Gaza, Israel & Rockets (merged thread)

[AdamG]

Moderator's Note

A new thread has been created for this developing conflict in the volatile Middle East. To my surprise there is not a thread on the previous Gaza (Hamas) -v- Israel conflict in December 2008 to January 2009. More on Post No.5.

Update January 2015: a small thread Mowing the Gaza lawn has been merged here, it referred to the Israeli-Gaza conflict after rocket attacks mainly in 2014. The thread has been renamed 'Gaza, Israel & Rockets (merged thread). There is a separate thread on Hamas. (ends)



When the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) this week began taking military action in the Gaza strip against Hamas (as the IDF announced on Twitter), Anonymous declared its own war as part of #OpIsrael. Among the casualties are thousands of email addresses and passwords, hundreds of Israeli Web sites, government-owned as well as privately owned pages, as well as databases belonging to the Bank of Jerusalem and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/11/17/anonymous-takes-down-countless-israeli-sites-wipes-databases-leaks-emails-addresses-and-passwords/?utm_source=HackerNews&utm_medium=share+button&utm_content=Anonymous%20takes%20down%20over%20550% 20Israeli%20sites,%20wipes%20databases,%20leaks%20 emails%20addresses%20and%20passwords&utm_campaign=social+media

[jcustis]

I wonder if the Twitter and Youtube war spawned that action.

[AdamG]

[Video] Third attack on central city in three days intercepted by fifth Iron Dome battery, deployed in Gush Dan earlier in the day; Palestinian terrorists fire 740 rockets into Israel since start of operation.


http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=292277

[AdamG]

Twitter does seem to be center stage
https://twitter.com/search?q=%23OpIsrael&src=hash


The hacking spree, dubbed OpIsrael and begun early Thursday, has resulted in so many Israeli Web sites being defaced or shut down through methods including denial of service (DoS) attacks, that it's hard to keep count. However, some enterprising hacktivists have begun compiling lists of affected Web sites. Targets have included governmental, retail, and business sites -- some belonging to the automotive and fashion industries.

The Bank of Jerusalem, one of Israel's largest financial institutions, has received particular attention from the hacktivists -- as the cyberattackers crowed on Twitter about deleting the organization's online database. Access to the bank's Web site has been spotty. Trying to access it yesterday afternoon resulted in nothing more than a database error, and though the site reappeared, it seemed to be offline again this morning.

Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs Web site also appeared on Friday to have been attacked and its database either deleted or tampered with. The Web site seemed to be back up and running this morning.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57551494-83/anonymous-targets-israeli-web-sites-in-protest-over-gaza/

[davidbfpo]

A new thread has been created for this developing conflict in the volatile Middle East. To my surprise there is not a thread on the previous Gaza (Hamas) -v- Israel conflict in December 2008 to January 2009.

There is a long running thread, from 2006, 'Hamas in Gaza (merged thread)', which should give some background:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=6020

Elsewhere on the Web is ample coverage, such as Stratfor's briefings and on KoW a comment by an IDF veteran on being defensive:http://kingsofwar.org.uk/2012/11/second-thoughts-about-defensive-means/

Rightly AdamG has pointed out the cyber aspects, with a reported campaign by Anonymous against Israeli websites plus.

KoW tries to grapple with the role or failure of deterence:http://kingsofwar.org.uk/2012/11/deterrence/

[AdamG]

On TweetWar I.

http://thenational.net/tweets-bullets-and-bombs-where-is-the-world-coming-to/

[Firn]

The current war has given the Iron Dome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Dome) a lot of media exposure. With it came rather simplistic calculation likely based this Wiki article and other similar sources:



Cost

In 2010, Iron Dome was criticized by Reuven Pedatzur, a military analyst, former fighter pilot and professor of political science at Tel Aviv University[79] for costing too much compared to the cost of a Qassam rocket (fired by Palestinian forces), so that launching very large numbers of Qassams could essentially attack Israel's financial means.[80] The estimated cost of each Tamir interceptor missile is US$35,000–50,000[16] whereas a crudely manufactured Qassam rocket costs around $800.[81] Rafael responded that the cost issue was exaggerated since Iron Dome intercepts only rockets determined to constitute a threat, and that the lives saved and the strategic impact are worth the cost.[82]

A key flaw is to use a simple 'perfect' market model with only price interacting with supply and demand. The crude Qassams and other Gaza-made rockets need a basic infrastructure and human, technological and raw ressources to manufacture, store, deploy and fire. Rockets smuggled in from abroad, including those who hit Tel Aviv have to come in through narrow supply lines including especially the bottlenecks of the tunnels and are harder to store & deploy due to their bigger size and weight. Obviously Israel targets many element along this supply & command chain.

