mjsd said:Sure, they have tried, but have they really tried hard enough?
mjsd said:Anyway, If they are not achieving their aim of keeping the moral high ground in this conflict, perhaps a new shift in strategy is required?
seycyrus said:Evidently many believed that it wouuld have been a far greater strategic mistake to allow the thousands of rockets to continue to fly into Israel for years to come.
That might seem to be a flip statement, but it is more than that.
Israeli leaders are not stupid. They knew ahead of time what risks they were taking. They weighed the pros and cons of reataliating for the Hamas rocket fire and against the pros and cons of doing nothing and continuing to let the rockets fly.
If your assertion was correct one would expect Hamas to be the instigator of military exchanges and yet a detailed analysis of who breaks truces and ceasefires first (including the last one) shows it is overwhelmingly Israel who breaks the peace.russ_watters;2024872 Hamas needs to provoke Israel and firing rockets said:exquisitely[/i] well calculated and coordinated: Despite some claims to the contrary, that Hamas is not in control; they are.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nancy-kanwisher/reigniting-violence-how-d_b_155611.htmlthis analysis shows that it is overwhelmingly Israel that kills first after a pause in the conflict: 79% of all conflict pauses were interrupted when Israel killed a Palestinian, while only 8% were interrupted by Palestinian attacks (the remaining 13% were interrupted by both sides on the same day). In addition, we found that this pattern -- in which Israel is more likely than Palestine to kill first after a conflict pause -- becomes more pronounced for longer conflict pauses. Indeed, of the 25 periods of nonviolence lasting longer than a week, Israel unilaterally interrupted 24, or 96%, and it unilaterally interrupted 100% of the 14 periods of nonviolence lasting longer than 9 days.
seycyrus said:Keeping the moral high ground is not their primary aim. Existence is.
Edit: I mean *Appearing to* keep ...
Art said:If your assertion was correct one would expect Hamas to be the instigator of military exchanges and yet a detailed analysis of who breaks truces and ceasefires first
You misread it. Click on the link I provided. It gives full details of ALL rockets fired and when.seycyrus said:It is of simplicity itself to note that the study only counts when Israelis are *killed*. not when rockets are fired at Israel.
Why the obvious deception?
Figure 1. Number of Palestinian rockets fired in each month of 2008 (adapted from The Israeli consulate in NYC [pdf])
mjsd said:you might be right, but it still seems a bit far-fetched, I cannot really visualise how Hamas or the entire Palestinian population has the ability to threaten the existence of Israel. Israel is far too strong with their nukes and US backed military hardwares.
frankly, exactly what Israel wish to accomplish here is unclear to me at this point. Only time will tell.
Art said:You misread it. Click on the link I provided. It gives full details of ALL rockets fired and when.
seycyrus said:On a grand scale Israel must weigh the local situation with Hamas with future global implications. Iran undoutedly complicates the issue.
mjsd said:what? this has implications in "Israel vs rest of the world" in the grand scale? ...
mjsd said:what? this has implications in "Israel vs rest of the world" in the grand scale? Perhaps, only if you are talking about the humanitarian crisis which has been created!
btw, one doesn't make friends by showing others what kind of destruction one can made to one's neighbours.
Either Israel has some hidden objectives that we don't know, or it may be doing this all wrong right now... oh but wait, there is an election coming right?
mjsd said:you might be right, but it still seems a bit far-fetched, I cannot really visualise how Hamas or the entire Palestinian population has the ability to threaten the existence of Israel. Israel is far too strong with their nukes and US backed military hardwares.
CRGreathouse said:Any state subject to prolonged attack is threatened. If the citizens of a country don't feel that it can protect them, that is a real danger to the state. The state must act to protect its citizens, though it's not always clear how.
Further, you seem to suggest that Israel should not attack into the Palestinian territories, which would seem to negate the advantage of their US-backed military...
True, peoples sensitivities change, but you need at least something to use as a reference. Perhaps a different question, though: why have they changed and does the change make any sense? Present a logical argument for the change.siddharth said:Why should previous war be a valid context for Israel's actions? People's sensitivities change.
What formula would you use to calculate an acceptable number of civilian casualties?IMO, the scale of Israel's attack is completely unacceptable, if one considers the number of civilian casualties.
