The result of brutal occupation? (Tel Aviv attack)

[webfusion]

"We think that this operation... is a direct result of the policy of the occupation and the brutal agression and siege committed against our people," said Khaled Abu Helal, spokesman for the Hamas-led Interior Ministry.

OK, so let's get skeptical --- in 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955 there was no 'seige' there was no 'occupation' and there was no policy of 'aggression' on the part of the Israelis towards the Palestinians. In fact, there was an internationally-brokered Armistice in force (the 1949 Rhodes Agreements).

Yet, the "Fedayeen" operated from bases located in and controlled by Egypt (Gaza), Lebanon and Jordan (West Bank). In the period 1951- 1956, over 400 Israelis were killed and 900 injured as a result of the "Fedayeen" infiltrations and attacks. The "Fedayeen" acts of terror, (supported by the Arab countries) led eventually to the outbreak of Sinai Campaign in 1956, in which IDF losses in the campaign were 171 dead, several hundred wounded, and 4 Israelis taken prisoner. Egyptian losses in Gaza and Sinai were estimated at several thousand dead and wounded, while 6,000 prisoners were taken.

Now, it's 2006, and HAMAS (along with the other groups in HAMASTAN) still perpetuate the murdering ways of the fedayeen.
So, I ask:
Is Israel about to embark on a major Campaign to re-take Gaza and eliminate the leaders in HAMASTAN? Is such a thing desirable or even achievable?

 

[a_unique_person]

There were refugees, and the knowledge that the goal of many zionists was the 'greater israel'. It was no secret, it is was their stated aim.

If you eliminate the current leaders, I would guess new leaders would just replace them. That has certainly been the pattern till now.

 

[webfusion]

There were refugees

WWII created refugees worldwide. The war ended in '45. Millions were homeless, millions more had been forced to move, millions of others were dead.
By 1948, less than 36 months later, the jews had to defend themselves against armies of 5 arab nations, whose stated aims were no different than the stated intentions of today: "Destroy the jews"
Meanwhile, during those same years, Jewish refugees came to Israel from all over the MidEast.

Only the arabs have failed to deal with their refugees.

Are you telling us that the terrorism of then (when there was no occupation) is based on the same motivation of the terrorism of today?

And if so, why is HAMAS asking for withdrawal to the 1949 Rhodes Armistice (otherwise called the June 1967 Lines)? Is an Israeli relinquishment of the land called 'West Bank' somehow going to be sufficient now, although it was insufficient when there was no occupation at all?

Let's see where this goes...

 

[epepke]

OK, so let's get skeptical --- in 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955 there was no 'seige' there was no 'occupation' and there was no policy of 'aggression' on the part of the Israelis towards the Palestinians. In fact, there was an internationally-brokered Armistice in force (the 1949 Rhodes Agreements).

Yet, the "Fedayeen" operated from bases located in and controlled by Egypt (Gaza), Lebanon and Jordan (West Bank). In the period 1951- 1956, over 400 Israelis were killed and 900 injured as a result of the "Fedayeen" infiltrations and attacks. The "Fedayeen" acts of terror, (supported by the Arab countries) led eventually to the outbreak of Sinai Campaign in 1956, in which IDF losses in the campaign were 171 dead, several hundred wounded, and 4 Israelis taken prisoner. Egyptian losses in Gaza and Sinai were estimated at several thousand dead and wounded, while 6,000 prisoners were taken.

It's not considered appropriate around here to remember or even be aware of things like this. You have been warned. Smoke some more dope and read some more Noam Chomsky books.

 

[.13.]

So, I ask:
Is Israel about to embark on a major Campaign to re-take Gaza and eliminate the leaders in HAMASTAN? Is such a thing desirable or even achievable?

I think it might be necessary to do that. I'm not sure though what you mean by re-taking. Does it mean just a strong military presence or does that also include re-settlement?

Re-settlement would mean a more permanent presence and a step back in the peace process. Though only party making any progress has been Israel and I can't blame them if they decide to take a step back and require the PA to do their part.

Capturing Hamas leaders might not be achievable if they go into hiding and as a_unique_person said they would be replaced by new ones anyway. But even in that case there might be advantages in pursuing them. I think chasing them off would remove what political power they have left and force new elections in the Palestinian territories. I know there are not a lot of choices to vote for. But the voters might remember the corruption of Fatah and look for other options. If there are any.

 

[a_unique_person]

I saw/read an interview with an IJ leader once. He expected to die, or be captured, within a year. He was already resigned to that fate. Threats meant nothing to him.

 

[webfusion]

Evaluation from the armchair --

I'm not sure though what you mean by re-taking. Does it mean just a strong military presence or does that also include re-settlement?

