View on the recent Gaza/Israel strikes
 

Below is the link to an interview with Steven A. Cook on the recent attacks in Israel and Gaza and possible reasons behind it coming from perspectives of Israel, Hamas, the people of Gaza, Fatah, and others. Long but interesting.



CFR's leading Middle East expert, says that the latest attacks by Israel against Hamas targets in the Gaza Strip were "not surprising" given the renewed rocket attacks on southern Israel from the Gaza, and the political and military environments in Israel. Cook says "there is not a tremendous amount" either the departing Bush administration or the new Obama one can do right now, but he says the impact the Israeli attacks have on the Middle East as a whole, and the political gains to be made by Iran as a result, force the Obama administration to put the crisis "high on the agenda once the president enters the Oval Office."

Were you surprised by the outbreak of fighting over the weekend in which Israel launched a devastating air attack against Hamas targets in Gaza, killing well over three hundred people, including many civilians, in retaliation for continued rocket attacks on Israel from Gaza? In addition, Israel seems to be signaling a readiness for a ground offensive if necessary.

It is not surprising to me at all given the fact that the cease-fire had come to an end; once it was over in December, Hamas and other militant factions in the Gaza Strip began bombarding Israel with rocket attacks. In the week after the cease-fire ended, Israel absorbed two hundred such attacks. The Israelis were also engaged in their own military operations in the Gaza Strip and West Bank as well. So both parties saw the end coming and quickly took advantage of it. Thus, it really wasn't surprising that the Israelis launched this significant military operation because Hamas had vowed to continue to take attacks to the Israelis.

There have been all kinds of analyses on why the Israelis launched such a major air operation---its largest in many, many years against Palestinians. Some, as the New York Times correspondent in Jerusalem said in the paper today, postulated that the Israelis wanted to compensate for their poor showing in the summer war of 2006 against Hezbollah. Others think that perhaps it was a prelude to the Israeli parliamentary elections in February and others postulated that the Israelis wanted to get the fighting over with before there is a new president in Washington. What do you think?

It is probably a combination of all of those things. I think that first and foremost the primary issue was that Israeli citizens had been under attack. Before the June cease-fire, three thousand rockets had landed on Israel over recent years. No government can abdicate its responsibility to try to protect its citizens under attack. That's first and foremost the reason the Israelis undertook this devastating attack against Hamas' infrastructure and against other militants in the Gaza Strip. But I think secondarily and certainly driving part of this is the fact that Israel's engaged in an election campaign. The coalition led by Ehud Barak, the defense minister and leader of Labor, and Tzipi Livni, the foreign minister and new leader of the Kadima Party, have been criticized from the right by Likud Leader Benjamin Netanyahu, the former prime minister, who is leading in the polls, and who opposed the Gaza withdrawal, which was taken unilaterally by the then Likud Prime Minister Ariel Sharon [and later founder of the Kadima Party]. This gave the ruling coalition the opportunity to demonstrate to the Israeli people their security credentials, that they could be tough. Barak, a former military chief of staff, doesn't really have to do that, although he did preside over the withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000, which is now widely regarded as a failure. It remains to be seen how the situation plays out, whether it will help them in the polls. But it would be remiss not to factor Israeli politics into this situation. But I have to emphasize that the real drive here was that Israeli citizens in the south have been under attack for quite some time.




To the other point, that the Israeli Defense Forces wanted to make up for their performance in 2006, certainly senior officers have been looking for opportunities to reestablish Israel's deterrent, something they felt was damaged as a result of the withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000 and the subsequent withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, because what Hezbollah and Hamas drew from both events was that if we bloody the Israelis enough they'll cut and run. That is a view that is shared by other militant groups throughout the Middle East, and the senior military officers in Israel want to correct that impression. This is also in keeping with standard Israeli military doctrine which is to respond to threats with overwhelming and brutal force.

Let's talk a bit about Hamas' leadership. It seems that they had very little to gain by resuming the rocket attacks on Israel when the cease-fire ended. Are they under pressure to be even more militant than they are? Or is this almost a suicidal wish at work?

