Hamas & Israel Cease-Fire. Hamas Violates cease-fire.

[Fiona]

Its going to take x per cent of the UK and no one is proposing to let England, Wales and NI vote in any referendum.

I am a bit confused by that. What do you think UK stands for ?

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

I don't look at human lives in numbers. Not on the Israeli side and not on the Palestinian.
The military operation was a must in Israel's view in order to stop the almost 3000 rockets/mortars a year shot on southern Israeli civilians by the terrorists. There is no possible way of fighting gureilla terrorists hiding in civilian population, firing from within crowds of people and hiding their arsenals in civilian families' kitchens, without civilians getting hurt. It's a great tragedy that Palestinian civilians get hurt but we must remember that it's a situation in which the Hamas is forcing on its own people. The Hamas don't regard their people's lives, not Israel. The Hamas are shooting from schools, children's rooms, mosques etc.
There have been plenty of evidence that Israel is doing all it can to avoid hurting innocent Palestinian lives. And again, almost 3000 rockets/mortars are fired at Israeli civilians a year. I can't imagine a government in the world that would not do something similar to what Israel had done.

I must disagree with your assessment: First, I find it curious that you refuse to look at the numbers of (potentially) lost human lives, yet at the same time find numbers of rockets extremely important – in fact, it seems, more important. Let's not forget that no Israeli lives were lost due to them immediately prior to the invasion. But since we're in the business of counting rocket fire, then, according to Human Rights Watch, for example, during 2006 Israeli forces fired around 14 000 artillery shells into Gaza (killing 59 Palestinians; almost all civilians).

Second, and more importantly, it was not an absolute necessity to pulverize much of Gaza because there was a cease-fire agreement between Israel and Hamas which seemed to work reasonably well. It wasn't perfect, but it did reduce mortar fire significantly. I'm sure you know the statistics already, but here it is anyhow (LINK). What even further seems to go against the notion of absolute necessity to strike Gaza can be found in this intelligence report by IICC (Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Israel Intelligence Heritage & Commemoration Center).What is most striking in the report, in my opinion, is the following statement (emphasis mine):

A period of relative quiet between June 19 and November 4: As of June 19, there was a marked reduction in the extent of attacks on the western Negev population. The lull was sporadically violated by rocket and mortar shell fire, carried out by rogue terrorist organizations, in some instance in defiance of Hamas (especially by Fatah and Al-Qaeda supporters). Hamas was careful to maintain the ceasefire. The IDF refrained from undertaking counterterrorism activities in the Gaza Strip, taking only routine defensive security measures along the border fence. Between June 19 and November 4, 20 rockets(three of which fell inside the Gaza Strip) and 18 mortar shells (five of which fell inside the Gaza Strip) were fired at Israel.

Hence, I don't think it was an absolute necessity to go to all-out war, nor do I think there was reason for urgency. The so called "urgency" came after the killing of six Hamas operatives (November 4) which instigated retaliation and lifting of Hamas restraint in regards to rocket fire. At the very least, a continuation of the cease-fire could have been quite possible.

 

[gtc]

I am a bit confused by that. What do you think UK stands for ?

The United Kingdom. Why is that relevant?

You are claiming that Israel's right to exist depends on a UN resolution. That is simply wrong. I was trying to get you to see that it is wrong by pointing out that Scotland's right to exist as an indpendent nation wouldn't rest on a UN resolution but on its ability to secure and maintain its independence.

You bringing up Denmark is simply a red herring. There was an area which was not a country that was split into two (ignoring Jordan and the rest). Israel stole parts of another country in the same way Scotland would steal parts of the UK.

 

[Skeptic]

You are claiming that Israel's right to exist depends on a UN resolution. That is simply wrong.

Not only wrong, but a total double standard. There are literally dozens of nations the UN recognized after it recognized Israel, and in most of those cases the new nations incorporated parts of previous nations (or territories) that were there before.

And yet it is ONLY Israel which Fiona thinks its right to exist depends on the UN, and ONLY Israel which Fiona considers "stolen" land.

To say Israel's right to exist (and ONLY Israel's, not that of any other state) depends on the UN's good will because it is on "stolen land" is simply to say Israel has no right to exist and should be dismantled so that the "stolen" land be returned to its "rightful owners".

That is to say, Fiona's view is the same as Hamas' and the PLO's. At most, she disagrees with what they are morally allowed to do to recover this "stolen land" -- a disagreement about means, not about ends.

 

[gdnp]

It really doesn't matter. Hamas is the government of Gaza, they have a responsibility to stop other groups also. And Islamic Jihad is closely allied with Hamas.

LOL. You've really topped yourself this time.