Although the possibility of an IDF ground invasion to gaza has been mentioned, it seems more unlikely currently. Gaza is sealed-off, and the long-range artillery is sufficient for keeping the qassem rockets to a minimum, along with the Air Force targeting various terrorist leaders directly.
The IDF has too many troops committed on the West Bank, and those operations are expanding now, in Jenin, Tulkarem, Nablus, etc.

Also, the entire security situation has been widened inside Israel, with the police setting up checkpoints on major highways, as well as police patrols and presence at shopping centers, entertainment sites, and nature areas. Training academies, immigration police, and traffic patrol units were to be diverted to patrol duties. In addition, the army sent eight companies of soldiers to the police to increase security forces presence in urban centers.

NOTE: No mention of re-settlement of gaza from anyone.

 

[webfusion]

I saw/read an interview with an IJ leader once. He expected to die, or be captured, within a year. He was already resigned to that fate. Threats meant nothing to him.

Was the interview published before or after he was killed by an accurate IAF missile blowing up his car?

 

[The Fool]

Was the interview published before or after he was killed by an accurate IAF missile blowing up his car?

So after you have the palestinian population sealed up in Gaza whats the plan?

 

[Mycroft]

I saw/read an interview with an IJ leader once. He expected to die, or be captured, within a year. He was already resigned to that fate. Threats meant nothing to him.

Do you think the possiblity of setting aside the violence for peace means anything to him?

 

[Mycroft]

So after you have the palestinian population sealed up in Gaza whats the plan?

What do you think the Palestinian's plan is for when they have the Israelis sealed up behind the '48 borders?

 

[Manny]

So after you have the palestinian population sealed up in Gaza whats the plan?

Apparently, remove the travel rights of three guys. Grrr, those Israelis sure are animals.

 

[zenith-nadir]

Do you think the possiblity of setting aside the violence for peace means anything to him?

Hahahahaha! Good one.

Factions demand Abbas apology for slamming attack (AFP)

GAZA CITY (AFP) - A number of armed factions demanded that Palestinian Authority president Mahmud Abbas apologize after his fierce condemnation of an Islamic Jihad suicide attack in Tel Aviv.

"We demand that brother Abu Mazen (Abbas) apologize to the Palestinian people for the harm that he has done," said a joint statement read out by a masked militant at a press conference in Gaza City.

"By describing the heroic martyr operations as 'despicable,' Abu Mazen denigrates the blood of martyrs who have sacrificed themselves to defend Palestinian dignity," the armed factions' statement said.

 

[The Fool]

What do you think the Palestinian's plan is for when they have the Israelis sealed up behind the '48 borders?

sorry, thought you may have had some thoughts beyond the point of imprisoning the palestinians....my bad.

 

[HeavyAaron]

sorry, thought you may have had some thoughts beyond the point of imprisoning the palestinians....my bad.

Oh, I didn't realize your question was sincere, I figured the answer was obvious. Maybe I need to be corrected, but I always thought it went something like this:

1) Build a darn fine wall.

2) Leave the Palistinians to their own devices until they grow up.

3) Treat them as a foriegn nation.

Am I missing something?

 

[The Fool]

Am I missing something?

yes...a plan.

build the wall? where? On the border? where is the border?

Treat them as a foreign nation? How can you when they are not a nation. Maybe you do have a plan after all...Is addressing thier nationalist ambition part of your plan?

will leaving the palestinians to thier own devises preclude shelling them?

 

[Mycroft]

sorry, thought you may have had some thoughts beyond the point of imprisoning the palestinians....my bad.

You think closing the border imprisons Palestinians? What about that border with Egypt? What about the Mediterranean? Palestinians are no more imprisoned in Gaza than Israelis are imprisoned in Israel. This is nothing more than propaganda you spew.

It's irrational for the Palestinian government to keep up a policy of hostility with Israel then expect Israel to accommodate their needs. If they want good relations, they need to make peace. It’s that simple.

yes...a plan.

build the wall? where? On the border? where is the border?

That doesn't seem to be an issue, does it? The wall is going up. Every so often there is an issue brought before the court, but they seem to be doing a fine job of making decisions.

Treat them as a foreign nation? How can you when they are not a nation. Maybe you do have a plan after all...Is addressing thier nationalist ambition part of your plan?

I think Palestinians should address Palestinian nationalist ambitions, don't you? What responsibility should Israel have once they step out of the way?

will leaving the palestinians to thier own devises preclude shelling them?

I think that should depend on if rockets keep coming over the border to hit Israel, don't you?

 

[The Fool]

You think closing the border imprisons Palestinians? What about that border with Egypt? What about the Mediterranean? Palestinians are no more imprisoned in Gaza than Israelis are imprisoned in Israel. This is nothing more than propaganda you spew.

you are correct, I apologise. Palestinians could swim across the Med, I forgot that method of contact with the outside world. They could also beg passage from Egypt then cross the sinia (on foot due to the fuel embargo?)....too easy, what are they whining about.