Their radicalism serves them well in Palestinian politics. The radicalism within Hamas has become attractive to the Palestinians who support Hamas. If Hamas would not be radical, it would be like Fatah, which it does not want to become. I think that what has happened ---and it is something we perennially misread about Palestinian politics --- is that this is not some sort of suicidal thing, but there was pressure building within the Gaza Strip to do something about the crippling siege that the Israelis had imposed on Gaza. The cease-fire was supposed to allow more goods to enter the Gaza Strip. It happened to some extent, but not as fully as the people there would like. Resistance is a core part of Hamas' world view. In fact that is the meaning of its name, the Islamic Resistance Movement. This garners support for them among Palestinians.

If you read Palestinian press reports or talk to Palestinians in the Gaza Strip who have been under siege for quite some time, they say "Well, we are not necessarily supportive of Hamas, but we have to do something to convince the Israelis that we won't be put under siege like this, that we won't be driven off of our land," and that's essentially why Hamas let the cease-fire lapse and didn't demonstrate a tremendous interest in renewing it. Just as there is a political struggle going on in Israel, there is a struggle going on between Hamas and Mahmoud Abbas, the Fatah leader who is president of the Palestinian Authority. The way Palestinian factions demonstrate their nationalist bona fides is often in these violent responses to the Israelis.

Now, Abbas' term in office ends early in January, and what will happen then? Do you know?

It's entirely unclear what's going to happen. There's certainly not enough time to organize elections. Hamas says it will not recognize Abbas as president of the Palestinian Authority after his term runs out. He says he will disband the Palestinian legislature. Hamas says it will not recognize that. So we are at a political standstill here. I must say that the violence is not beneficial to Mahmoud Abbas. It's not because he holds a brief for Hamas, but the scale of the Israeli attacks have created a very difficult political situation for Abbas. He is the one who has staked his political reputation, his political legacy by negotiating with the Israelis to demonstrate that negotiations between the Palestinian Authority that he controls and the Israeli government will bear fruit for the Palestinian people, to get them closer to their ultimate goal of statehood and sovereignty. The Israelis, by unleashing a brutal attack on the Gaza Strip, only weakens Abbas in his call for moderation and negotiation.

This gets us to negotiations. The Bush administration plan to work out an Israeli-Palestinian agreement which was launched with some fanfare last November has run its course with no deal. A new administration led by Barack Obama is coming into office. There were great expectations, particularly in the Middle East, that he would launch a major initiative but no administration can come into office with war going on and expect to do very much at the outset, can it?

Presently, there is not a tremendous amount that the departing Bush administration or the new Obama administration can do. As long as the parties continue to want to fight, there is not a tremendous amount that Washington can accomplish. But the current situation brings to bear just how important this issue is, and how the fact that the Bush administration had really not discovered the issue until very late in the president's term can lead to tremendous crises like this. But I think that this has been such a significant military operation, such a significant step back from the negotiations, that the president-elect and the transition team should be looking for ways to achieve what it had already said it wanted, to make this a priority.

The situation between Israel and Palestine was not good to begin with. It's only worse now and the longer this kind of violence and instability continues, it becomes more difficult for the United States to achieve its goal of ensuring Israeli security through the establishment of a Palestinian state. But it also affects broader American interests ---the instability in Israeli-Palestinian relations provides opportunities for the Iranians to play Arab politics. And when they do that, they necessarily put major Arab interlocutors like Saudi Arabia and Egypt and Jordan on the defensive because Egypt and Jordan have relations with Israel and Saudi Arabia is closely aligned with the United States. Iran can weave a narrative about how the United States and its allies stand by while the Israelis engage in predatory attacks against the Palestinian people. That makes it harder for our allies to help us and it advances Iran's interest in extending its influence throughout the region. On the issue of Palestinian rights and sovereignty and nationhood, the Persian-Arab-Shiite-Sunni divide does not hold. In fact, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the second most popular figure in the Arab world after the Hezbollah leader, [Hassan] Nasrallah.