Israel destroys all they can of the Hamas military, kills hundreds of Hamas police (remember the attacks on the first day at a police graduation?), destroys government buildings including police stations and prisons, kills many of the Hamas leaders, and destroys all they can of the Hamas command and control structure, and then you complain that Hamas is not arresting cease-fire violators because "they are in charge".

I don't look at human lives in numbers. Not on the Israeli side and not on the Palestinian.
The military operation was a must in Israel's view in order to stop the almost 3000 rockets/mortars a year shot on southern Israeli civilians by the terrorists.

If the military operations were "a must", why did they cease without the rocket/mortar fire ceasing? Last I heard, the Israeli supporters were claiming that 7 rockets in a month were too many. Israel left when Hamas and their supporters were still firing more than that many per day, yet they claim their objectives were met. That sounds to me like they had some objective other than eliminating rocket fire.

Not only wrong, but a total double standard. There are literally dozens of nations the UN recognized after it recognized Israel, and in most of those cases the new nations incorporated parts of previous nations (or territories) that were there before.

could you list some of these "dozens of nations?" How many of these other nations were created through a UN resolution? Kosovo comes to mind. Eritrea? The guiding principle here seems to be self-determination of the population, with independence won through a civil war. Not quite an analogous situation with Israel-Palestine.

And yet it is ONLY Israel which Fiona thinks its right to exist depends on the UN, and ONLY Israel which Fiona considers "stolen" land.

To say Israel's right to exist (and ONLY Israel's, not that of any other state) depends on the UN's good will because it is on "stolen land" is simply to say Israel has no right to exist and should be dismantled so that the "stolen" land be returned to its "rightful owners".

That is to say, Fiona's view is the same as Hamas' and the PLO's. At most, she disagrees with what they are morally allowed to do to recover this "stolen land" -- a disagreement about means, not about ends.

Looks like a big straw man to me. Israel's right to exist does not come from the UN because Israel is on stolen land, Israel's right to exist comes from the UN, or it is on stolen land. There are two ways to establish a state: through internationally recognized treaties, or through the force of arms--often recognized after the fact. Therefore I see nothing wrong with Fiona's argument that if you wish to reject the legitimacy of UN resolutions, then the resolution that created Israel is similarly illegitimate, and Israel only exists based on the force of arms.

As to the land being stolen, there can be two justifications for this claim:

#1, that the formation of the state of Israel is illegitimate because the UN had no right to grant this land to "invaders", or
#2, that the state of Israel is legitimate, as the UN did have this right, but on this basis Israel is only legitimate within the UN-defined borders, and the additional territory occupied by Israel through military conquest is "stolen".

You seem to be arguing that Fiona is supporting option #1, as you say that she advocates dismantling the state of Israel and returning it to its rightful owners. I think it much more likely that she, like most of us here, advocate option 2: Israel returning to earlier borders. As I said, you can establish a state through internationally recognized treaties or the force of arms. Do not be surprised, however, if after choosing the second option that others dispute the legitimacy of your claim. The US, for example, never recognized the Soviet Union's annexation of the Baltic states, and when the USSR broke up they again became fully independent.

 

[yairhol]

Israel destroys all they can of the Hamas military, kills hundreds of Hamas police (remember the attacks on the first day at a police graduation?), destroys government buildings including police stations and prisons, kills many of the Hamas leaders, and destroys all they can of the Hamas command and control structure, and then you complain that Hamas is not arresting cease-fire violators because "they are in charge".

I've read gdnp's post and found myself doing this face unvoluntarily.
Hamas was elected on January 2006 to lead the PA. It was not elected at the time of the Gaza war. It was in 2006. Are you reading this gdnp? 2006. Since then Hamas has practiced suicide bombings against Israel, rocket/mortar attacks on Israeli civilians, smuggling of weapons into Gaza, using Palestinian civilians as human shields, not stopping other terroristic organizations within Gaza who fire at Israel etc. Then comes along gdnp and says that in December 2008 Israel destroyed much of the Hamas's abilities to rule Gaza so how can Israel expect it to stop cease-fire violators within Gaza.
U n b e l i e v a b l e . . . . . .

 

[yairhol]

If the military operations were "a must", why did they cease without the rocket/mortar fire ceasing? Last I heard, the Israeli supporters were claiming that 7 rockets in a month were too many. Israel left when Hamas and their supporters were still firing more than that many per day, yet they claim their objectives were met.

Probably because it is impossible to stop all rocket/mortar firings on Israel without wiping out every building in Gaza. Guerilla fighters are close to impossible to totally stop. What can be done is minimize their rocket attacks, destroy most of their infrastructure, and bring back IDF's deterrence. One of the main Israeli objectives was to show the Hamas that future attacks on Israel will be met with strong military response.

