News What were the consequences of Israel's attack on the Gaza Aid Flotilla?

[TubbaBlubba]

There's two schools of thought on this. Either the protesters were very smart or very stupid. While I have a serious disdain from such activists and have seen incredible stupdity from them, it is hard to me to believe that with the resources required to make the effort that stupidity could have dominated.

Seems like there was a healthy mix of both. They certainly would have gained more in the long run by making no violent resistance. You obviously have a death wish if you toss flash bangs at Israel, there's no way I can argue with that. The thing here is that one boat acted very differently from the rest, and I can see several explanations for this;
1. The people on the boat were in general more militant and more likely to use force; the concentration of them was a fluke or a mistake, depending on how you see it.
2. This was planned in advance; "martyrs" were intentionally placed on one boat in order to provoke deadly force from Israel.
3. Israel, for no reason, acted differently, thus inciting violence.
4. Israel intentionally used excessive force in order to provoke the people on the boat.

None of them seem too likely to me. 2 seems to conflict with the general idea of the project as far as I can see it. 3 would seem strange coming from such an elite military force. 4 would be very, very difficult to pull off and get away with, not to mention incredibly callous. 1 strikes me as the most likely; Wrong people end up together, some idiot brought flashbangs, and they end up exciting each other.

 

[arildno]

Seems like there was a healthy mix of both. They certainly would have gained more in the long run by making no violent resistance.

No, they would not.
They were intent upon jihad, and acted accordingly.

The reactions from most European countries show that they cynically chose the option that will not make their jihad backfire upon them.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

No, they would not.
They were intent upon jihad, and acted accordingly.

The reactions from most European countries show that they cynically chose the option that will not make their jihad backfire upon them.

An amount of passengers on one boat were intent on jihad, it appears. I'm talking about to project at a large scale.

 

[arildno]

An amount of passengers on one boat were intent on jihad, it appears. I'm talking about to project at a large scale.

And why is it not better to just let ONE group stand for the violence, so that naive fools will cling to the hope that the others were firmly OPPOSED to that violence?

It's mere deception tactic, and extremely effective.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

That IS certainly a possibility. However, two things:

1. I'd like it if myself and others refrained from the term "jihad". It has provokative and rhethoric connotations, and different meanings to different muslims (the non-fundamentalist interpretation is generally that jihad is the holy war the righteous muslim fights... in his head, against doubt)

2. Regardless, I don't think the non-muslims are interested in a holy muslim war. Of course, it's certainly POSSIBLE that this whole thing was a conspiracy, deceiving the peace activists to make them go along with extremist fundamentalists, but I, at least, find it dubious that they would INTENTIONALLY go along, knowing that it would take violent turns. I don't think they'd risk their life for a "holy war" they don't believe in.

 

[tiny-tim]

Avigdor Lieberman

You could see it coming in advance … Israel's foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, said the country was prepared to stop the flotilla "at any cost." …

Yes, Avigdor Lieberman is foreign minister, not defence minister or prime minister.

It is unlikely that he had anything to do with the operation.

Even as foreign minister, he is pretty much sidelined, with restricted access to foreign governments (because he is so right-wing), in favour of (former foreign minister and prime minister) Shimon Peres and defence minister Ehud Barak.

Here's an extract about Barak and Lieberman from the (London) Jewish Chronicle (21st January 2010), headed "http://www.thejc.com/comment/analysis/26320/barak-israel’s-de-facto-foreign-minister"" …

When Israel’s regional strategic alliances are jeopardised by senior ministers’ inflammatory statements, he [Ehud Barak] is sent to Cairo, Amman or Ankara to calm the waters. In capitals where Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman is persona non grata, in the small handful of Muslim countries with which Israel has diplomatic relations, Mr Barak is an honoured guest.

But Mr Barak is also the preferred interlocutor of Israel’s traditional allies. In the last 10 months, he has racked up more meetings with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Special Representative George Mitchell than Mr Lieberman. Both sides tacitly acknowledge that Mr Barak is the one who can do business.

Morale within the professional ranks of the Foreign Ministry has never been lower. They have been almost totally usurped from their traditional role, not just by Mr Barak, but by a whole group of ambassadors-at-large who have become the government’s point-men around the globe. …

Lieberman is in the cabinet under sufferance because of Israel's coalition system … Kadima refused to serve in the coalition, so (prime minister) Netanyahu reluctantly accepted Lieberman's extreme right-wing party.

