Israel vs. Gaza: Another Bloody War?

[Patticus]

Israel has put up to 75,000 reservists on stand-by and vowed to intensify its continuing raids on the Gaza Strip after Jerusalem was targeted by a rocket for the first time in decades.

Twenty-eight Palestinians and three Israelis have died since Israel killed Hamas's military chief on Wednesday.

There were further Israeli air strikes on Gaza City early on Saturday.

Telephoned by PM Benjamin Netanyahu, Barack Obama repeated the US's support for Israel's "right to defend itself".

A White House spokesman said Mr Obama had "expressed regret over the loss of Israeli and Palestinian civilian lives".

The two men also discussed options for "de-escalating the situation", he added.

Mr Obama also spoke to Egyptian President Mohammed Mursi on Friday, praising his efforts to pacify the situation in Gaza, said the spokesman.

No calm in Gaza

Hamas's military leader Ahmed Jabari was killed by an Israeli air strike on Wednesday. A senior commander was killed on Friday, Hamas officials said.

Militants and civilians, including at least seven children, have been among the Palestinians killed during the two-day Israeli bombardment, Hamas says.

On Friday, Israeli army spokesman Yoav Mordechai said: "Tonight won't be calm in Gaza."

Shortly after 03:30 (01:30GMT) the BBC's Paul Danahar tweeted: "Series of Israeli air strikes very close to our hotel in Gaza; had been quiet night until then."

Before the recent offensive, Israel had repeatedly carried out air strikes on Gaza, as Palestinian militants fired rockets across the border.

Two Israeli women and a man died when a rocket from Gaza hit a building in the southern town of Kiryat Malachi on Thursday, Israeli officials said.

On Friday, a rocket landed in Gush Etzion, south of Jerusalem. Haaretz newspaper said it was the first time since 1970 that a rocket had been fired at Jerusalem.

It is not clear whether the rocket was the same Iranian-built Fajr-5 launched towards Tel Aviv for the second day on Friday.

The Fajr-5 rockets have an estimated range of 75km (45 miles).

The Tel Aviv attack was the first time the city has come under attack since the 1991 Gulf War.

The missile appears to have done no harm, with police officials quoted variously as saying it had landed in the sea or in an unpopulated area.

Analysts say it is the first time Gaza militants have deployed such powerful missiles.

Israel says its assault on Gaza is aimed at knocking out rocket-firing facilities. A spokesman said on Friday it had destroyed Hamas's "nascent" unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) programme.

The Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) said that during the operation - codenamed Pillar of Defense - it had targeted "600 terror sites in Gaza, including underground rocket launchers & infrastructure".

It said 97 rockets fired from Gaza had hit Israel on Friday alone - 388 since Wednesday. Its radar defence system - Iron Dome - had intercepted 99 rockets.

On Friday evening Israel blocked access to three major routes leading into Gaza.

Rumours have been swirling that a ground attack is imminent, but Israeli officials have said no decision has yet been made.

Call-up papers have already been sent to 16,000 Israeli reservists, and officials have authorised the mobilisation of another 75,000.

The Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has accused Israel of carrying out "massacres".

Western leaders have appealed for both sides to stop the escalation in violence.

Britain and Germany both said Hamas bears the brunt of the blame and should stop firing rockets immediately.

But Egypt's President Mursi has called the Israeli raids "a blatant aggression against humanity" and promised that Egypt "will not leave Gaza on its own".

Ties between Hamas and Egypt have strengthened since Mr Mursi's election earlier this year.

Hamas was formed as an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, to which Mr Mursi belongs.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...e-east-20372920

Sigh.

Not this shit again.

It is incumbent upon both sides of the conflict to stop starting and continuing shit with each other. Peace will not come if Israel insists on reacting with disproportionate military measures; blockading Gaza, building huge walls, allowing extremist Jews to illegally settle Palestinian lands, nor will it come by any indiscriminate paramilitary action from Palestinian rebels/Hamas.