It's irrational for the Palestinian government to keep up a policy of hostility with Israel then expect Israel to accommodate their needs. If they want good relations, they need to make peace. It’s that simple.

I totally agree about the good relations bit...What about the human rights of the citizens.....what should they have to do to earn thier human rights? Pardon me but I thought being human was enough....

That doesn't seem to be an issue, does it? The wall is going up. Every so often there is an issue brought before the court, but they seem to be doing a fine job of making decisions.

yes the wall goes up....you seem to have stopped denying its the future border of Israel....lets get it up asap so we can start to try to deal with this longrunning land dispute. Israel should take all the land it wants and then at least the starting point of the next problem is known....When demands are made for people to recognise Israel at least we will know what Israel is.

I think Palestinians should address Palestinian nationalist ambitions, don't you? What responsibility should Israel have once they step out of the way?

OMG mycroft...do you believe that once this disengagement stuff is enacted that means Israel will still not have the final say if "Palestine" is proclaimed? Where did you get that one from?

I think that should depend on if rockets keep coming over the border to hit Israel, don't you?

I hate to tell you this but short of total elimination of the entire palestinian population whichis not going to happen... I don't see how attacks like this will stop in the short term or even medium term.. I think we are looking at generational change as being the most likely.....how about 10 to 15 years for things to settle down completely? sound scary? Maybe it does but what if we had started 10 or 15 years ago?how about we start now?

 

[Ziggurat]

yes...a plan.

build the wall? where?

Wherever they want. If Palestinians want some of that land back, they've got to bargain for it with something other than the blood of Israelis.

Treat them as a foreign nation? How can you when they are not a nation.

If Israel says "we no longer accept any responsibility for you, you're on your own", then they either become a nation or descend into anarchy. True, they don't HAVE to pick the former, but if Israel stopped controlling their borders, then I don't see how the Palestinians can refuse to have statehood thrust upon them and still get any sympathy (which they rather need for survival, though you'd never know from their behavior).

Maybe you do have a plan after all...Is addressing thier nationalist ambition part of your plan?

It would be part of mine: namely, crush the ambition they have to drive Israel into the sea, and leave them with the option to accept a more modest ambition of a separate existence beside Israel. That's how I'd deal with their ambition.

will leaving the palestinians to thier own devises preclude shelling them?

No, it won't. In fact, if I were in charge, after a complete pullout, I'd be MORE inclined to use shelling as a response to rocket attacks. Just as if Mexico started shooting rockets at San Diego, I'd expect us to hit back, and hard. So either the Palestinians decide that they want such a state of war and accept the return fire from Israel, or they do something to stop the rocket attacks. It's a very simple choice.

It would be nice if such raw exercise of power were never necessary, it would be nice if there were a course of action to resolve this conflict which didn't have collateral damage among innocents. It would also be nice if I never got cavities. But it's time to start dealing with this problem the way it is, and not they way we wish it were. It's brutal and messy, and there's no solution which isn't also brutal and messy. It's a question of bad and worse, and if it were up to me I'd grab onto the bad solution as hard as I could.

 

[Mycroft]

you are correct, I apologise. Palestinians could swim across the Med, I forgot that method of contact with the outside world. They could also beg passage from Egypt then cross the sinia (on foot due to the fuel embargo?)....too easy, what are they whining about.

Fuel embargo? I don't remember hearing about any embargo. Is that another one of your lies?

I do remember them being cut off for not being able to pay for fuel, but that's very different from an embargo.

I know of one very simple way to get the money back to buy the fuel: All Hamas needs to do is recognize Israel as a soverign nation, and work towards ending the violence. Heck, if they did that, I'd even redirect my own "Pizza for the IDF" money towards them.

I totally agree about the good relations bit...What about the human rights of the citizens.....what should they have to do to earn thier human rights? Pardon me but I thought being human was enough....

Don't you think the Palestinians should look after Palestinian human rights?

OMG mycroft...do you believe that once this disengagement stuff is enacted that means Israel will still not have the final say if "Palestine" is proclaimed? Where did you get that one from?

Wow, previously you denied having any ability to predict the future. Funny how that problem goes away when you get to bash your favorite target.

"Do I get the million if I'm right? Maybe we could cover both predictions between us and split the million?"

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1579654#post1579654

I hate to tell you this but short of total elimination of the entire palestinian population whichis not going to happen... I don't see how attacks like this will stop in the short term or even medium term.. I think we are looking at generational change as being the most likely.....how about 10 to 15 years for things to settle down completely? sound scary? Maybe it does but what if we had started 10 or 15 years ago?how about we start now?

Ah yes. The attacks can't be stopped. We know this because the previous Palestinian administration didn't try to stop them either.