians are treated poorly by Israel, drop into a Palestinian refugee camp in Jordan and check out how their Arab "brothers" treat them.

If Palestine exterminated Israel and became an Arab state, her Arab neighbours would be fighting over her carcass by lunch time.