Speeches like Lieberman's are just political posturing. It is unlikely that that he had anything to do with policy on this matter, and may not even have been kept "in the loop".

 

[billiards]

No, they would not.
They were intent upon jihad, and acted accordingly.

The reactions from most European countries show that they cynically chose the option that will not make their jihad backfire upon them.

It is amazing how someone who is supposedly intelligently can take such a skewed view on reality, and to use the word cynical there is a whole new level of irony.

 

[arildno]

...
HERE is how the "activists" thought of, and chanted about, the action prior to the confrontation:


And here is one jubilant theologian reflecting on martyrdom, and armed, muslim fleets:
http://www.memri.org/clip/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/2490.htm

It is amazing how someone who is supposedly intelligently can take such a skewed view on reality, and to use the word cynical there is a whole new level of irony.

Let's see who's got a skewed perception of reality, hm??

 

[Nusc]

Has the cargo on the Flotilla been inspected? Have they found weapons?

Why did the Flotilla refuse the offer to land outside Gaza?

Source?

 

[Pattonias]

Its not that they have or haven't found weapons. It's that they can't make any exceptions for inspections despite the guise the ship takes. If they allow the ships to pass without inspection because they say they are carrying relief supplies, it would be a matter of days before weapons are smuggled in using this loop hole as their cover.

 

[Nusc]

I need to be aware of the facts.

Has the cargo on the Flotilla been inspected? Have they found weapons?

Why did the Flotilla refuse the offer to land outside Gaza?

Source?

 

[arildno]

I need to be aware of the facts.

Has the cargo on the Flotilla been inspected?

I don't know.

Have they found weapons?

I don't know.

Why did the Flotilla refuse the offer to land outside Gaza?

I don't know.


Why do you ask irrelevant questions?

Would, for example, the legitimacy of Israel's action improve if they had inspected the cargo yet?
Or would worsen if they already have inspected the cargo?

 

[estro]

It is amazing how someone who is supposedly intelligently can take such a skewed view on reality, and to use the word cynical there is a whole new level of irony.

...
HERE is how the "activists" thought of, and chanted about, the action prior to the confrontation:

...

Let's see who's got a skewed perception of reality, hm??

billiards, can you respond this?
Your nonsense made me curious...

 

[estro]

I need to be aware of the facts.

Has the cargo on the Flotilla been inspected? Have they found weapons?

Why did the Flotilla refuse the offer to land outside Gaza?

Source?

All the facts you need to be aware of, are seen in the above videos.
If you still looking for other facts means, I can conclude my own facts about your intelligence.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Nusc,

The flotilla refused to land outside Gaza because it was their stated intention to break the blockade on Gaza. Being diverted doesn't accomplish that
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2011988201_isflotilla30.html

"We are determined to reach Gaza," said Saman Ali, a Swedish national, speaking by satellite telephone from one of the vessels in the flotilla. "We are convinced that Israel's siege of Gaza is illegal and we want to break it."

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Oh dear. One of the initiative takers, Dror Feiler (Former Israeli paratrooper, resides in Sweden) claims that he's going to "go again in two months, this time with twelve ships".

http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article7240395.ab - Source, although I doubt most of you can read it. But you can put the headline through google translate if you wish.

 

[estro]

Maybe they friendly?

I need to be aware of the facts.

Has the cargo on the Flotilla been inspected? Have they found weapons?

Why did the Flotilla refuse the offer to land outside Gaza?

Source?

This video (ship's security cameras) provides answers.

But hey! Maybe they're friendly?

 

[TubbaBlubba]

This video (ship's security cameras) provides answers.

But hey! Maybe they're friendly?

What we SHOULD remember is that all videos so far have been released by Israel. I'm not suggesting they're doctored or manipulated (although that isn't impossible, it would be a ridiculously high risk to take), but that these videos are published for the sake of justifying the act. So I would say that it's a stretch that the videos "speak for themselves".

 

[estro]

What we SHOULD remember is that all videos so far have been released by Israel. I'm not suggesting they're doctored or manipulated (although that isn't impossible, it would be a ridiculously high risk to take), but that these videos are published for the sake of justifying the act. So I would say that it's a stretch that the videos "speak for themselves".

So you expect from the peace loving activists to publish videos that reveal how intense their love is?

I think you missed the whole idea, this video has nothing to with justifying, this video is all about reality...