This situation creates a situation that makes it far more difficult for the United States to achieve its interests in the region. Already, you see the Syrians suspending the indirect peace talks with Israel, through the Turks, which had been promising. Obama has said this would be a priority for the administration. The situation is grave. The situation is dire. In the very short run there is not a tremendous amount to do, but it should be high on the agenda once the president enters the Oval Office.


http://www.cfr.org/publication/18080...breadcrumb=%2F
Council of Foreign Relations


Moderator, please fix spelling mistake in title. Thank you.

Saudis blame Hamas amid calls for talks with Fatah.

Arab Columnists Blame Hamas

Abbas blames Hamas for bloodshed

The Arab world seems to be pretty pissed at the Hamas/Hezbolla/Iran trouble makers, especially Egypt and the Saudis. The Arabs had been begging Hamas for weeks to extend the cease fire.

Thanks Pierce, and Bruce; it may be long, but its a good synopsis.

Why is it with the likes of Bruce's links, that on the tv news all we are shown is protests against Israel?

I've been trying to find a way to turn around that people who live in glass houses thing ... oh, I think I've got it ...

People who don't want to live in glass deserts shouldn't throw rocks at the neighbors.

Israel is the defending team here ... I don't get people who think they're being mean because they've got bigger and more useful toys than the idiots who shot first.

I'd say I pretty much agree with the Washington Post

I wonder why it's always Israel that is called upon to give up land and other concessions in talks. It's not "Palestinian" land, it always belonged to Israel, as I see it. The Palestinians were just squatting on it when the Jews came along in 1948 and kicked them off.

Where was "Palestine" prior to their eviction? Political boundaries? Seat of government? World recognition? I can't find it on any map. I see nothing in history that shows they "owned" that land. So where is their beef?

It is with the very existence of Israel. The only thing that will satisfy these crazies is the death of each and every last Jew in the area. Only that.

Israel has shown remarkable restraint in the fighting over the last fifty years or so and especially in the last five. They give advance warning of attacks, they offer olive branch after olive branch, wanting only peaceful coexistence with the Palestinians while they are interested only in extermination.

Israel isn't going to give in to that, so round after round of fighting in, which mostly Hamas personnel are killed but a few civilians too, will go on and on and on. The West will only hear about how evil the Israelis are for killing this little girl and her mother but somehow mention is not made that Hamas stored missiles in her house.

I'm sick of the obvious twisting of the truth going on and almost wish Israel would wipe out their enemy once and for all.

Ever notice that the rest of the Arab world invariably protests Israeli responses to attack but rarely if ever protest Palestinian attacks on Israel? I have. I'm disgusted and totally sick of having to listen to Arab whining about how terrible things are when THEY are the root cause of the unrest.

I have to agree with Charles Krauthammer in the link provided by Radar. He's more eloquent than I (he's PAID to be) and better informed. I'm just a truck driver who gets to glance at the headlines on the USA Today and maybe a local paper and I do see the Yahoo homepage when I manage to get online. so I don't see everything.

But can anyone else honestly look at this situation and not wonder why Israel hasn't been more aggressive in their response? Who else in the world would allow rocket and mortar and other such attacks on their people? Would the USA? I doubt it.

Brian

*opens mouth then thinks better of it*

It's a nice day. I'm feeling quite groovy. I'm not going to fuck that up :P

Cuz the bible tells you so?
Seriously, we have no allies in the region. Any commitment on our part is a waste of energy. Both sides will continue to kill.

Rule of thumb: if you favor the Palestinians, don't root for the worst bloodthirsty terrorist organizations in the world to "represent" them in the very most appalling of ways.

Another rule of thumb: neutrality ain't favoritism. Israel does look more like "us." I want them to survive. I don't believe they have any more or less right to the sand than the Palestinians had before eviction. Unfortunately, the might makes right mentality in the mid-east includes unguided missiles against civilians as well as planes and artillery versus militants plus civilians. At some point Israel is going to have to cut a deal with the wider Arab world and the Palestinians will have to understand that they've lost and take whatever scraps they can get. Any wider role we play will not hasten that reality. A wider role by us only creates a false power structure.

Excellent post Brian - especially how it always seems as though we see all this from the perspective of Israel being the aggressor and all the poor Palestinian civilians getting killed. Rather biased in my opinion.