That sounds to me like they had some objective other than eliminating rocket fire.

From your posts I'm getting the hunch that what's sounding to you does not necessarily go hand in hand with reality.

 

[yairhol]

I must disagree with your assessment: First, I find it curious that you refuse to look at the numbers of (potentially) lost human lives, yet at the same time find numbers of rockets extremely important – in fact, it seems, more important.

I'll explain with an exampe.
You and your family live together in a couple of houses wherever you live. Each week 12 rockets are fired at you. The aim of the rockets is pretty bad but over time some rockets do hit their targets (hence the importance of the number of rockets). Your uncle's house is completely destroyed. Your sister who lives a couple of blocks from you gets her car and back yard blown up. You're afraid (justifiably) to send your children to school. You're afraid to be in the open for more than a couple of hours at a time. You live with the sound of sirens on an almost daily basis. You sometimes sleep in shelters because rockets are landing around you. Life is a living hell for you. Now I ask you, does it matter if someone got killed or not? Can you live like this over time or would you kick the living crap out of those who are firing at you?
Oh but I forgot, since those that are firing at you are terrorists and are living among civilians, the world jumps to its feet whenever you make a move to stop the firings and accuse you of committing war crimes.

Let's not forget that no Israeli lives were lost due to them immediately prior to the invasion.

This sentence is factually not true.

But since we're in the business of counting rocket fire, then, according to Human Rights Watch, for example, during 2006 Israeli forces fired around 14 000 artillery shells into Gaza (killing 59 Palestinians; almost all civilians).

Yep, as I said above, the world jumps to its feet whenever you make a move to stop the firings and accuse you of committing war crimes.

 

[Allen773]

The fact that Hamas is in power shows how poor Israel's tactics have been.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

yairhol, what about my second point (which I think is more important in this context)?

 

[yairhol]

Second, and more importantly, it was not an absolute necessity to pulverize much of Gaza because there was a cease-fire agreement between Israel and Hamas which seemed to work reasonably well. It wasn't perfect, but it did reduce mortar fire significantly.

1. You agree that the Hamas kept firing rockets during the cease-fire? Actually it's a fact so there's no disagreeing. They fired at least 37 rockets and mortars at Israel during the said time (june 18th to November 4th). Remember my analogy from above about your family being fired at constantly. Now we have almost 10 rockets/mortars a month. In my analogy I gave an example of 12. Pretty close. Would you live with 10 rockets/mortars a month on your house?

From the quote you gave:

Hamas was careful to maintain the ceasefire. The IDF refrained from undertaking counterterrorism activities in the Gaza Strip, taking only routine defensive security measures along the border fence. Between June 19 and November 4, 20 rockets(three of which fell inside the Gaza Strip) and 18 mortar shells (five of which fell inside the Gaza Strip) were fired at Israel.

To me that doesn't seem like 'carefully maintaining the cease-fire'.

2. Remember that all of this is happening after more than 7,600 rockets and mortars are fired at Israel (remember my analogy about your family) from 2001 to November 2008. 7,600.....can you grasp this number?
Israel decided to take its fate into its own hands and put an end to this. So far it is quiet. I don't know how long it will take until the next rocket is fired but so far so good.

At the very least, a continuation of the cease-fire could have been quite possible.

What cease-fire? 37 rockets is not a cease-fire.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

You agree that the Hamas kept firing rockets during the cease-fire? Actually it's a fact so there's no disagreeing.

Just to be specific (also from the report; a line which you left out):"The lull was sporadically violated by rocket and mortar shell fire, carried out by rogue terrorist organizations, in some instance in defiance of Hamas (especially by Fatah and Al-Qaeda supporters). "

Now, we know that Hamas arrested some of them. What I'm not aware of is how many of those rocket fires during the lull was actually attributed to Hamas, and not by what the report says as 'rouge' elements (Fatah and Al-Quada)? Do you have actual data on them to confirm they were attributed to Hamas?

 

[Skeptic]

Of course, Hamas and PLO could have foiled Israel's evil plans to use them "as an excuse to destroy Palestine" by, for startrs, not starting a terror war against Israeli civlians by rockets, suicide bombers, and so on.

But THAT, of course, is totally out of the question.

 

[funk de fino]

Israel stole parts of another country in the same way Scotland would steal parts of the UK.

No, no and thrice no. Scotland would be stealing nothing.

 

[Skeptic]

Neither would be Israel.

 

[yairhol]

Now, we know that Hamas arrested some of them. What I'm not aware of is how many of those rocket fires during the lull was actually attributed to Hamas, and not by what the report says as 'rouge' elements (Fatah and Al-Quada)? Do you have actual data on them to confirm they were attributed to Hamas?