The sovereignty of both sides should be suspended and the wider international community must intervene in a big way, because clearly neither nation is capable of sorting it out on their own. Every Israeli counter-attack has but one effect on the Palestinian people - the fostering of future conflict by breeding hatred in the hearts of their young, thereby fueling Hamas' continued existence, which means more rockets, which means more Israeli military responses ad infinitum.

[Solkia]

http://israelfacts.tumblr.com/post/35884397656/israeli-bombing-cuts-off-palestinian-from-cnn

Saw this video on tumblr.

[Badnik Mechanic]

Not sure if this is the same thing. But in the last hour at least, Israel have just launched an air strike at Hamas HQ.

Looks like it's on.

[Patticus]

Not sure if this is the same thing. But in the last hour at least, Israel have just launched an air strike at Hamas HQ.

Of course it is (assuming you mean 'same conflict', as it isn't the same article). Thank you for posting it though... but damn, it really does look like shit's going to ratchet up significantly now, and with Hamas' progenitor group the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt, it could draw in big players from other neighboring states. Maybe. But I think that the ongoing Syrian Civil War is going to siphon off a significant amount of any potential this conflict has to spread beyond Gaza.

[Mr. Taxi]

This is one of the two situations in the world that I hate with an unwavering passion (the other one being the 53rd Parallel).

I simply can't stand this. Israel won't get any better. Since it's a multicultural country, home to all Jews, the religious aspect of its exstence will never fade - only increase. While I wouldn't mind this by itself, it becomes a disaster when is associated with the military and questions of national security. The main problem is that since religion is the only thing that justifies the existence of the State for its own citizens and the security of the State (or of the Zionist doctrine) is what brings people together in a common effort, we end up in a circular logic of "the search for security of the State justifies the search for security of the State". Basically, it's a country that exists solely in order to... exist. The violence is justified by the need of violence (that is only created by the violence itself).

I'm sorry, what I'll say now may be extremely controversial and I will remove the statement if the moderators ask me to do so, but the emotions really boil up when this situation is brought up and it gets the best of me, leaving me with nothing but the desire to say the following: Israel is a cancer.

Hypocrisy and strawmen dominate the discourse of the defenders of such a regime. Desperately trying to associate anti-Zionism with anti-semitism, claiming that "anti-Zionism allows the existence of the Jew as an individual, but not the existence of the Jews as people" is nothing but trying to avoid the main question - the queston of the nature of the State.

Saying Israel is a notorious trouble-maker is not the same as saying the Jewish are trouble-makers as people, but this point seems to be drawn in mist. Many countries could be cancers, existing just because - North Korea is one of them. Trying to hide the violence behind discourse is outrageous and I, as a human being, can't stand this. I seriously hate all of this.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

It's funny that I was just reading this off the Escapist yesterday...

[Blackthorne]

http://www.bbc.co.uk...e-east-20372920

Sigh.

Not this shit again.

It is incumbent upon both sides of the conflict to stop starting and continuing shit with each other. Peace will not come if Israel insists on reacting with disproportionate military measures; blockading Gaza, building huge walls, allowing extremist Jews to illegally settle Palestinian lands, nor will it come by any indiscriminate paramilitary action from Palestinian rebels/Hamas.

The sovereignty of both sides should be suspended and the wider international community must intervene in a big way, because clearly neither nation is capable of sorting it out on their own. Every Israeli counter-attack has but one effect on the Palestinian people - the fostering of future conflict by breeding hatred in the hearts of their young, thereby fueling Hamas' continued existence, which means more rockets, which means more Israeli military responses ad infinitum.

"Peace" between the Israelis and Palestinians won't happen until one side has bombed the other into submission. I don't give a shit which side is which, but unfortunately the United States government does, and once our military gets involved, say hello to World War III.

We never should've gotten involved in Middle Eastern affairs in the first place. Odds are good that playing Team America World Police for the last few decades is about to bite us right in the ass.

Edited November 17, 2012 by Blackthorne

[Badnik Mechanic]

Of course it is (assuming you mean 'same conflict', as it isn't the same article).

No I mean what you were reporting on.

I saw the earlier news story about the rockets that were fired into... one of the two places... then I just checked BBC a bit ago and saw that one.