 

[TubbaBlubba]

So you expect from the peace loving activists to publish videos that reveal how intense their love is?
I can't get your logic...

What does that have to do with anything? All I'm saying is that these videos are part of a strategy. They're not there to neutrally convey what happened, but to justify Israel's act, and one should consider that when watching them.

 

[arildno]

What we SHOULD remember is that all videos so far have been released by Israel. I'm not suggesting they're doctored or manipulated (although that isn't impossible, it would be a ridiculously high risk to take), but that these videos are published for the sake of justifying the act. So I would say that it's a stretch that the videos "speak for themselves".

Okay, take a look at this video of weapons/assorted dangerous equipment found on board.


Do you, at 0.37-0.39 see the blue metal rods?

Note the ATTACHED black handles. Those speaks volumes of..premeditation. Were Israelis so clever to attach those black handles?

Furthermore, note at 0.39 the wooden club with black tape rolled around it. Similar idea.

One might also speculate on the blueness of the metal rods:
1. Where did those metal rods come from in the first place?
2. Are they newly painted, or was that old painting?
If the former, the colur blue would make the rod less visible (say from a helicopter) than if it were, say, red or black.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Okay, take a look at this video of weapons/assorted dangerous equipment found on board.


Do you, at 0.37-0.39 see the blue metal rods?

Note the ATTACHED black handles. Those speaks volumes of..premeditation. Were Israelis so clever to attach those black handles?

Furthermore, note at 0.39 the wooden club with black tape rolled around it. Similar idea.

One might also speculate on the blueness of the metal rods:
1. Where did those metal rods come from in the first place?
2. Are they newly painted, or was that old painting?
If the former, the colur blue would make the rod less visible (say from a helicopter) than if it were, say, red or black.

I don't know. But it doesn't seem like very effective weaponry to me. Then again that might also be intentional; cause damage but not too much damage, just enough to provoke. I do wonder what the other ships have to say about it, however.

 

[estro]

...
All I'm saying is that these videos are part of a strategy. They're not there to neutrally convey what happened.
...

I think your political outlook based more on cartoon network channel rather reality...

I don't know. But it doesn't seem like very effective weaponry to me. Then again that might also be intentional; cause damage but not too much damage, just enough to provoke. I do wonder what the other ships have to say about it, however.

What you expect from terrorists, to coordinate naval attack with air cover of F-15's? (far more effective then blood thirsty mob...)

 

[mheslep]

[...]
USA Today's solution doesn't look altogether different from what the Israelis are already doing and just as the Israelis can't just open the floodgates, the opponents of Israel have nothing to lose by confrontation (no, the death of a few activists is not really a loss, it is a win for the activists).

There is, though, a smart solution to the current impasse. Israel should allow humanitarian aid into Gaza on the condition that cargo first be inspected for weapons. Palestinians should accept that restriction. The United States and United Nations should try to ensure its enforcement.

This absolutely is the current policy; USA Today seems grossly under informed on the topic. Ships make harbor in Israel, the cargo is inspected, then trucked overland into Gaza:

Israel Navy: "Mavi Marmara, you are approaching an area of hostilities which is under a naval blockade. The Gaza area coastal region and Gaza harbor are closed to all maritime traffic. The Israeli government supports delivery of humanitarian supplies to the civilian population in the Gaza Strip and invites you to enter the Ashdod port. Delivery of supplies in accordance with the authorities' regulations will be through the formal land crossings and under your observation, after which you can return to your home ports on the vessels on which you have arrived."

"Negative, negative."

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Communiques/2010/Israel_Navy_warns_flotilla_31-May-2010.htm

 

[arildno]

I don't know. But it doesn't seem like very effective weaponry to me. Then again that might also be intentional; cause damage but not too much damage, just enough to provoke. I do wonder what the other ships have to say about it, however.

Well, try and have your best buddy hit you in the head with a metal rod, THEN make a judgment call of whether it can be regarded as a weapon.

The point is:

These artifacts, most of them stuff that easily can be found on a boat, were ON the deck.

That is NOT where they are supposed to be.

Metal rods, for example, in order to fulfill their usual function, tend to be screwed to the floor or something.

Somebody unscrewed them. Why?

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Depends on the terrorists, works fine when you're performing state terrorism, for one.

