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

[a_unique_person]

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.

Gideon Levy has an interesting point of view.

http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1057670.html

Israel's actions have dealt a serious blow to public support for the state. While this does not always translate itself into an immediate diplomatic situation, the shockwaves will arrive one day. The whole world saw the images. They shocked every human being who saw them, even if they left most Israelis cold.

The conclusion is that Israel is a violent and dangerous country, devoid of all restraints and blatantly ignoring the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council, while not giving a hoot about international law. The investigations are on their way.

Graver still is the damage this will visit upon our moral spine. It will come from difficult questions about what the IDF did in Gaza, which will occur despite the blurring effect of recruited media.

So what was achieved, after all? As a war waged to satisfy considerations of internal politics, the operation has succeeded beyond all expectations. Likud Chair Benjamin Netanyahu is getting stronger in the polls. And why? Because we could not get enough of the war.

Gilad? Propaganda. Their chances of finding one man in Gaza were about nil.

As for the weapons smuggling, where were these weapons. If Hamas had smuggled in half what has been claimed, aircraft would have been shot down and tanks destroyed. Hamas has only got a rag tag bunch of fanatics who are powerless in war against a modern army. They can only cause a relatively small amount of harm, despite the bravado. As Olmert said, the main game is the demographics. He has already dismissed any real threat from Hamas. Even if they did magically aquire a moder army with billions of dollars worth of equipment, training and support, Isreal has nukes. MAD.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

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.

I don't disregard the points you're making in general – you do have good points. However, I don't agree that those are the primary factors that unleashed Israels fury at the particular time it happened. That's not how smart government operates in such a perverse situation given only those variables. People can fault the Israeli government for many things, but stupidity is not one of them.

I'm also confused by what you're saying because on the one hand you seem to disregard the progress made during the lull as it didn't matter at all, and on the other hand you don't really think the reduction and vague possibility of stoppage altogether would have made any difference anyhow, due to the nature of Hamas as a terrorist organization and its potential actions. Am I understanding you correctly?

If the media concentration would have been as intense as during the first week of the actual attack (i.e., all eyes would have been on Gaza), do you think IDF would have engaged in the operation against the six Hamas operatives on November 4th? If the rationale was so obvious, why bother with the particular provocation against Hamas first?

Now, in retrospect, was the invasion successful? Did it achieve the goals Israel had in mind, or will it result in a continuation of the same anyway? If the goal was to stop rocket fire altogether and destroy Hamas while they're at it, it's doubtful that it worked. If, on the other hand, the rationale was to restore deterrence capacity in the region, it probably had some success. The cynic in me says it's the latter that was the primary driving force all along, if not, they would have waited. The timing was pretty convenient (upcoming internal elections and interregnum in the US), but extremely inconvenient if we are to solely consider the reasons you have presented.

 

[yairhol]

Now, in retrospect, was the invasion successful? Did it achieve the goals Israel had in mind, or will it result in a continuation of the same anyway? If the goal was to stop rocket fire altogether and destroy Hamas while they're at it, it's doubtful that it worked. If, on the other hand, the rationale was to restore deterrence capacity in the region, it probably had some success. The cynic in me says it's the latter that was the primary driving force all along, if not, they would have waited. The timing was pretty convenient (upcoming internal elections and interregnum in the US), but extremely inconvenient if we are to solely consider the reasons you have presented.

I answered that before.
bolding and red text added now for clarity.

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 (successful), destroy most of their infrastructure (successful), and bring back IDF's deterrence (successful). One of the main Israeli objectives was to show the Hamas that future attacks on Israel will be met with strong military response (In other words, deterrence).

 

[yairhol]

I'm also confused by what you're saying because on the one hand you seem to disregard the progress made during the lull as it didn't matter at all, and on the other hand you don't really think the reduction and vague possibility of stoppage altogether would have made any difference anyhow, due to the nature of Hamas as a terrorist organization and its potential actions. Am I understanding you correctly?