As far as a solution, Griff nailed it. They better agree to take what they can get and move forward. Otherwise that whole area will be nothing more than a parking lot.

Bingo! Some use the U.S. as an enemy to rally the rabble, and some use the U.S. as a cash cow, but none are actually allies... or friends. :headshake

A solution for this problem does not exist. Palestine would collapse in a two state solution and a single state solution would result in fighting within.

Both sides have major fault. Israel has cut off Gaza to the point of starvation, it even says in the interview why the civilians support Hamas. As I said in the other post, it a cause and effect downward spiral that both sides are contributing.


You do realize that Europeans invented the idea of the state, correct?

Palestine would collapse in a two state solution

define collapse

Fall apart both politically and economically. Hamas runs Gaza, Fatah runs West Bank. They both want to a unified Palestine but only if they are the ones running it. A peace with Israel cannot be obtained without a unified Palestine and Israel knows that, hence why it has been using divide and conquer techniques since the PLO.

An independent Palestine would not be able to survive economically on its own either, especially without political stability and any resources. What resources do Palestinians have?

You are referring to the state of Israel, yes?

Prior to the state of Israel being formed, the people living in the area (Persians, Arabs, Jews, et al), always had absentee landlords. Probably because nobody in their right mind wanted to live in the shithole.

After Israel was formed and the Jews flocked in to make the desert flourish, it was not the locals but outside agitators that started the trouble. The Arabs, after losing a couple of wars, pretty much accepted the status quo, but the Persians continue to cause trouble.

The west has poured billions into Palistine... they bought guns with it. If they would knock this shit off, there are plenty of countries, including Israel, that would take care of them.

I was referring to the idea of a state in general? Notice how no one had political boundaries until European colonization?

But anyways, the British and Jews were first to attack. The Arab riots were reactionary to those.

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

Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire and the British conquered it so a Jewish state could be formed.

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

As I've said many times, both sides contributed.

Before Hamas' election, and after the removal of settlements, 750 trucks went from Israel to Gaza every day, carrying food and goods and supplies.

Oh this is the new excuse? Do keep us up to date. It's hard to keep up with the excuses for terrorist violence. Before this one it was the settlements. Those sneaky Joos always find some way to trick various Palestinian groups into being violently unstable.

And then the terrible UN was tricked by the Zionist British into the partition plan, huh? With unstable, un-unified borders in wildly varied areas, so that the Arabs would go to war on the first day afterwards?

When did I say that Israel was the sole factor behind it? I said what I've been emphasizing this entire time, BOTH SIDES HAVE FAULTS BEHIND IT.

http://www.crisisgroup.org/library/d...ne_divided.pdf

This, a very legitimate sources, clearly states that Israel is working with Fatah. Why wouldn't they? They view Hamas as a group that needs to be destroyed. But before that, it was Fatah that needs to be destroyed? How do you think they did that? How about when the PLO was in control?

You are a smart man UT, think about it for a second. Israel would prefer as much land as possible, why wouldn't they do this?

The 1947 UN Partition Plan. Who divided the borders again?

http://cellar.org/2008/240px-1947-UN...Comparison.png

FTFY.

Because land grab is the OLD excuse. It's last decade's criticism of Israel, and some people are still using it in knee-jerk fashion.

But it's very very very obviously not true at this time in history. Because Israel LEFT Gaza. It uprooted the homes and lives of Israelis who had lived there for twenty years to do so.

And suddenly, once that was no longer an excuse, new excuses arrive.

Right, before the idea of political boundaries was established, it was always military boundries... world wide, what ever you could capture and hold. That's why the residents of that area never owned it.

No, the Brits grabbed it to secure the Suez Canal so the tea supply was assured. The Jews took advantage of the opportunity to go home.



Absolutely, there have transgressions by all, but the Palestinians have to face up to the fact that Israel is a reality and isn't going away. The rest of the world has accepted that, even if they are not happy about it. Even the Persians know that, but keep stirring up shit anyway.

Either way, that doesn't prove that Israel is working towards a solution. A disunified Palestine cannot make peace with Israel and neither Israel, Hamas, or Fatah are working towards a unified Palestine. In fact, most outside sources are not supporting a unified Palestine either. Which backs up my original point that all parties are at fault. Actually fault is a bad word because most actions by every side are defensive in nature.