What I was getting at was correct insofar as the action was most likely to help achieve their goal, not correct as in morally correct. I made no statements in that post about whether either sides actions were morally correct or incorrect.I object to your second point in the strongest possible terms. Perhaps I lack your ability to objectively look at the events to determine possible strategies, but How can the death of (innocent) children and civilians ever be the correct course of action? Obviously Hamas are very guilty themselves, which brings me to my next point...
Almost certainly not directly, but it is a very tough issue because both sides have made choices to help cause the civilian casualties. It is, however, completely within Hamas's power to avoid all civilian casualties. For example, rather than launching rockets from civilian areas, Hamas could launch rockets form the middle of the desert, which would vastly reduce the risk to their civilians. And rather than have their fighters hide in the cities, they could send their fighters into Israel to engage the Israeli army openly.Do you think that every dead civilian was used as a shield?
Could you make a point, please and ask me what I think of your point? I don't do open ended questions like that. All I see is news stories and no point.What do you make of new reports like this?
That's why the intent of this thread was not value judgement. Actions on both sides led to these results and focusing on one or the other just leads to the same tired arguments that go nowhere. I wanted to have some actual analysis that may help figure out why both sides are acting the way they are and what it might lead to.I cannot imagine how anyone can *ever* justify actions which lead to such results.
I realize they are not.While the blame game can go on forever, I hope you realize that Israel isn't entirely innocent in trying to maintain peace.
Your point does not disagree with my point: they are not mutually exclusive. Do you have any other reasons why you would believe that Hamas would not put it's own civilians in harms' way intentionally? Heck: what are suicide bombings? A good fraction are committed not by seasoned freedom-fighters, but by brainwashed kids!In my opinion, that is absolute nonsense. I think it's far more likely that the palestinian individuals, and members of Hamas, view this war as a freedom struggle to get back the land which they think belongs to them. I don't think they would deliberately try to maximize civilian causalities.
Just because it is not an equal fight does not mean it isn't a war.ray b said:this is not a war or a equal fight
one side has home made rockets and some guns
the other has tanks and modern jets
It is blindingly obvious: Hamas is not a branch of Israel's government and Gaza is not a province of Israel. Ie, what would you expect - for Israel to just go in and arrest all of Hamas? That's just silly, ray.and is far closer to the IRA vs brits then not
you need to explain why it is not in you view
plo-hamas-gaza has no more troops or equipment then the IRA did
You just described it as a war. Not accuratly, but still......]people invading their homeland...
The best strategy may, in fact, be to reboot: take over the land again, depose the terrorist government, sweep the terrorists away, and set up a functional, sovereign government.mjsd said:Having said that, since Israel is far stronger than Hamas, it seems to me that Israeli strategy is to push all palestinian resistance out by force rather than by negotiation. Mmm... not sure whether it can work in the longer term though.
It was easy to find on youtube (from 2007):Art said:Please provide a source for this unfounded allegation.
The second paragraph of the link destroys the thesis: Hamas, in fact, never stopped attacking Israel for a period longer than about a month. And btw, it looks a lot worse if you include mortars - Hamas never went below 11 in a month: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rock_mort_gaza_2008.JPGArt said:If your assertion was correct one would expect Hamas to be the instigator of military exchanges and yet a detailed analysis of who breaks truces and ceasefires first (including the last one) shows it is overwhelmingly Israel who breaks the peace. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nancy-kanwisher/reigniting-violence-how-d_b_155611.html
obviously Israel is keen to show itself as the victim defending itself against unprovoked attacks but this analysis shows this is simply untrue. Rather than suppose that Hamas has some master plan to commit suicide at the hands of the Israelis it seems far more likely that things are simply as they appear. Hamas' firing of rockets is a show of rather futile defiance against a brutal occupying force.
Perhaps, and that is something the newspapers have commented on a little. Your tone implies something that isn't quite right, though, so to clarify: Israel must occasionally show it's military strength in order to keep the terrorists on it's borders at bay. History has shown that when Israel's enemies sense weakness, they attack.Werg22 said:Israel is a state that cannot survive without force. It must from time to time show its strength to the world - sort of like "don't mess with us". That's the main goal of the current offensive, the rest is details.