Israel has also limited ressources but vastly greater ones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Israel) then those found in the Gaza strip, especially with additional U.S funding and arguably even more importantly, access to the world market.

Of course there are far more to the issue, but I just wanted to state the obvious, which doesn't seem always to be so.

[davidbfpo]

One of the more interesting aspects in this crisis is how Hamas assembled long range, indeed any rockets in Gaza. I am not a technical expert on such weapons, but do wonder what are the components of rocket fuel? IIRC Israel is the supplier of all fuels to Gaza.

The second issue is the view of at least one UK analyst that Egypt has little control over the Sinai, so smuggling weapons is easy, although getting them across the border is difficult. After the change of regime and the clashes with "extremists" did Egyptian priorities change from border security to internal security?

[Firn]

I wrote a rather long post with many quotes about the effectivness but sadly it got somehow lost. In any case it noteworthy that the rocket attacks in the North in 2006 were generally far more lethal per rocket then in the South between 2001 and 2008. According to various papers the RPF, rocket per fatality, averaged roughly 70 compared to 250 in the South.

In the first phase of the rocket campaign out of Gaza the RPF was much lower but then the arms race of raised it many times. Measures like shelters and early warning seemed to come out rather favourably against increased rocket capability. However according to Uzi Rubin the rocket attacks during Cast Lead achieved a new quality, with Grads with improved range being used to a high degree and attacking new targets much deeper into Israel. The RPF in that timeframe shrank to a 100.

Iron Dome came in around 2011 and during this year heavier rockets from Gaza increasingly targeted the Israeli homeland, but the RPF increased to 280. In 2012 the RPF averaged 300 during the two crisis.

Overall the whole story shows that it is all but trivial to come to a conclusion based on the RPF alone. If the numbers are correct it certainly shows that the first rockets against fresh targets tend to have a far higher RFB, which was knocked down by various defense measures and better public response. This is very visible in the graphic which maps the RPF over the 2001-2007 timeframe.

A shift in the type of rockets used during Cast Lead in 2008, among them longer ranged Grads put far more people in danger and enabled the attack of fresh, deep targets. Coupled with a higher payloud this led the RPF plummet to a 100. A similar approach with Iron Dome in place cost far lives with the RPF tripling.

There are lots of ifs and buts and ever changing circumstances make direct comparisions very fuzzy but a high rate of success of Iron Dome would fit rather well with that change in RPF. I hope that we won't get a big additional sample in the future.

I will leave it there for now.

[CrowBat]

One of the more interesting aspects in this crisis is how Hamas assembled long range, indeed any rockets in Gaza. I am not a technical expert on such weapons, but do wonder what are the components of rocket fuel? IIRC Israel is the supplier of all fuels to Gaza.Few years ago (that was even before the Op Cast Lead in 2009-2010 period, a pal of mine did a study of Palestinian 'home-made' rockets deployed against Israel.

Construction: the fuel, i.e. propellant was a mixture of dextrose and fertilizer (often siphoned from Israeli aid donations), which was first melted and then cast into a PVC tube. After curing, the PVC tube was cut and the finished motor then inserted into the rocket's main body. The fuse was constructed and stored separately, and attached only shortly before the launch. There were huge variations between different rockets, and it remains unknown if any of their users ever used PCs for their construction, or if there were at least blueprints for them.

The reason so little is known about these rockets is: not only the Israelis, but especially the usual media couldn't care less about their construction and origin. It started already with the fact that nearly 80% of rockets fired at Israel (in total) were not fired by Hamas, not even by groups under Hamas' control. Surely, it was the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades of the Hamas that started manufacturing and firing such weapons, back in 2001. They manufactured three major 'types' of rockets - including the name-provider for this entire 'class' of weapons - too.

But, already by 2005 or so, the PFLP, Popular Resistance Committees (Nasser Brigades), Palestinian Islamic Jihad (al-Quds Brigades), Fatah (al-Aqsa and Abu al-Rish Brigades), Fatah al-Islam etc. were constructing their own weapons and firing majority (nearly 100% as of 2009) of rockets that hit Israel.

[Firn]

The reason so little is known about these rockets is: not only the Israelis, but especially the usual media couldn't care less about their construction and origin. It started already with the fact that nearly 80% of rockets fired at Israel (in total) were not fired by Hamas, not even by groups under Hamas' control. Surely, it was the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades of the Hamas that started manufacturing and firing such weapons, back in 2001. They manufactured three major 'types' of rockets - including the name-provider for this entire 'class' of weapons - too.

But, already by 2005 or so, the PFLP, Popular Resistance Committees (Nasser Brigades), Palestinian Islamic Jihad (al-Quds Brigades), Fatah (al-Aqsa and Abu al-Rish Brigades), Fatah al-Islam etc. were constructing their own weapons and firing majority (nearly 100% as of 2009) of rockets that hit Israel.