Note, I am not saying Israel is solely at fault.

Owned it in what respect? The residents of that land were born, lived, worked, and died on that land. Other people would come tax them for using land they conquered but it usually was still worked on by the same people.

This argument is literally no different than the Eddie Izzard standup on flags. Political boundries were not used by anyone outside Europe, therefore technically they did not own the land according to the Europeans. So, when Europeans colonized the area and set up politically boundaries, they got to determine who owned what land.

Doesn't that logic seem kind of messed up? Well actually it doesn't because the people with the guns make the rules but eitherway...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEx5G-GOS1k

I've always wondered what made this land the Jews home and not anyone elses? They weren't the first people to live there, people have been living in that area for 10,000 years and Judaism is only around 3,000 years old. The area became Christian under 2,000 years ago and then Islamic about 1,200 years ago. It wasn't as if the Jews living there were kicked out either by the Christians, many converted and then converted to Islam. So technically, the Palestinians living there have been living there the entire time. The Jews living there now immigrated from other areas and do not have genetic origin to that land.

Or another view, why do Europeans have a right over the United States and Canada and not the natives? The natives were living there for over 10,000 years but we kicked and moved them around. Would the descendants of an Iroquois tribe be legitimate in "going home" and taking over New York?

The only way to make it much easier for everyone and not be hypocritical is to not give any group a right to any land. Jews do not get Israel and neither do Arabs. Nothing can be done to change the situation we are in so we have to deal with it.

If you disagree, show how Jews have a right to that land over any other group.

No, I agree as well. Hell, most Arab states accept it as well even though they may not show it. A small group of Palestinians are the only ones that do not, but they have got power through other means. Reread the original article I posted, it clearly says that the citizens of Gaza support Hamas not necessarily because of their views but because of the siege against them.

Now, I am not arguing that the siege is an ugly oppressive move. Israel is doing it to get rid of Hamas. And Hamas was elected because of Israeli actions. Those Israeli actions were reactionary to Palestinian actions which were reactions to Israeli which were reaction to...

Both sides are on the defensive and all three internal forces are doing what every other country in this world is doing, working to further their self interests. As I said, a peace cannot come without a unified Palestine and neither of the three sides, plus external forces, are working towards that.

Really? Uprooting citizens from their lives and homes of 20 years? Patiently waiting to see if the enemy runs out of bombs? You would do less I assure you.

They do what they can. They can't possibly address the real root of the problem that has developed. I think I get it:

The real root of the problem is that Israel is massively successful.

This presents a severe headache not for Palestine, but for all fanatical Islamists.

Israel's remarkable success is evidence, right before their eyes, that their very system of beliefs is faulty. Allah promised all that success to THEM. To see their deepest enemies succeed, economically, culturally, militarily, over and over again, is not just a source of envy. It creates an inner dialogue that is simply impossible for them to resolve in any sort of logical way.

This leads them to fund and support the proxy war so that the question doesn't have to be resolved... the battle is ongoing you see. Question is still in the air. Israel has won? Oh ho, not quite yet! Not in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973... those were silly little struggles that didn't mean anything! The longer battle continues as long as mothers send their children to be suicide bombers.

Other cultures, following wars with their bitter enemies, including those in which they've lost their dear dear homeland, have picked themselves up and gotten on with it. We lost, there's nothing left we can do. Let's just move to the mountains. Why not this culture?

They did the same to the Palestinians in 1948. But remember, even if the views of Israelis changed, it still doesn't undo that fact, no matter if they were justified in it or not. Which goes into this...

This is true. Israel cannot solve the problem. No single party can solve this problem. And saying the Palestinians can is not an answer. Very informed sources say that this problem cannot be solved without outside help. I already gave the link.

Oh c'mon UT. You don't actually believe there is a single root to this problem. I mean, displacement, occupation, and a mutual hatred that has been around for over 1,000 years could not have any impact on this at all....