[Stacy]

That region has more blood spilled all over it than a bloody slaughterhouse.

That whole area is a bloody powder keg it is considered the holy land of three different religions, Islam, Judaism and Christianity.

We won't see the end of this until everyone is dead.

Sorry but that is true.

[Patticus]

"Peace" between the Israelis and Palestinians won't happen until one side has bombed the other into submission. I don't give a shit which side is which, but unfortunately the United States government does, and once our military gets involved, say hello to World War III.

That's not going to happen, though - even Israelis don't want a holocaust on their hands. The ideologues and extremists might find the idea of a pure-ish Judeo-Christian state attractive, but even they know they'd be in deep shit if they tried that. So we have these periodic bouts of war instead.

We never should've gotten involved in Middle Eastern affairs in the first place. Odds are good that playing Team America World Police for the last few decades is about to bite us right in the ass.

Europe and Asia depend heavily on the oil that comes out of there. The region is a volatile place - Iraq under Saddam Hussein invaded Iran, then Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and now Iran is developing nuclear capabilities of some sort and hoping to be the new regional superpower, and Israel by its very presence is an antagonistic influence on everybody. Without any western intervention, Israel will eventually be wiped out, and you'll have regular regional wars between the other states there driving up the price of gas. It's in the interest of the EU and far east to maintain stability there.

[Candescence]

Well, it would be pretty damn difficult for the Islamic countries to actually beat Israel on the battlefield. They've tried ganging up on it multiple times, and got their asses handed to them every single time. The Six Day War is a spectacular example. It, along with Israel's peace with Egypt and Jordon, are also why there hasn't been a full-scale Middle East conflict involving Israel since 1973, Israel's military is too strong for even a multi-country alliance to beat. Nothing short of nuclear weapons will wipe out Israel, and everything would go to shit in the Middle East if anyone (especially Iran) dared to use nuclear weapons.

Israel and its activities are a complicated affair. I do believe that the state deserves to exist, problem is, many countries in the region don't like the fact that it exists for all the wrong reasons. While both Israel and Hamas should stop taking pot shots at each other, the fact that Hamas are deliberately killing innocent people pisses me off immensely.

Edited November 17, 2012 by Masaru Daimon

[Patticus]

Well, it would be pretty damn difficult for the Islamic countries to actually beat Israel on the battlefield. They've tried ganging up on it multiple times, and got their asses handed to them every single time. The Six Day War is a spectacular example. It, along with Israel's peace with Egypt and Jordon, are also why there hasn't been a full-scale Middle East conflict involving Israel since 1973, Israel's military is too strong for even a multi-country alliance to beat. Nothing short of nuclear weapons will wipe out Israel, and everything would go to shit in the Middle East if anyone (especially Iran) dared to use nuclear weapons.

My point is that without any western help - vast sums of American aid included - Israel would eventually be destroyed. Its very presence is antagonistic, without considering Mossad or its military actions, meaning it will always face threats from its neighbors, just like its neighbors threaten one another almost continually. Sooner or later one of those neighbors would get hold of a WMD and successfully deploy it, devastating Israel's ability to combat conventional threats, which would make a follow-up ground invasion quite likely.

It can only hold out for so long on its own, which is why the west has to funnel such vast sums of money, technology, expertise et al its way, so that it can effectively combat whatever its neighbors throw at it.

Israel and its activities are a complicated affair. I do believe that the state deserves to exist, problem is, many countries in the region don't like the fact that it exists for all the wrong reasons. While both Israel and Hamas should stop taking pot shots at each other, the fact that Hamas are deliberately killing innocent people pisses me off immensely.

Are you seriously going to ignore the innocent civilians killed in the Jabari assassination and subsequent airstrikes? They may not have been targeted on purpose, but once those innocent people are dead it hardly matters whether they were deliberately targeted or not, because they died anyway. Israel's hands are hardly clean of innocent blood.

[VO.SUPER]

This is why I like separation between church and state. Having a state so heavily embedded in the views of religion causes trouble in every way, with unnecessary conflict and bad blood relations.