Does it really matter if those people were from Hamas or from another terrorist group?
Hamas were elected to be in charge of Gaza. If they can't stop the rocket attacks then what right do they have in signing a cease-fire with Israel?

On a side note: I haven't checked if there is a report somewhere that those were/were not Hamas people or if Hamas knew about the shootings and did nothing to stop them, or not did enough to stop them etc. It just doesn't matter.

As another analogy, if an Israeli right-winged mad organization fired tens of rockets over several months at Gaza would Hamas care if the firings were actually done by the IDF or someone else? They would shoot rockets back at Israel without even blinking.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Neither would be Israel.

Yeah, it would.

Israel, whom I generally support, just so it can be noted, took the land of the British Palestinian Mandate which the British promised to both sides, Palestinians and Zionists. At this point, Britain decides that mass Jewish immigration to the area from Europe is to be discouraged and so decide to set up, as was their right as owners of the mandate a Palestinian state.

The Zionists of course were, understandably, not pleased and decided that they WOULD have a state. So come terror actions from the Zionists in the area and bombings of civilian areas. The Palestinians are, in response to this, and the reaction of the British to it, rioting and causing no end of trouble themselves, so the UN decides that the Brits, instead of being duplicitous barstools, were originally on the right track and create plans for a two state area. Neither side are too happy about it but provisionally agree (although the level of agreement isn't exactly high).


Given that this state of Israel was created after the British promised that the mandate would be handed over to the Palestinians, it can be said that it WAS stolen from Palestine.

That doesn't mean that the British ignoring the Peel Commission were doing anywhere near the right thing, of course, and it doesn't make them any less to blame, but yes, Israel WAS placed on "stolen" land.

That however, doesn't affect it's right to exist today, in my eyes, given the rather sneaky and backstabbing (and very questionable for other reasons) actions of the British.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

Does it really matter if those people were from Hamas or from another terrorist group?
Hamas were elected to be in charge of Gaza. If they can't stop the rocket attacks then what right do they have in signing a cease-fire with Israel?

I think it does matter. Even though Hamas didn't manage to completely stop rocket fire, the significant reduction of them was officially recognized by the Israelis (it was also recognized that Hamas tried to stick to it). Thus, it seems that a continuation of a policy in that direction wasn't out of the question, especially since a massive retaliation would obviously result in deaths of civilians on a massive scale. One policy option would have been to encourage further reduction of rocket fire (stronger promises of easing the blockade if all rocket fire would stop). I don't see how such a policy approach would have been completely out of the question when the trend was clear and mutually recognized – although not perfect by all means.

As another analogy, if an Israeli right-winged mad organization fired tens of rockets over several months at Gaza would Hamas care if the firings were actually done by the IDF or someone else? They would shoot rockets back at Israel without even blinking.

It's most certainly valuable to know who's actually shooting at you, wouldn't you say. Especially in a situation where there has been a period of intense rocket fire, followed by a significant reduction due to a mutual agreement. Why endanger the agreement rather than continue to see if the agreement could be bettered first?

The cynic in me does not think the reason for Israels actions was due to the reason you have portrayed (although certainly one factor, albeit not necessarily the strongest casus belli). I don't think the policy option makes sense if we only keep to the particular facts we have discussed here.

 

[yairhol]

lupus in fabula, I think you're forgetting that Hamas wants the destruction of Israel. It is not a civil government in a state bordering with Israel. It is a terroristic organization sworn that they will never stop fighting until Israel is destroyed.
Having a short cease-fire with Hamas while they keep smuggling masive amounts of weapons/rockets/mortars into Gaza for use in their next assault on Israel is probably seen very harshly by the Israeli government. That + 7,500 rockets over 8 years + Hamas constant verbal attacks on Israel + rockets fired during cease-fire +++ Gilad Shalit, the Israeli kidnapped soldier which I'm ashamed to say I somewhat forgot about in this whole discussion is what led Israel finally to this operation.
Again I will say, I do not think that any other country in the world would have acted differently than Israel.

 

[The Fool]

Of course, Hamas and PLO could have foiled Israel's evil plans to use them "as an excuse to destroy Palestine" by, for startrs, not starting a terror war against Israeli civlians by rockets, suicide bombers, and so on.

But THAT, of course, is totally out of the question.

This is an interesting claim....that the current situation is down to palestinian aggression alone. This raises the question that if you believe that, what do you believe would be the current situation if all palestinians had been completely compliant? The only situation that seems to lead to is that the borders of Israel would now be the original two little pieces of the UN allotment. Jerusalem an open international city and Tel-aviv the capital of Israel.

Does that sound like something you would have been agreeable to? Have to scrap that thing about an undivided Jerusalem being the eternal capital of Israel.....drop that one eh?