Honestly, I actually agree with you on what you said but that isn't the entirety of the movement. There are many other people with many other reasons. To say that everyone that is anti-Israel is doing it because of the reasons you gave is the same as saying anyone pro-Israel believes that God gave Israel to the Jews and the Jews have the right to take back that land by any means necessary, which does have a following as well.

Well stated. But why is this displaced culture different? Even the majority of Israelis today are displaced Jews and progeny thereof, that headed to Israel because they were kicked out of the various Arabic countries that had been their ancestral homes.

I try not to jump to solutions based on ideals, but the situation at hand. Ideally, the Palestinians are no different than any other displaced group in history, which there have been a tremendous amount. The natives in the United States are displaced and face third world living conditions, many times without electricity and water but no one besides a few native radicals argue for a native state. If I did base solutions on ideals, I would naturally have to argue for a similar solution by every displaced group which you can quickly realize is unrealistic.

The reason why the Palestinian situation is different than the natives in the United States is because of the situation at hand. Look at how the relations between Israel and Palestine have changed over the past 20 years and compare that to native versus colonist relations in other countries such as Australia and the United States. The difference is that Palestinians fight back and have much larger numbers.

If you honestly look at it, the oppression and conditions other natives are in are not that much different than the Palestinians. If the Palestinians did not fight back and had smaller numbers they would just become the same as the natives in the United States or Aboriginals in Australia.

I do not disagree with the Jews on becoming self-empowering. Actually, it is quite possibly the best example in history. It is just that the location that they picked was one that could never work out. If a different location was picked and a secular, not Jewish state, was formed or converted, we would not see a problem or it at least would be much smaller.

Knowing that, we can see why the situation in Palestine is different than with any other displaced culture that we give attention too and also why a different solution is necessary. Unfortunately, with the situation at hand, a peace between Israel and Palestine is not likely because of many different factors that are both internal and external.

When William Penn bought the land for Pennsylvania from the Iroquois, who lived way the hell up in New York state, the tribes that lived here were not happy they had to move. Ownership was not a European invention.
The invention of the "state" wasn't a big change, just a way to define the boundaries that had been in flux, between the Kings that owned the land.
Really no different than the Caliphs/War Lords/Chiefs around the globe that owned the land.
Individual ownership and property rights was one of the basic tenets of the United States, and highly unusual.
The Jews were the only ones that didn't have a place to be sent back to when they became a pain in the ass somewhere else. So the rest of the world decided the Jews needed a homeland and established one where it all started, which was a desert sparsely populated by people that didn't own the land. The Arab and Persian states really didn't give a shit about the Jews until they became successful and an embarrassment.

BAM STIRS FEARS IN ISRAEL
COULD HALT DEATH BLOW TO HAMAS

nuff said.

When did I say ownership was a European invention? I said the state was a European invention.

I don't see how that gives anyone the right to kick people that have been living there since preshistoric times. It happened, just like it happened to almost every culture in human history, but I don't buy the justification at all.


As I said in my last post, the self-determination part I don't care about it is that area would not have worked out. The more I look into it the more I find that this plan was destined to fail but there is nothing anyone can do to stop it. The Jews weren't going to go anywhere else and the Arabs didn't want to live in a Jewish homeland.

Also, what gives the Jews anymore right to land than lets say the Aboriginals in Australia or the natives in the United States, or the Kurds in Turkey, Iraq, and Iran, Kosovo, Ossetians, and the millions of other ethnic groups that don't have a homeland? As I said, I disagree with the justifications behind it.

Studies have shown that the DNA of the Palestinians represent people that have lived in that area since Prehistoric times. Other cultures have invaded and mixed in with the gene pool, but most can trace ancestors back to prehistoric ancestors that lived in the same area.

Define didn't own the land.

The Arab states or the local Arabs? Three of the five Arab states that attacked Israel in 1948 weren't even around for five years.

Years gained independence from British
Syria - 1946
Jordan - 1946
Lebanon - 1943
Egypt - 1922
Iraq - 1932

Even then, they didn't really see the Jews as a threat because they denied the early two-state solution.