Those are two points which support each other.
I am against making deals with terrorists who call for my destruction and educate their children to become shahids. They are raising a new generation of fanatics who will one day be willing to blow themselves up inside an Israeli mall and kill civilians.
What do I have to talk with these people?
The ONLY reason they were willing to lower the number of rockets fired at Israel during the so called cease-fire was in order to get some quiet in the area for rearming themselves towards the next fight.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

minimize their rocket attacks (successful)

Doubtful about that. It could also settle for approximately the same level as during the lull. That remains to be seen, of course.

destroy most of their infrastructure (successful)

Yes. Although also lessening the control over "rouge" elements firing rockets at the same time.

bring back IDF's deterrence (successful)

Agreed. Although it could also increase the incentive for Israels neighbors to invest in more military power. Frankly, I don't think Israel can politically afford a new attack even if rocket fire were to continue.

 

[yairhol]

minimize their rocket attacks (successful)

Doubtful about that.

So far no sirens for the last couple of days.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

So far no sirens for the last couple of days.

Don't forget the current two unilateral cease-fires (although IDF seems to have shelled Gaza from the sea today).

 

[webfusion]

"...although IDF seems to have shelled Gaza from the sea today"

Israeli Navy is not shelling Gaza. They are firing across the bows of vessels at sea. These shots are ending up on shore somehow, and I am sure that the IDF will issue orders to those sailors to be more careful when they fire 'warning rounds' and make sure they don't end up landing on the beach.


Also --- a_u_p asks:
"As for the weapons smuggling, where were these weapons?"

• Israel Air Force aircraft struck a mosque in Jabaliya late Thursday night used as a storehouse for a large amount of Grad missiles, Kassam rockets and other weapons. The airstrike set off series of secondary explosions and a large fire, caused by the munitions stockpiled inside the mosque. -- 2 Jan 2009

 

[gdnp]

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 . . . . . .

Can you please pay attention here? You posted about a cease-fire violation, and Oliver responded something to the effect of "how do we know that Hamas fired the rocket?" and then Wildcat responded that it is Hamas's responsibility whether or not they fired the rocket because they are the elected government of Gaza. To which I responded, essentially, that it is a bit cynical to blame Hamas for cease-fire violations performed by other groups if you have destroyed their command and control. I was not referring to rockets fired by others prior to the recent Israeli incursion, when the Hamas government was clearly in charge, only to those fired after the recent cease-fires.

It's like blaming the fire department for not putting out fires after blowing up the firetruck.

What do you see as unbelievable here? That Hamas cannot govern after Israel has destroyed the Gaza government infrastructure?

This is not to say that Hamas would be particularly interested in stopping rocket fire even if they had the capability to do so. I doubt they would be. But at this time they have limited capability to reign in the activities of other groups.

 

[yairhol]

This is not to say that Hamas would be particularly interested in stopping rocket fire even if they had the capability to do so. I doubt they would be. But at this time they have limited capability to reign in the activities of other groups.

I'm not expecting Hamas to do anything except promote hatred and death - with or without most of their infrastructure destroyed. I don't see any point in bringing up their now limited capabilities. They didn't want to do much before to stop other groups' rockets (most of the rockets on Israel were shot by Hamas themselves) and they aren't doing it now.

 

[gtc]

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

Neither would be Israel.

That was my point.

 

[FireGarden]

"...although IDF seems to have shelled Gaza from the sea today"

Israeli Navy is not shelling Gaza. They are firing across the bows of vessels at sea. These shots are ending up on shore somehow, and I am sure that the IDF will issue orders to those sailors to be more careful when they fire 'warning rounds' and make sure they don't end up landing on the beach.

2 people were wounded:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1232292935124&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

 

[a_unique_person]

"...although IDF seems to have shelled Gaza from the sea today"

Israeli Navy is not shelling Gaza. They are firing across the bows of vessels at sea. These shots are ending up on shore somehow, and I am sure that the IDF will issue orders to those sailors to be more careful when they fire 'warning rounds' and make sure they don't end up landing on the beach.