[Candescence]

Without any western help - vast sums of American aid included - Israel would eventually be destroyed. Its very presence is antagonistic, meaning it will always face threats from its neighbors, just like its neighbors threaten one another almost continually. Sooner or later one of those neighbors would get hold of a WMD and deploy it, devastating Israel's ability to combat conventional threats, which would make a follow-up ground invasion by troops outfitted with biohazard suits quite likely and quite successful.

It can only hold out for so long on its own, which is why the US has to funnel vast sums of money, expertise et al its way, so that it can effectively combat whatever its neighbors throw at it with US-grade-or-better military technologies.

Key word here is eventually. One country can only hold out so long without support, but Israel has done extremely well by itself for a long time. Yes, without support, Israel could very well be overwhelmed. That being said, the outright use of such WMDs would likely incur the fury of the international community, hence why I said that if any Middle Eastern country dared to use one, the entire Middle East would be dropped right into a clusterfuck of massive proportions that would end badly for everyone in the region, and the destruction of Israel may very well be just not worth it as a result.

Are you seriously going to ignore the innocent civilians killed in the Jabari assassination and subsequent airstrikes?

Israel's hands are hardly clean of innocent blood either, and once those innocent people are dead it hardly matters whether they were deliberately targeted or not, because they died anyway.

No, I am not, by any means. Killing civilians in general is something I cannot condone. But I find it extremely difficult to put Hamas on the same level of blame or lower, especially when they are calling for the ethnic cleansing of Jews, which is, quite frankly, frighteningly reminiscent of what the Nazis did. When your stated intent is directly comparable to the activities of the Nazis...

Edited November 17, 2012 by Masaru Daimon

[Autosaver]

Apparently Egypt send a bomb to Israel and hit earlier today?

Oh no!

[Patticus]

Key word here is eventually. One country can only hold out so long without support, but Israel has done extremely well by itself for a long time. Yes, without support, Israel could very well be overwhelmed. That being said, the outright use of such WMDs would likely incur the fury of the international community, hence why I said that if any Middle Eastern country dared to use one, the entire Middle East would be dropped right into a clusterfuck of massive proportions that would end badly for everyone in the region, and the destruction of Israel may very well be just not worth it as a result.

That's why I used the caveat 'without any western help' - that is, if the west simply ignored them and let all hell break loose. But in that situation, I suppose Israel would probably just nuke everyone anyway...

No, I am not, by any means. Killing civilians in general is something I cannot condone. But I find it extremely difficult to put Hamas on the same level of blame or lower, especially when they are calling for the ethnic cleansing of Jews, which is, quite frankly, frighteningly reminiscent of what the Nazis did. When your stated intent is directly comparable to the activities of the Nazis...

Hamas: Kills civilians on purpose. Self-declared to be dedicated to ethnically cleansing the region - reminiscent of Rwanda, Bosnia et al - and must be stopped if it ever obtains the ability to carry out its aforesaid mission statement.

Israel: Kills civilians by accident (although I doubt it's something they lose sleep over). Its mantra is that any and all perceived threats will be destroyed, one way or another. The elimination of figures, materiel and locations important to the workings of Hamas' paramilitary organization is of paramount importance as long as it keeps attacking them.

No matter the intent or the ideologies fueling the violence on either side, be it genocidal fascism or perceived self defense, innocents still die; a dead person is still dead regardless of the intent behind it. This stores up resentment, hatred etc for the future, either directly or indirectly via the consequences (counter-attacks etc). This circle of violence will never be broken if we carry on entrusting them with fixing things.

That is why I don't believe that peace can be achieved without heavy-handed intervention by the outside world; the US, UK, Russia, China and most especially the Arab League.

Apparently Egypt send a bomb to Israel and hit earlier today?

Oh no!

Seriously? Got a source for that?

Edited November 17, 2012 by Patticus

[Mr. Taxi]

Well, it would be pretty damn difficult for the Islamic countries to actually beat Israel on the battlefield. They've tried ganging up on it multiple times, and got their asses handed to them every single time. The Six Day War is a spectacular example. It, along with Israel's peace with Egypt and Jordon, are also why there hasn't been a full-scale Middle East conflict involving Israel since 1973, Israel's military is too strong for even a multi-country alliance to beat. Nothing short of nuclear weapons will wipe out Israel, and everything would go to shit in the Middle East if anyone (especially Iran) dared to use nuclear weapons.