Define "massive". How many civilians should each side kill?siddharth said:I think the point myself and mjsd were making is that innocent civlians and children shouldn't be killed on such a massive scale.
mjsd said:Having said that, since Israel is far stronger than Hamas, it seems to me that Israeli strategy is to push all palestinian resistance out by force rather than by negotiation. Mmm... not sure whether it can work in the longer term though.
seycyrus said:Keeping the moral high ground is not their primary aim. Existence is.
Edit: I mean *Appearing to* keep ...
Werg22 said:Israel is a state that cannot survive without force. It must from time to time show its strength to the world - sort of like "don't mess with us". That's the main goal of the current offensive, the rest is details.
siddharth said:I think the point myself and mjsd were making is that innocent civlians and children shouldn't be killed on such a massive scale.
russ_watters said:Almost certainly not directly, but it is a very tough issue because both sides have made choices to help cause the civilian casualties. It is, however, completely within Hamas's power to avoid all civilian casualties. For example, rather than launching rockets from civilian areas, Hamas could launch rockets form the middle of the desert, which would vastly reduce the risk to their civilians. And rather than have their fighters hide in the cities, they could send their fighters into Israel to engage the Israeli army openly.
Obviously, both of these strategies would result in virtually no Palestinian civilian casualties, yet both would also be sure to result in a resounding defeat for Hamas. However, a third option would be to not fight at all.
I agree. The resolution includes the primary concession Hamas is trying to get via this particular aggression: opening the border with Israel (not sure about the border with Egypt). So it would seem the strategy is working.BobG said:With rocket fire from Lebanon and a UN resolution for a cease fire approved by the Security Council (14-0 with the US abstaining), it would look like Hamas is meeting more of its goals than Israel is.
Yes, that is essentially what I am suggesting. Israel has shown both a willingness to live in peace next to a Palestinian state and a willingness to unilaterally give back land when it is convenient to them. If peace is established, there would be no reason for Israel to continue policies intended to protect Israel at the expense of the Palestinian people. The alternative choice (for Hamas) is to continue going the way they are going, which may eventually chip away a piece of land they are happy with (doubtful), but it will certainly ensure decades more of misery for the Palestinian people. The biggest sticking point to me is that Hamas wants nothing less than the annihilation of Israel. It is tough to go to a negotiating table when you know you'll never get any deals suggested that don't contain 'but eventually, we're going to kill all of you' in the fine print.devil-fire said:It sounds like what you are suggesting here is that if Hamas wanted to prevent all civilian casualties, while not being utterly destroyed, they should practically surrender to Israel or effectively disarm themselves.
Well, I don't speak for the American people. I'm a little harder than average. And based on the UNSC resolution, I don't think world opinion has shifted toward the Israelis, and it isn't surprising: not many people will unequivocably support the country who'se name is printed on the bomb if it kills a lot of civilians, even if there is a legitimate target in the middle of the crowd.It sounds like these civilian casualties could in some way benefit Israel if the view being adopted by the American people is that the best solution to stop these civilian casualties would be Hamas stopping all resistance.
russ_watters said:Since this thread seems to have gone off track, we'll probably end up locking it, however...
Well in what context do you mean? Arguably there might be the need to demonstrate willingness to use force esp. with a change in leadership, but surely not to demonstrate strength. Since the six day war, it has been abundantly clear that the IDF is far superior to any other organized military force in their neighbourhood. Para military groups like Hamas and Hezbollah clearly can do little of military consequence, typically they are only able to harass and kill individuals or small groups of civilians, though an Israeli 911 is always possible. I don't see that military action only for demonstration (on or near their own territory) helps the Israelis. For purposes of security, I venture it is more productive to pursue diplomatic means and defensive measures when possible (e.g. the wall), but when and if they reason that military force is required the only justifiable use is to completely eliminate the threat.russ_watters said:Perhaps, and that is something the newspapers have commented on a little. Your tone implies something that isn't quite right, though, so to clarify: Israel must occasionally show it's military strength in order to keep the terrorists on it's borders at bay. History has shown that when Israel's enemies sense weakness, they attack.
Werg22 said:As I see it, the two-state resolution is currently unachievable because of a strong conflict of interests between the two sides. I think the way this conflict will end will be very similar to how South Africa has abolished the Apartheid; the idea of a exclusively Jewish state will be dropped and the Palestinians will be integrated as Israeli citizens. Far from being the best solution for the Israelis, but it seems as though there will be a point where there won't be any other choice for real peace.