If you are talking about the local Arabs, you are dead wrong. Tensions started right when the talk of a Jewish state began.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab-Israeli_conflict

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War

Sounds like the potential for Israel to have it's own little Iraq.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/...ast/assess.php

Right here.
Which is why I said; You don't accept the history of man since prehistoric times... Hmm.

The Aboriginals still live in Australia, the Indians still live in the US and the Kurds still can and do live in Turkey. Most of the others still live in the same areas unless they chose to migrate or were forcibly removed by people like Stalin. But even most of those people can now go back to the same area if they choose.
Maybe you don't approve, maybe you don't accept, or maybe you don't understand, but whichever, that's your problem because I don't think there's one nation in the whole world that gives a shit.
OWN : noun, pronoun : that which belongs to oneself
There are two ways you can own the land;
1- Legal title under the rule of law
2- Have possession and the power to retain it
Most of the world uses #2

States, because individuals don't have armies so they don't count. See #2 above.
The fact remains that the people living in and around Palestine have always been ruled by others... that owned the land.

If you want pictures, here's pictures.

via Bruce's gallery,

When a photographer is present, the Hamas missile launchers are set up in a remote location. Notice there's no shot of them firing the ones in that location.

The ones actually launched are launched from neighborhoods.

When they are staging the drill for the photographer, the out of the way park is nice and won't bother anyone. But when they actually launch them, making smoke trails that can be followed back, then they want the cover of the neighborhood.

Oh, I did notice the Israelis made some humongous holes in the ground.

They learned well from their brothern in Iraq. They set up many launchers on the back of trucks in crowded neighborhoods and near schools, knowing full well that the electronic track back would send rounds on the way in less than one minute. Then they could appeal to the American public with cries of how we were targeting civilians.

That one WAS the police station.

Ironic as it may sound - to minimize loss of life, massive deaths of equal numbers on both sides are necessary. That is the only way that moderates from both sides can act as moderates again. That is the only way that wacko extremists can be disenfranchised. That is the only apparent way that this conflict can end up back at the negotiation table.

Once upon a time, there were no more suicide bombings, stealing land, etc. Once upon a time, the Oslo Accords were working. But as the Norwegian foreign minister predicted, George Jr would destroy the Oslo Accords in a world where wacko extremist view everyone as only good or evil. ie the Axis of Evil myth.

Another Oslo Accord is impossible until death rates are very high on both sides - until the number of dead make everyone realize how wacko those extremists really are.

BS. I think the vast majority see the reality of the situation - comparing death tolls from one side versus the other is meaningless and childish.

No doubt.

Funny how wackos suddenly lose power when death rates increase massively. But then that required one to think without posting meaningless and childish replies. Not that I expect you to think. This post was from tw. Therefore classicman must attack it. Typical of meaningless and childish replies.

Many a war suddenly had no purpose or glory once the death rates became impossible to accept. Numbers such as 10% are often discussed.

Cite.

Oh really??

Oh really??

BTW - the disparaging remarks are getting old again. I think you are due for your 2 week break about now.

Well then talk to the source and instigator - TheMercenary. I am not the one so low class as to routinely post profanity and remarks completely irrelevant to the topic. Meanwhile, "Oh really" is your usual way of personally attacking another. If classicman was being honest, then classicman posted facts in reply - or posted nothing. Passive aggressive on your part will eventually start another flame war. Your choice.

Meanwhile, one effective solution to conflicts - because the objective of all wars is to take the conflct back to the negotiation table - is massive death rates. Suddenly the glory hyped by extremist quickly loses credibility. A 10% death rate of all Palestinians and Israelis would quickly make Likud and Hamas extremists unpopular. No way around that potential solution - which may be the only one left in a region where being a moderate is almost impossible.

WTF?

Cite.

That was the theory of Sun Tzu, what it would take to achieve the ultimate goal of driving the enemy to the bargaining table. When wars ground on for years, until attrition forced bargaining, it was true. But that went the way of sword fighting and knickers.

We have the technology for a relative handful of people to obliterate a continent, so now it's unconditional surrender of the entire nation.

I think the Hamas may be at a disadvantage in this one unless it goes on for an extended period of time. Israel may have learned it's lesson with the last incursion into Lebanon.