Israel and its activities are a complicated affair. I do believe that the state deserves to exist, problem is, many countries in the region don't like the fact that it exists for all the wrong reasons. While both Israel and Hamas should stop taking pot shots at each other, the fact that Hamas are deliberately killing innocent people pisses me off immensely.

I want you to put on your best straight face and say that this is a much more morally acceptable statement than those that come from Hamas.

No, I dare you.

I dare you to say inducing an entire population to squalor and poverty just to keep the country under stress isn't a war crime. I dare you to say condemning innocent people to a constant unrest on purpose doesn't go against anything any human being should stand for.

And I'll post it here in big block letters anyway, because I want to show you how astonishingly inhuman Israel can be.

Eli Yishai: "The goal of the operation is to send Gaza back to the Middle Ages."

This is why I like separation between church and state. Having a state so heavily embedded in the views of religion causes trouble in every way, with unnecessary conflict and bad blood relations.

Heh, it's not so much a matter of separation between church and state as it's a matter of separation between the State and basically any ideal. Any ideal can be used to do idiotic stuff (and make the State stronger). It rallies the people in a territory around a single goal, so it's effective. But anything can work. God (theocratic States), the Promised Land (Israel), the Self-Sufficiency (North Korea), the Revolution (most if not all Communist countries)... or the Freedom.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Otjanp9aXgw

Edited November 17, 2012 by Palas

[Johnny Boy]

Oh, look Isreal is in yet another Bloodshedding conflict. I really feel sorry for the people living over there sometimes.

[Tornado]

I want you to put on your best straight face and say that this is a much more morally acceptable statement than those that come from Hamas.

No, I dare you.

I dare you to say inducing an entire population to squalor and poverty just to keep the country under stress isn't a war crime. I dare you to say condemning innocent people to a constant unrest on purpose doesn't go against anything any human being should stand for.

I'm honestly not sure what this statement is actually being used to prove. That Isreal isn't always 100% in the right with everything that they do?

Because... if you'll forgive me for saying this... duh.

And no, by very nature of the overwhelming majority of Israel's actions being defensive in nature (albeit tenfold in response, as tends to be the case when ragtag groups start taking potshots at a state with a runaway military budget based around somewhat-justified paranoia), I don't equate statements made by their government as being on the same level as statements made by Hamas, or Hezbollah, or any other one of those groups.

Edited November 18, 2012 by Tornado

[Mr. Taxi]

I'm honestly not sure what this statement is actually being used to prove. That Isreal isn't always 100% in the right with everything that they do?

Because... if you'll forgive me for saying this... duh.

What an understatement. I see equal disregard for human life in both cases and being right or wrong is not what bothers me. The hypocrisy is what bothers me. When Iran goes "well yeah we don't recognize Israel or the Holocaust", people go "oh my God they are terrible people" - but when someone explicitly says he wants to reduce a territory to its minimal functions, then it's only "not being 100% right".

And no, by very nature of the overwhelming majority of Israel's actions being defensive in nature

I can't help but see the "defensive nature" only in name. It feels like something is missing when we see this very specific kind of offensive at this very specific time. Consider Israel's internal conditions. Doesn't it feel weird that this offensive response comes right before the anticipated elections, with the Parliament dissolved and amidst the growth of social unrest?

I hope so.

Israel can't live without a tangible enemy. The country has too many problems for itself - which, really, is absolutely normal. But the "somewhat-justified paranoia" is not a matter of course - it's a political instrument. Let's not forget that Hamas was elected by vote, which means Gaza as a whole must have gone under some serious stress to accept their far-off ideologies. And I'm fairly sure this was expected by Israel.

I don't equate statements made by their government as being on the same level as statements made by Hamas, or Hezbollah, or any other one of those groups.

You'll have to explain me how, even moreso when their actions speak for themselves.