Interesting information. It seems that quite a few smart people were surprised by the speed with which the rocket capability increased in Gaza after 2001. Technology transfer, imports of parts and whole pieces, learning curves and more capital investment should all have play a role.

The high likely strong impact of Iron Dome especially against targets deeper inside Israel did quickly result in CCM. According to an interview of Uzi Rubin one attack in August 2011 on Beersheba involved saturation achieved by the practically simultaneous firing of nine rockets from a single launcher. One got through.

Saturation is of course a classical approach to counter missile defense systems but the non-standard nature of the projectiles and launcher should make for bigger differences in acceleration, drag, etc and spread out the rockets in time and space by a relative large margin. I guess that near simultaneous time-on-target is rather difficult to achieve for dispersed units and should only be doable by close ones. MLRS are one way but carry the penalty of bulk. The Hezbollah approach with very well camouflaged bunkers contained fixed MLRS units could pose problems as such saturation attacks can be well planned and prepared ahead.

The arms race continues, and as CvC put it, violence continues to arm itself with the innovations of art and science.

[davidbfpo]

SWC often finds discussions around Israel / Palestine heated, but what is happening cannot be ignored.

The title is adapted from the first article I read today. 'Mowing the lawn' IIRC comes from the British officer Mark Evison killed in Helmand Province.

I found this LRB article written I assume by an Arab in Beirut quite informative as a "broad brush":http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n15/mouin-rabbani/israel-mows-the-lawn

The second is from the Israeli paper Haartz, which asks if this limited campaign is sliding into a war and gives a vivid insight into combat:http://www.haaretz.com/mobile/.premium-1.606302?v=89A35BED6BF50E9548C8549841FF49CF

Hat tip to Shashank Joshi, of RUSI, for his alert to both.

AM today BBC Radio 4 had an IDF spokesman announce that two groups of Hamas fighters had emerged from tunnels into Isreal and had been killed. Video included here:http://eaworldview.com/2014/07/israel-gaza-daily-100-killed-deadliest-day-far/

Watching some film footage yesterday I was puzzled that not oen armed Palestinian was seen, nor anyone in uniform - except the ambulance crews.

[carl]

To a large extent I lost any passionate interest in the whole Israel/Palestine thing years ago because it seems it will never end. It will never end because the primary battleground, American public opinion, is thoroughly and wholly owned by Israel. The Palestinians who have very many legitimate and compelling grievances don't even try to contest that ground. If they did they would have a good chance to prevail but they don't even try.

What I mean by that the Palestinians insist on using violence to confront Israel. This is foolish because they can never hope to inflict more violence upon Israel that can be inflicted upon them and more importantly, it does nothing to curry the favor of the American public. In fact the sight of young men with their faces covered marching around waving Kalashnikovs positively scares people over here, as does the sight of unguided rockets being launched in waves. But the Palestinians keep doing that kind of thing regardless. The only thing I can think of as to why is it is more fun to do that than it is to win.

And they can win American public opinion. They can do it by going completely non-violent and doing so on a massive scale. Imagine if 5000 Palestinian mothers with babes in arms and toddlers in tow marched on some kind of Israeli checkpoint and demanded that they wanted some kind of foodstuff or supplies and would not leave until they got them. If they kept doing that day after day week after week eventually the fawning American media would have to dig into the whys and the tide would begin to turn. No more suicide bombers, no more kidnappers, no more rockets, no more masked young men strutting. Only women, children and the best spoken Palestinians who speak English with an American accent on TV.

But they won't do it. Strategically the Palestinians are the only people on the face of the earth dumber than the Israelis.

Also given the number of killed and wounded the Israelis have suffered so far, it seems Hamas has learned something since 2006 and 2012. That is interesting, especially given that SWJ started out as Urban Operations Journal.

[CloseDanger]

"The Palestinians who have very many legitimate and compelling grievances don't even try to contest that ground."

No, they actually don't. It's a farce.

Do they care? (http://www.danielpipes.org/281/if-i-forget-thee-does-jerusalem-really-matter-to-islam)
No they do not. (http://www.danielpipes.org/84/the-muslim-claim-to-jerusalem)

[carl]

"The Palestinians who have very many legitimate and compelling grievances don't even try to contest that ground."

No, they actually don't. It's a farce.

No, they actually don't what, don't have legitimate and compelling grievances or don't try to contest the ground?

[CloseDanger]

They have perceived grievance. Nothing legitimate. Arab marauders expelled from Jordan have no right to anything there.