But on a more related note, if their intention was to cause as much harm to the troops as possible, they should have been able to use explosives of some sort. Though on the other hand, we don't know the exact procedures the ships went through before departure (or why this particular ships appears to have a large amount of extremists on it).arildno: What I'm saying is that it wouldn't be TOO effective against armed troops.

mheslep: Yes, I think we've established that the objective was to break the blockade.

 

[arildno]

Depends on the terrorists, works fine when you're performing state terrorism, for one.

But on a more related note, if their intention was to cause as much harm to the troops as possible, they should have been able to use explosives of some sort. Though on the other hand, we don't know the exact procedures the ships went through before departure (or why this particular ships appears to have a large amount of extremists on it).


arildno: What I'm saying is that it wouldn't be TOO effective against armed troops.

It is effective enough to fool the media, and already-biased leftists, and in the end, that is all that matters if you don't have any qualms of getting a few of your own killed for furthering the Noble Cause.

The troops can be dealt with later on.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

It is effective enough to fool the media, and already-biased leftists, and in the end, that is all that matters if you don't have any qualms of getting a few of your own killed for furthering the Noble Cause.

The troops can be dealt with later on.

Yes, as you see, that's something I touched on in the part you cited before.

It's funny how you appear to consider us leftists biased. Aren't you, too?

 

[arildno]

Yes, as you see, that's something I touched on in the part you cited before.

It's funny how you appear to consider us leftists biased. Aren't you, too?

Not in a way that makes me wilfully ignore any facts, no.

What facts would those be, hm?

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Not in a way that makes me wilfully ignore any facts, no.

What facts would those be, hm?

Oh, I don't know, that extremists constituted a minority of the flotilla?

Or maybe you consider anyone who supports Gaza an extremist?

 

[TubbaBlubba]

This debate is pointless, mentally blind people can't see facts and can't answer logical questions...

I fully agree.

 

[arildno]

Oh, I don't know, that extremists constituted a minority of the flotilla?

Oh, is that an established FACT, now??

Or maybe you consider anyone who supports Gaza an extremist?

You can't support a strip of land. Unless you are an Earth Firster, and then you WOULD be an extremist.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Oh, is that an established FACT, now??



You can't support a strip of land. Unless you are an Earth Firster, and then you WOULD be an extremist.

Not any more or less of an established fact that the people on Mavi Marmara were terorrists.


Okay. I support the people living in Gaza, under oppression and state terrorism from Israel. Happy?

 

[arildno]

Not any more or less of an established fact that the people on Mavi Marmara were terorrists.

See the video. Once again.

Okay. I support the people living in Gaza, under oppression and state terrorism from Israel. Happy?

I support the people in Gaza living under ACTUAL oppression and state terrorism from..Hamas and a multitude of mullahs, rather.

For example:
Christians, wayward girls and gayboys who run a real risk of being honour-killed.

As for those in Gaza SUPPORTING Hamas&mullahs, they are not oppressed at all, least of all from..Israel.

 

[mheslep]

I consider almost anyone on those Gaza flotilla vessels an extremist if:
1) They were aware that Israel accepts humanitarian aide bound for Gaza through Israeli ports.
2) They were aware they were in route to break a naval blockade.
It is fair to assume that most or all of the passengers were in possession of those facts. The odd exception might be medical staff along to help the injured.

 

[Pattonias]

I support the people of Gaza who are in need, I don't support the government of Gaza who are essentially anti-semitic terrorists. Anytime Gaza is left alone rockets are fired into Israel and the Palistinian government doesn't make any serious move to stop it and often they are behind the attacks. What is Israel supposed to do? Roll-over and die?

If Israel ceased to exist they would stop being attacked. That is all these Hamas extremists will settle for and they are the ones running Palistine.

 

[arildno]

As for the much-touted author Henning Mankell (whose thrillers I enjoy immensely), he is an old Maoist, and a couple of years ago called for the dissolution of Israel in its present form.

To expose his mendacity, he screamed when returning to Sweden: "The only weapon they found was my razor!".

Later on, it turned out he had been on a totally different boat, he kept quiet about that little detail..

 

[zomgwtf]

I support the people of Gaza who are in need, I don't support the government of Gaza who are essentially anti-semitic terrorists. Anytime Gaza is left alone rockets are fired into Israel and the Palistinian government doesn't make any serious move to stop it and often they are behind the attacks. What is Israel supposed to do? Roll-over and die?

If Israel ceased to exist they would stop being attacked. That is all these Hamas extremists will settle for and they are the ones running Palistine.