Edited November 18, 2012 by Palas

[Shawshank Redemption]

Gaza is literally an open-air prison camp. The people can't get what they need to live and die from malnutrition and disease.

Hamas has power only because they give supplies to the people and fund building projects.

If Israel just stopped the occupation of the Palestinians' land and allowed the two state solution to happen, then the bloodshed would stop.

And considering how we in the west literally riot because our fucking sports teams win or lose a meaningless championship, I don't think I can condemn anyone for fighting back against their powerful captors.

Edited November 18, 2012 by Ball Hog Badnik

[Tornado]

What an understatement. I see equal disregard for human life in both cases and being right or wrong is not what bothers me. The hypocrisy is what bothers me. When Iran goes "well yeah we don't recognize Israel or the Holocaust", people go "oh my God they are terrible people" - but when someone explicitly says he wants to reduce a territory to its minimal functions, then it's only "not being 100% right".

Pretty much, yeah. It isn't his job to look out for the welfare of the people who "elected" a "government" who keep shooting guns at his people simply for being there. And Israel already tries a lot harder in that regard than Hamas does.

I can't help but see the "defensive nature" only in name. It feels like something is missing when we see this very specific kind of offensive at this very specific time. Consider Israel's internal conditions. Doesn't it feel weird that this offensive response comes right before the anticipated elections, with the Parliament dissolved and amidst the growth of social unrest?

I don't think so.

No, it doesn't feel weird that Israel started shooting back at Hamas right before an election. Unless you are going so far as to assume that Israel pulled a false flag, shooting the artillery at themselves to rally up support for the election, why shouldn't the Israeli government choose the time where it would benefit them the most to retaliate to attacks when they were going to anyway?

Israel can't live without a tangible enemy. The country has too many problems for itself - which, really, is absolutely normal. But the "somewhat-justified paranoia" is not a matter of course - it's a political instrument. Let's not forget that Hamas was elected by vote, which means Gaza as a whole must have gone under some serious stress to accept their far-off ideologies. And I'm fairly sure this was expected by Israel.

Hamas was given a plurality of the vote, then purged everyone else through a civil war. That's why pretty much the only countries who actually recognize the current Palistinian government are other Middle Eastern countries and Russia.

You're kinda making it obvious that you're not bothering to look at this beyond "what has Israel done that's bad."

You'll have to explain me how, even moreso when their actions speak for themselves.

And what are those actions, prey tell? Some words by one of the government higher ups (and I'm sure if you look you'll find similar statements from someone important in every government from every war)? Retaliating with the full might of their military against threats inconsequential in comparison? Blockading a section of land that is currently run by a government that put itself in place after a civil war? Considering Hamas and Israel have been basically at war since Hamas assumed control of the government, is Israel supposed to pull their punches just because Hamas can't match them blow for blow?

Gaza is literally an open-air prison camp. The people can't get what they need to live and die from malnutrition and disease.

Hamas has power only because they give supplies to the people and fund building projects.

Someone's got the cause/effect backwards.

If Israel just stopped the occupation of the Palestinians' land and allowed the two state solution to happen, then the bloodshed would stop.

Because, again, Israel is totally, 100% at fault for this. It's not like Hamas is a faction so extremist that they refused to recognize their own government because they talked with Israel or something like that.

Edited November 18, 2012 by Tornado

[Mr. Taxi]

Pretty much, yeah. It isn't his job to look out for the welfare of the people who "elected" a "government" who keep shooting guns at his people simply for being there.

You speak as if those guns weren't already being shot because of Israel. Hamas isn't "just there", an evil entity sent by whoever to do evil deeds. It's a product of the situation. If they are right in what they believe and how they act? Of course not. But they aren't any worse than Israel.

No, it doesn't feel weird that Israel started shooting back at Hamas right before an election. Unless you are going so far as to assume that Israel pulled a false flag, shooting the artillery at themselves to rally up support for the election, why shouldn't the Israeli government choose the time where it would benefit them the most to retaliate to attacks when they were going to anyway?

