View on the recent Gaza/Israel stikes

[piercehawkeye45]

OnyxCougar, even though I have a slightly different viewpoint I respect your last post. As I said many times, many different groups have fault in this situation and most of the actions by both Israel and Palestine are reactionary. Israel's attack on Gaza is reactionary as well.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Maybe, maybe not. There really is no evidence to support that notion. So far it looks like Iraq is coming around, there is no reason to think that The Gaza could not do the same. As I said in an earlier post, Israel may be getting ready to go through their own little Iraq as well and all the pain that went with it.

I stated my reasoning in a post 71 to Undertoad. I think there is evidence to support my claim but it isn't overwhelming.


The possibility of an occupation of Gaza was mentioned but Israel said they had no intention of occupation. Gaza was already occupied until 2004 and in fact the original anti-Israeli groups began because of Israeli occupation.

And I do have a disagreement on the US-Iraq analogy and Israel-Palestine. The United States is half way across the globe from Iraq while Israel and Palestine are roommates and hatred between the Israelis and Palestinians are much greater. Its possible, but an Israeli occupation would be much much harder.

[TheMercenary]

Your lack of overwhelming evidence only translates into nothing more than a guess.

[DanaC]

An educated guess though.

[TheMercenary]

Not.

[piercehawkeye45]

I based my guess on history and evidence presented towards me. But that guess has more supporting evidence than any other theory, including yours.

Gaza was occupied by Israel for 38 years and they pulled out 4 years ago. Israel has also stated that they do not plan on occupying Gaza. I gave two large differences between the United States situation in Iraq versus Israel and Palestine. Mine at least has some support to it, yours is just a shot in the dark.

[TheMercenary]

Still a guess.

[piercehawkeye45]

A report came out by the International Crisis Group today. So we can sort some of the questionable aspects out.

A. The Ceasefire

• Six-month ceasefire began on June 19th, 2008
• The ceasefire was never strong and was destined to fail. Israel wanted a ceasefire while still blocking crossing with Gaza and Egypt and maintaining a blockade while Hamas wanted a ceasefire with no blockades on either Gaza or the crossing.
• Rockets were fired in Israel from Gaza in June but no action was taken. A separate movement claimed responsibility and said it was in response to two Palestinian deaths in West Bank and Hamas encouraged them to stop. Another rocket attack from Gaza into Israel was claimed by Fatah, an oppositional movement to Hamas. Later, more rockets were fired but no one claimed responsibility.
• On November 4th, Israeli troops, from Israeli Intelligence, crossed into Gaza using a secret tunnel made by Hamas to prevent a kidnapping of an Israeli soldier killing 6 Gazans.
• On December 13th, Israel said they would renew the ceasefire but Hamas was reluctant.
• On December 19th, ceasefire ended.

So it was in fact Israel who did actually break the ceasefire.

B. Why ceasefire was not renewed.

• Opening the routes to commerce was Hamas’s main goal in its cease-fire with Israel, just as ending the rocket fire was Israel’s central aim. But while rocket fire did go down drastically in the fall to 15 to 20 a month from hundreds a month, Israel said it would not permit trade to begin again because the rocket fire had not completely stopped and because Hamas continued to smuggle weapons from Egypt through desert tunnels. Hamas said this was a violation of the agreement, a sign of Israel’s intentions and cause for further rocket fire. On Wednesday [24 Dec 08], some 70 rockets hit Israel over 24 hours, in a distinct increase in intensity

• As the date approached, senior Hamas leaders increasingly made clear that, faced with the alternative between “starvation and fighting”, they would choose the latter, an unsubtle indication that they would intensify rocket fire in an attempt to force Israel to relax the siege.

As shown in the first quote, both sides seemed to have not lived up to the agreements. The second quote shows why Hamas did not continue with the ceasefire.


So as we can see, both sides had fault on starting this conflict and both sides seem to be acting as the reactionary.


TheMercenary-
While an occupation of Gaza may happen, it will only happen because Israelis are forced too, not because of a plan.

In the first days of the war, a former Israeli deputy foreign minister said, “the last thing the leadership wants is to be in a situation where it has to rule Gaza. If we don’t, what will replace Hamas? Abbas will find it difficult to take control on the back of Israeli bayonets”

Even then...there is major skeptism

What would the day after be? Would Israel reoccupy Gaza and rule a population made all the more hostile by the military assault that preceded it? Would it try to hand power over to a discredited PA, which quickly would be viewed as stooges? Which international forces would be willing to come in and take the reins over from us? And if the day after we leave 200,000 Gazans rally in support of Hamas, who do you think will come out the victor?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

A report came out by the International Crisis Group today. So we can sort some of the questionable aspects out.

A. The Ceasefire

• Six-month ceasefire began on June 19th, 2008
• The ceasefire was never strong and was destined to fail. Israel wanted a ceasefire while still blocking crossing with Gaza and Egypt and maintaining a blockade while Hamas wanted a ceasefire with no blockades on either Gaza or the crossing.
• Rockets were fired in Israel from Gaza in June but no action was taken. A separate movement claimed responsibility and said it was in response to two Palestinian deaths in West Bank and Hamas encouraged them to stop. Another rocket attack from Gaza into Israel was claimed by Fatah, an oppositional movement to Hamas. Later, more rockets were fired but no one claimed responsibility.
• On November 4th, Israeli troops, from Israeli Intelligence, crossed into Gaza using a secret tunnel made by Hamas to prevent a kidnapping of an Israeli soldier killing 6 Gazans.
• On December 13th, Israel said they would renew the ceasefire but Hamas was reluctant.
• On December 19th, ceasefire ended.