Also --- a_u_p asks:
"As for the weapons smuggling, where were these weapons?"

• Israel Air Force aircraft struck a mosque in Jabaliya late Thursday night used as a storehouse for a large amount of Grad missiles, Kassam rockets and other weapons. The airstrike set off series of secondary explosions and a large fire, caused by the munitions stockpiled inside the mosque. -- 2 Jan 2009

I was referring to the modern anti-aircraft and similar missiles. I don't doubt that hamas had weapons, but I do recall you saying they were being supplied with modern, hi-tech weapons.

 

[yairhol]

Hamas Violates Cease-Fire #4

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3662417,00.html

Six days after last soldier leaves Gaza, Palestinian groups resume activities against Israeli army. Explosive device detonated near patrol vehicle traveling along border fence. Palestinians report of clashes in area, including sniper fire

 

[ddt]

Hamas Violates Cease-Fire #4

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3662417,00.html

Still that reading comprehension problem?

1) The article in the first half speaks of Palestinian groups resuming activity. While the article in the second half switches to discussing Hamas, it never outright says Hamas is behind this attack.

2) The article further notes that:

Military sources said that the Kissufim incident illustrated Hamas' plan not to include activities against IDF soldiers in the ceasefire agreement.

So it's not against Hamas' conditions for its ceasefire, and those are the only conditions they're bound to. That's what you get when both parties declare unilateral ceasefires with different conditions.

3) You should applaud that instead of civilians, soldiers are targeted. Or do the rules of war now also outlaw to target the enemy's troops?

 

[yairhol]

You should applaud that instead of civilians, soldiers are targeted.

Wow!! great!!
Thank you Hamas, you're the greatest.
Are you serious ddt? Does shooting soldiers who are on the other side of the border sound like a cease-fire to you?
A few more incidences like those and Israel will have to retaliate. Then the usual group will claim that Israel is an agressive Natzi state.

 

[ddt]

Thank you Hamas, you're the greatest.

Ah, sig material.

Are you serious ddt? Does shooting soldiers who are on the other side of the border sound like a cease-fire to you?

I'll bookmark this post, just in case you again claim that Hamas only targets civilians.

As to the ceasefire: Hamas had some conditions on their ceasefire declaration. I'm too lazy now too look up what they exactly were, but the article you quoted now implied this was outside the scope of the ceasefire.

A few more incidences like those and Israel will have to retaliate. Then the usual group will claim that Israel is an agressive Natzi state.

Mind your spelling. Natzi sounds more like a Chinese dish.

 

[FireGarden]

I guess it is difficult to deter people who have so little to lose.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3662417,00.html

The London-based Arabic-language newspaper al-Hayat reported two days ago that Hamas has agreed to an 18-month truce in exchange for the opening of all crossing "at full production".

They asked for a "total opening" of the borders in their ceasefire declaration:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ijkYFQac8SjkWN53E259A5P2Cr2w

"We in the Palestinian resistance movements announce a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip and demand that enemy forces withdraw in a week and open all the border crossings to permit the entry of humanitarian aid and basic goods," Mussa Abu Marzuk, the deputy leader of Hamas's politburo, said in Damascus.

[...] "During this period, the resistance is ready to respond to all efforts by the Egyptians, Turks, Syrians and Arabs that will allow for a total withdrawal of Israeli soldiers and the total opening of border crossings," he told AFP.

 

[yairhol]

I'll bookmark this post, just in case you again claim that Hamas only targets civilians

When did I EVER claim Hamas only targets civilians?

 

[yairhol]

cease-fire violation #5 1.29.09

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3663539,00.html

Projectile hits open area in western Negev despite ceasefire declared by armed Palestinian groups following IDF offensive in Hamas-controlled Gaza; no injuries reported. Council head: We expect the government to retaliate

Guesses on how many will say Israel is the aggressor when it retaliates?