Maybe because Palestinians aren't fucking cattle that you kill when the market is low on meat? If the Israeli government is calculating these moves as if breeding a problem to control at the right times, then Gaza isn't anything but a ghetto. And there is no raison d'état that will make me believe it's "fair game", because it's innocent lives we're talking about here - not only in their deaths, but also in how they live.

Hamas was given a plurality of the vote, then purged everyone else through a civil war. That's why the only countries who actually recognize the current Palistinian government is other Middle Eastern countries and Russia.

You're kinda making it obvious that you're not bothering to look at this beyond "what has Israel done that's bad."

Of course I'm not. Because I can't see anything that Hamas has done - and also, they aren't recognized because they already were considered a terrorist group before these elections, so much so that it caused a commotion that they should be elected in the first place - beyond the scope of a visceral reaction that Israel has been brewing over the past decades to bring its people together or, at least, shut their mouth.

And what are those actions, prey tell? Some words by one of the government higher ups (and I'm sure if you look you'll find similar statements from someone important in every government from every war)? Retaliating with the full might of their military against threats inconsequential in comparison? Blockading a section of land that is currently run by a government that put itself in place after a civil war? Considering Hamas and Israel have been basically at war since Hamas assumed control of the government, is Israel supposed to pull their punches just because Hamas can't match them blow for blow?

I wonder. Have you forgotten already? And have you forgotten that dreaded episode in which they invaded a ship with humanitary aid and killed people in the process?

If they are supposed to pull their punches? Theoretically? Maybe. Under the international law? Most definitely. Besides, it ticks me off that they are going for an actual invasion when they've shown that they can kill the leaders of the evil government remotely... and have already done so. Like, yesterday or something.

Because, again, Israel is totally, 100% at fault for this.

Israel isn't "at fault", because it's the only way they can survive. The creation of a free Palestinian state would indeed endanger Israel, but from the inside.

Edited November 18, 2012 by Palas

[Shawshank Redemption]

The creation of a free Palestinian state would indeed endanger Israel, but from the inside.

Yeah, because then all the non-Hebrew people living in Israel would become emboldened enough to demand full citizenship and representation under a true democratic government.

Not the current theocratic police state propped up by the U.S.A.

Edited November 18, 2012 by Ball Hog Badnik

[Tornado]

You speak as if those guns weren't already being shot because of Israel. Hamas isn't "just there", an evil entity sent by whoever to do evil deeds. It's a product of the situation. If they are right in what they believe and how they act? Of course not. But they aren't any worse than Israel.

Yes they are. It's a product of false entitlement. Hamas doesn't want Israel there at all. They don't want the two-state system. They don't want to work it out. They don't want to share the land, or restore borders to former locations, or any of that. They don't want Israel to exist, period. You'll find that Israel had been working with the former Fateh government when it was still in power (and still are trying to work with what is left of it), and didn't start the blockade until after Hamas came to power and tore the Palestinian government to pieces in the process.

Neither country is entitled to all of that land. Israel does de facto control much more of it than they were originally given (almost entirely because of area gained while defending themselves when other countries came knocking), but also gives in whenever international pressure mounts against them. Palestine, meanwhile, keeps up this wonderful game of acting like they are entitled to all of it for reasoning several thousand years out of relevance; and even "elected" a "government" purely on that basis 6 years ago. So, yeah. They both do some really shitty things, but Hamas is worse than Israel.

If the Israeli government is calculating these moves as if breeding a problem to control at the right times, then Gaza isn't anything but a ghetto. And there is no raison d'état that will make me believe it's "fair game", because it's innocent lives we're talking about here - not only in their deaths, but also in how they live.

You mean those innocent lives that are only lost because Hamas likes to hide behind them while firing rockets at Israeli citizens, meaning Israel can't retaliate without collateral damage? Because I'm assuming Hamas leaves that part out when they use what Israel does to drum up support.

Or those innocent lives that are so shitty because Hamas was put in power in the first place, allowing Hamas a huge chance to capitalize on that by being the ones who can provide food and shelter that the people only lost because Hamas was there? I'm guessing they probably gloss over that as well

But of course, it's wrong when Israel uses the war to garner support, but alright when Hamas uses the war to garner support.