An important question is which lesson Israel learned. For example, if the purpose in Lebanon was to attack Hezbollah, then why were Israeli warplanes attacking non-Hezbollah targets even in the most northern Lebanon cities?

Whereas Israel clearly got their asses kicked in Lebanon, the reasons why are not entirely clear. Maybe Israel listened to their Air Force foolishly insist the Air Force could force the release of kidnapped Israeli soldiers. Or maybe Israel foolishly thought they would force the release by attacking even the Lebanon army and UN observers. Or maybe Israel had no strategic objective until a last minute decision caused a sudden and underplanned attack on Lebanon.

The common theme was serious management failures. Was that management failure the only reason that Israel failed so miserably in Lebanon? Or maybe Israeli extremists were losing control over the moderates? Or maybe Hezbollah had more military strength than Israel was willing to admit. Without answers to those questions and others, then any prediction in Gaza will only be wild speculation more akin to total fiction.

Long before anyone can speculate on Gaza, first, what is Israel's strategic objective? To clean out militants and withdrawal? To completely occupy Gaza like Israel did in Lebanon? Until such questions can be answered, then nothing can be speculated about Hamas' future in Gaza.

Okay I see your point now Bruce.

Israel stated that they plan an occupation that will last a long time. They want to completely wipe out Hamas, which I would think is impossible. Even if they do, its likely that an even more extreme group will take over.

Why do you say that?

Two reasons, one history, the other is social conditions.

History of Israeli resistant groups:
PLO -> Fatah -> Hamas

Each group more extreme than the last

Social Conditions:
As of now, there have been over 500 deaths in Gaza, 200 of them being civilians. A blockade on Gaza by Israel is leaving very few medical supplies and is one of possible reasons behind the rockets fired by Hamas.

As more civilians die, see family members and neighbors die or get injured, get hungry, go without medical supplies and electricity for extended periods of time, the anti-Israeli feeling will grow even further and allow for a more extreme resistance group to take over.


Have you seen the Dark Knight classicman? This analogy can be applied to both Palestine and Israel. As both sides get pushed and feels like they are being trapped, they will go to more and more extremes to rid themselves of the situation.

Yeh I saw it, thought it was a terrible movie too.

At some point they gotta realize that isn't the way to go. Israel, for all its faults isn't going anywhere and they gotta get used to it.

47 devastating seconds... devastates your post at 0:40. Required viewing.

Did you read the article I posted Classicman?

See how both Hamas and the population supporting Hamas are reactionary. That goes with what I have been saying this entire time. Both sides are working on the defensive, which means it isn't as simple as "realize that this isn't the way to go. Israel, for all its faults isn't going anywhere and they gotta get used to".

What did this prove? It proved that one Palestinian child, who we have no history of, thinks Hamas is at fault. It wouldn't be hard to find quotes of Jewish Israelis that find Israel at fault either. This topic will hold views from all over the spectrum and it would not be surprising at all to find that some Palestinians are against Hamas and some Israelis are against Israel. If you could find a report of the majority of Gazans thinking that Hamas is at fault, then it would devastate my post, but not one out of the millions that live in Gaza.

Take a look at this Undertoad:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/wo...html?ref=world

Israel has a right to defend itself. It does not havea right to rain down death, destruction and overwhelming might upon a subject and physically trapped populace.

I suspect the British news reports on this are very different to the American news reports. From the reports I have seen, Hamas represents a relatively minor threat to Israel, in terms of rockets launched. The level of response is out of all proportion with the level of threat. There is seemingly little to no effort made to avoid civilian casualties and indeed some evidence that non-civilians are being targetted (such as the two young boys who were killed whilst playing on the supposedly safer roof top of a known safe house (a house where children and women hole up for the duration.)

I have a friend/colleague who is over there at the moment. She and her group are there trying to offer humanitarian aid and moral support to the Palestinians. Her group includes Christians, Moslems and Jews. She's been over there many times and brought back video coverage of some of her earlier experiences.

Having seen some of the footage she captured last time, and heard her stories and the stories of other people who've been there (including last month my good friend L) the only surprise to me is that the Palestinians ever put down their weapons at all.