So it was in fact Israel who did actually break the ceasefire.

What? But getting a kidnapped soldier back? Are you nuts?

B. Why ceasefire was not renewed. As shown in the first quote, both sides seemed to have not lived up to the agreements. The second quote shows why Hamas did not continue with the ceasefire.
So as we can see, both sides had fault on starting this conflict and both sides seem to be acting as the reactionary.

Only 15 or 20 rockets a month is NOT a ceasefire, not even close. Can you even imagine what it's like to live under that threat? Like London in WW II, knowing they are coming but never where or when. No, Hamas didn't live up to the agreement by a long shot, so why would the Jews? Their only shot at convincing the Pals to stop was hold up the trucks.

[piercehawkeye45]

First, I only displayed the facts. Israel did cross into Gaza but Hamas did not claim any of the rocket fires. Those are the facts. They can be justified to fit either political side but those are the facts. Also, It was not to get a soldier back. Israeli intelligence got word of a supposed kidnapping and they went into Gaza to stop it. I do not know of validity of the intelligence.

The rockets might not have been Hamas related. Two other groups took responsibility for them for two early attacks but no one has claimed responsibility for all rockets following.

*keep in mind all above are facts from the latest sources

Only 15 or 20 rockets a month is NOT a ceasefire, not even close. Can you even imagine what it's like to live under that threat? Like London in WW II, knowing they are coming but never where or when. No, Hamas didn't live up to the agreement by a long shot, so why would the Jews? Their only shot at convincing the Pals to stop was hold up the trucks.

Nothing was said to imply that Israel started the blockade because of the rockets. The rockets were mainly ignored because there were no reports of Hamas breaking the truce.

Using the same argument as the reason Israel invaded Gaza, you can say that by blockading the Gazans of the most basic supplies, what did Israel expect from Hamas? If you starve a population they are going to fight back. If you fire rockets on a stronger enemy's civilians they are going to fight back. Like I've always said, all three sides have faults here and mostly everything is defensive.

And no, I can not image what it is like to live under that constant threat and I also cannot imagine what it is like to live under starving conditions as well.

[DanaC]

Not just starvation. Palestinian society has ground to a halt in every conceivable way. Electricity, water supplies, medicines, access to places of employment (for the handful who have it) all erratic and subject to sudden withdrawal/destruction. It's also the violence and humiliation routinely meted out to ordinary Palestinian civilians as they try to make there way through the growing network of military roadblocks. It's the humiliation, for example, of living and working in a market street, above which is an Israeli settlement who drop their raw garbage down onto your heads. They've had to place wire meshing across the street to block it.

Day after day, year after year, ordinary people are subjected to humiliation, fear and violence. And there's nowhere they can go. No where they can take their kids. All blocked in. Somewhere on their street, or in their part of the camp, a Hamas fighter primes a weapon. I don't know what goes on three houses away from me, or in the house next door.

They were misfortunate enough to live in a place that is under permanent siege. A place where the resistance to that siege is embedded within their town and the families that live there. Judging by many people in this thread, that simple piece of misfortune renders them unworthy of even the most basic human sympathy or anger or their behalf.

[DanaC]

Sundae now's when you should be slapping me....

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by DanaC

They were misfortunate enough to live in a place that is under permanent siege. A place where the resistance to that siege is embedded within their town and the families that live there. Judging by many people in this thread, that simple piece of misfortune renders them unworthy of even the most basic human sympathy or anger or their behalf.

Any sympathy and anger I may have on their behalf is assassinated by every single missile their chosen leaders fire at someone else. I don't think anyone here believes that life in Gaza is easy or fun.

What are they doing to make things better? How are they trying to accomplish peace and stability? Firing rockets throughout a cease fire and even more afterwards (in the face of overwhelmingly superior firepower, money and numbers) is stupid, not deserving of my sympathy.

If the Palestinians were to be totally pacifistic, and still Israel blockaded them and held them under siege, the world would be outraged and Israel would be forced to open up the borders. But the Palestinians have proven time and time and time again that they can't be trusted to keep their word, but you CAN count on them to be violent.

I don't deserve sympathy for my dog bite.

[classicman]

I agree with you Dana that it must be really difficult to live under those circumstances. Blaming Israel for their plight is not the answer nor is firing rockets at them going to make things better . . . only worse.

[Undertoad]

They were misfortunate

Misfortunate. They chose their route. They voted for Hamas. Hamas' very charter is to destroy Israel.

They had 750 trucks per day coming in before voting for the organization whose charter is to destroy Israel.

above which is an Israeli settlement

Old complaint. Settlements are gone 3-4 years now. The terrible "humiliation" of occupation is gone. They got the ethnically-cleansed land they demanded. They were even gifted greenhouses, economic opportunity, which they chose to destroy because they were built by Jews.

It ain't misfortune. So when you continue to give them charitable cover -- "oh here's why we're WITH you even when you vote for the terrorist organization! -- Oh actually, BECAUSE you vote for the terrorist organization!!" -- you're part of the problem.

[TheMercenary]

The pity party is over.