Of course I'm not. Because I can't see anything that Hamas has done - and also, they aren't recognized because they already were considered a terrorist group before these elections, so much so that it caused a commotion that they should be elected in the first place - beyond the scope of a visceral reaction that Israel has been brewing over the past decades to bring its people together or, at least, shut their mouth.

1. Hamas is elected on an "Eat shit and die Israel" campaign basically because that is their entire schtick, then civil war happens and they come out as basically being all that's left of the (now unrecognized) government.
   
   
2. Israel throws up a massive blockade in an attempt to force Hamas to stop the whole "Eat shit and die Israel" thing since they are a directly antagonistic "country" that Israel shares a border with. The blockade is done under legitimate pretexts insofar as it was never challenged on an international level (which is basically all that needs to be done to make it illegitimate) despite being in place for 6 years and one international incident (which I'll get to in a second, because I knew it was going to come up). They even get the help of Egypt to enforce it.
   
   
3. Hamas responds by shooting at civilian targets in Israel and hiding behind their own civilian targets.
   
   
4. Israel responds by trying to shoot back at military targets, with admittedly large collateral damage because they are extremely trigger happy and because Hamas likes to make military targets the same as civilian targets for the obvious purpose of building resentment towards Israel.
   

And then 3 and 4 get repeated ad nausuem because Hamas has the resolve to attack just as much as Israel has the capability to counter attack.

Now, for sure, Israel probably shouldn't respond so forcefully every single time, but "I can't see anything that Hamas has done" is a complete load.

I wonder. Have you forgotten already? And have you forgotten that dreaded episode in which they invaded a ship with humanitary aid and killed people in the process?

If they are supposed to pull their punches? Theoretically? Maybe. Under the international law? Most definitely.

I haven't forgotten that. that I only sort of got involved in. I just knew from day one that it wasn't anywhere near the lovingly cut and dried situation you (and you are hardly the first, so don't feel like I'm taking this out on you exclusively) are trying to present it as. One humanitarian aid ship ran the aforementioned military blockade and would have continued on towards Israeli territorial waters and the Gaza Strip, which is not only a potential direct threat to Israel but would completely null the point of the blockade. Israeli commandos boarded the ship after they forced it to stop to figure out why they ran the blockade when the other ships in that flotilla did not. They were attacked by the people on board (at which point humanitarian aid law ceases to apply, irrelevant of whether the ship was carrying munitions as Israel claimed), and then defended themselves. That is where the UN report and the Israel port start to divert, with the UN report saying that Israel just starting executing people after the situation came under control and Israel saying that they did not.

It was not an "invasion." It was not an "assault." It was a boarding that went wrong when Israel tried to force the ship to turn back, with just how wrong it went being the main point of contention between the UN and Israel. And yes, the distinction in terms very much does matter. If the intent was to just attack the boat, they would have just sunk it.

But by all means continue to act as if Israel swaggered into that situation with their dicks in one hand and rockets in the other from the start looking for an international incident.

Besides, it ticks me off that they are going for an actual invasion when they've shown that they can kill the leaders of the evil government remotely... and have already done so. Like, yesterday or something.

This is so obviously "damned if you do, damned if you don't" that I'm surprised as hell that you are presenting it as an actual talking point. What would be the point? So you can condemn them for that instead?

Yes, they have shown that they can kill leaders of government remotely, but the international backlash was so strong against the mere thought that they had resorted to doing that that they've instead reverted to going through the motions:

Israel will tell Palestine to stop the rockets

Palestine will tell Israel to stop the bombing

Neither will do so

Israel will launch military incursions into Palestine

Israel will then withdraw having given Hamas a bloody nose

UN inquiry into the situation

5-6 months of relative stability.

Rinse, wash, repeat.

Israel isn't "at fault", because it's the only way they can survive. The creation of a free Palestinian state would indeed endanger Israel, but from the inside.

Which is obviously why they've expended so much effort working with pretty much everyone in Palestine who isn't part of Hamas.

Edited November 18, 2012 by Tornado