I agree with this but I still feel that Israel shouldn't be punishing the citizens of the Gaza strip. The intent of the blockade, AFAIK, is specifically to demoralize the citizens and make them lose faith in the government, as well as keep weapons from getting in. Hopefully at some point in time the Jews and the Arab nations will be able to be on 'friendly' terms with no hostilities and no wanting to eliminate the other.

 

[arildno]

I agree with this but I still feel that Israel shouldn't be punishing the citizens of the Gaza strip.

Punished in what way, exactly?
Read the following story from Washington Post on the awful conditions of the Gazans:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...6/02/AR2010060204687.html?sid=ST2010060204691

Apparently, their worst complaint is that they are denied import of...concrete.

Concrete?

It is one of the simplest materials to manufacture, with well-nigh ubiquitous raw material distribution and that Palestinians CHOOSE not to use their own country's resources to get a concrete factory going is actually their own fault, rather than anybody's else.


Furthermore, the complaints that the Palestinians are soooo abused and oppressed aren't exactly new. THey have been circulating for about..60 years.

Now we get a REAL glimpse in how horrifying the Gazans lives have become:
They can't any longer travel to Egypt on VACATION as they used to!

They can't have had it terribly bad in past times, either, if vacation abroad was a popular activity..



The Isreali blockade is ineffective precisely because they do NOT punish the Gazans in any ways that actually matter (for example, denying food supplies).

If Israel think it immoral to actually punish the Gazans as a whole, then they shouldn't go about hoping the blockade will produce any effects.
So, they might consider lifting it, and instead take a much more aggressive, confrontational low-threshold line towards those among the Gazans inciting hatred towards Israel/actually smuggling of weapons into the region.

By regarding such individuals as enemy combatants, IDF would know how to deal with them effectively.

 

[Werg22]

I do not believe that would occur, this would be seen as an act of war against Israel from France. I don't think France would declare war on Israel in order to break the blockade, that's just stupid.

I honestly do not see NATO doing anything what-so-ever to stop the blockade other than by urging talks between the two nations.

I think the fact that the world is putting so much attention on this is rediculous. I mean in Sudan right now you have huge milias taking children raping them, killing some, and making the rest into child soldiers. Then they send them to attack the other militias or sometimes govn't forces. Some how this doesn't make it into the news even though it's a MUCH larger humanitarian crisis. Gaza gets aid, a large number of Sudanese people do not get aid and what they do get is very little. (SO many have been purposely starved to death in attempts at genocide)

How the world can turn a blind eye to this tribal warfare going on in a country yet they can pay so much attention to a country DEFENDING itself in an ACTIVE warzone is beyond me.

I think more people die in Africa after a pastor claims they are a witch than have died in Palestine the last year as a direct cause from Israel.

Eyes turned to Palestine is nothing new. It's been this way since the inception of christian western society.

 

[arildno]

Enough people on Gaza CAN afford the stuff in the well stocked food shelves. Otherwise, the merchants would go bankrupt.

Unless the merchants receive foreign aid, and hence, can afford not to have any customers (who get their supplies elsewhere, as well).

The whole Gazan economy smells like a foolish communist redistribution economy, with all the typical inefficiency signs, kept in its dismal state precisely because the large influx of indiscriminate..foreign aid.

Again, see the Washington Post article.

 

[lisab]

Not to be too blunt, but the history of that region extends into Proto-Canaanite times, and Babylon/Sumer/Akkad. So... call it 6-7 thousand years? This is just the latest round, and over relatively new (a 3 or so thousand years) issues.

Arildno Well said.

I was just watching Ben Wiedamen on CNN talk about the 80% of Gazans who depend on food aid, NOT because there is no food, and I quote, "The shelves are stocked", but they cannot afford it. They used to export to Israel, and now they can't. If someone bombed and rocketed us, we wouldn't do business with them either! This whole "shortage of goods" is a load of dung, the real issue is the isolation, and that is more complex than some ships challenging a legal blockade.

Wow. Reading those dates, it occurred to me: those people on those ships decided to go fight (and die) for a cause they knew was ancient, embedded, and intractable. In all likelihood, their deaths will mean nothing.

 

[arildno]

It is sad, pitiable, and inevitable. I don't really understand it, however.


Aildno: My point was corruption for decades has trained the Gazans to fear their leaders, hate the Israelis, and become dependent on aid. There is no good reason for that last one either, except that the international community will happily skate over a hundreds of thousands of dead Rwandans to complain about an Israeli targeted strike.

Mea culpa. I didn't disagree with your previous post, nor with the points you make here.

One of the main flaws with the UNWRA system has been its historical connection, right from its inception, with Islamists insinuating themselves into positions of local authority, along with plain, old German Nazis, who went to the Arab countries and were welcomed there.

 

[Werg22]

It is sad, pitiable, and inevitable. I don't really understand it, however.Aildno: My point was corruption for decades has trained the Gazans to fear their leaders, hate the Israelis, and become dependent on aid. There is no good reason for that last one either, except that the international community will happily skate over a hundreds of thousands of dead Rwandans to complain about an Israeli targeted strike.

Ever stopped to think that Israel is a first world country, and hence more subject to scrutiny than, say, Rwanda, a country it outdoes fifty fold in annual GDP, for a smaller population? I'm not saying a third world country should be held any less accountable than another, but let's get real, there is a difference in what we expect from the two. If France was continuously engaging in actions that resulted in deaths of non-combatants, there would also be serious international attention directed its way.

 

[Werg22]

Agreed, and it is terribly disheartening. I used to believe this had a solution, now I don't even pretend to know. For an Israeli, this must be nearly unbearable.

Really? I never got the impression that peace was in Israel's interests, nor did I think they didn't realize it.

 

[mheslep]

If France was continuously engaging in actions that resulted in deaths of non-combatants, there would also be serious international attention directed its way.

The analogy is hopelessly flawed. Add: neighboring states publicly dedicated to France's destruction and that deny its right to exist, years of suicide and terror attacks against French non-combatants, years of rocket attacks from a neighboring states on its citizens. Add all of that and then imagine a French response.

BTW, I suspect France would do far worse given its recent history (Rainbow Warrior) if it was actually in Israel's circumstance.

 

[Werg22]

The analogy is hopelessly flawed. Add: neighboring states publicly dedicated to France's destruction and that deny its right to exist, years of suicide and terror attacks against French non-combatants, years of rocket attacks from a neighboring states on its citizens. Add all of that and then imagine a French response.

BTW, I suspect France would do far worse given its recent history (Rainbow Warrior) if it was actually in Israel's circumstance.

And what are these neighboring states that are publicly dedicated to Israel's destruction? I'd like to see official government statements to that regard, past 1979's peace treaty.

Also, I like how you make it seem as though these attack happen in a vacuum, without any provocation whatsoever on Israel's part or prior wrongdoing.

 

[russ_watters]

There is no need for hypotheticals. Most developed countries have/have had such menaces:

-The British had the Falklands and the Irish
-The Irish have...the Irish
-The French have Algeria
-The Spanish have the Basques
-The Russians have the Chechens and the Afghans
-The US has the Afghans and the Libyans
-The Chinese have the Tibetans
-The Iraqis have the Kurds
-And everyone has the Somalis

No two are exactly alike, and while some are justified and some not, in all cases the propaganda of the smaller group is that they are oppressed by the bigger country.

 

[russ_watters]

And what are these neighboring states that are publicly dedicated to Israel's destruction?

The one that is the subject of this thread.

Also, I like how you make it seem as though these attack happen in a vacuum, without any provocation whatsoever on Israel's part or prior wrongdoing.

Israel certainly isn't completely blameless, but it is difficult for them to ever have more than a short moratorium on fighting given the near constant stream of attacks they are under. The rocket and mortar attacks are pretty much by definition indescriminate: they are not precisely aimed and are rarely connected to any specific Israeli action.

The rocket attacks are basically just poking Israel with a stick to remind them that they are there and want to destroy them.

 

[Proton Soup]

It is sad, pitiable, and inevitable. I don't really understand it, however.


Aildno: My point was corruption for decades has trained the Gazans to fear their leaders, hate the Israelis, and become dependent on aid. There is no good reason for that last one either, except that the international community will happily skate over a hundreds of thousands of dead Rwandans to complain about an Israeli targeted strike.

that's the way it goes, though. no one cares until you see it on television. no one cared about serbia until images reminiscent of nazi concentration camps came out. and the world was hardly even aware of what was happening in rwanda until the bodies started washing down the rivers into neighboring countries. and to this extent, the palestinians are doing it exactly right. they wanted press and they got it. people will actually pay attention to their concerns, now, because they refuse to be ignored.