[carl]

Perceived is real to the people doing the perceiving and they will act upon that. So that perception is the reality that must be worked with. I happen to think they do have many real grievances. You think they do not. Our opinion doesn't really matter since the Palestinians think they do and have acted upon that for decades and show no signs of giving it up.

But that is beside the point I am trying to make. My point is the way the Palestinians are pursuing their goals. They do not see the critical importance of swaying American public opinion and therefore do not tailor their actions accordingly. That is unwise.

[davidbfpo]

A useful information source are the regular reports from the Israeli 'Terrorism Information Center'; this is to their latest bulletin:http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/en/article/20679

[Firn]

I won't comment on conflict as I had no time to inform myself, but it looking back it is, as often, hard to determine where the current one began. Lots of small incremental steps and some bigger ones. In any case it is a terrible bloodshed.

I was surprised by the sudden increase in IDF casualities, and suspected that at least one large single event contributed.


This won’t be the only comparison with the second Lebanon War of 2006. There are concerns in Gaza, as there were in Lebanon, that the operation will slide, unplanned and with no method, into a much larger operation than that conceived by its planners. Preliminary investigations in Gaza also reveal some hair-raising operational flaws. The first one relates to the means placed at the disposal of army units. The seven soldiers killed by a rocket-propelled grenade were travelling in an M-113 armored personnel carrier, used by the Americans in Vietnam and by the IDF since the 1970s.

In 2004, after two explosions in such vehicles took 11 lives in the Gaza Strip, it was decided not to use them anymore there. Veteran commanders, who describe the vehicle as a ‘flammable sardine can’ vulnerable even to small arms fire, were alarmed to learn that it had been despatched there again. Questions also arise with regard to the crowding of dozens of soldiers from Golani’s reconnaissance battalion in the house that was hit by rockets. This is one more example of flawed decisions, following the mishap on Saturday, in which an Armored Corps officer and soldier were killed by Hamas fighters emerging from a tunnel.

Of course you fight with what you have, so it is likely that they had no Namer available. People like Ken (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=15248&highlight=Namer) supported the adoption of that type of vehicle for amored brigades, in this thread and others.

[KingJaja]

Let me add my 2 cents.

Palestinians are appealing to Arab/Muslim public opinion, not American public opinion. No matter how powerful the US is today, it won't be always around the Middle-east. It has to leave one day.

The Muslim World isn't going anywhere.

I live in Nigeria, far away from Israel. The 80 million strong Muslim community in Nigeria is passionate about Palestinians - can US/Israel keep up the cycle of Apache helicopter attacks over the next generation?

How many more years can Israel be at "perpetual war" with it's neighbours? 50, 100? At some point Israelis will tire & their Arab Muslim neighbours aren't going anywhere.

Israel needs peace more than the Palestinians do. It is that simple.

[carl]

Let me add my 2 cents.

Palestinians are appealing to Arab/Muslim public opinion, not American public opinion. No matter how powerful the US is today, it won't be always around the Middle-east. It has to leave one day.

The Muslim World isn't going anywhere.

I live in Nigeria, far away from Israel. The 80 million strong Muslim community in Nigeria is passionate about Palestinians - can US/Israel keep up the cycle of Apache helicopter attacks over the next generation?

How many more years can Israel be at "perpetual war" with it's neighbours? 50, 100? At some point Israelis will tire & their Arab Muslim neighbours aren't going anywhere.

Israel needs peace more than the Palestinians do. It is that simple.

What you say is true but to me the human cost is so very high. Yes, the US one day will no longer mindlessly back Israel and then Israel will have a perhaps insoluble problem.

But in the meantime it is the Palestinians who are suffering. They may get a lot of lip service and 'keep up the good work"s from Muslims all over the world but they don't get much else that helps them get more than 2297 calories a day. Feeling good about having the Muslim world think you are plucky fellows doesn't put food in the kid's mouth and won't for a very, very long time.

So if they want to be used by other Muslims who don't have to face Israel as sort of a favorite team to root for that will lead to a tremendous amount of human suffering over several generations. More than we may be able to imagine because if Israel is faced with destruction the nukes will fly and the 5 or 6 Palestinians who are left may not get much satisfaction from knowing that they won.

All this can be alleviated by playing to American public opinion which if changed, can actually get something done in the near term and would also avoid much suffering and death.

Like I said, the Palestinians are strategically the dumbest people in the world followed closely by the Israelis. The Palestinians are because they allow themselves to be used by other Muslims and the Israelis for not seeing that they are economically and militarily an American colony and that ain't a good thing to be.

[KingJaja]

Carl,

I'm not sure this is "politically correct" to say, but I don't think Islam has a tradition of peaceful resistance so I don't expect Palestinians to reflect that - let's get that clear straight away.

This crisis started in the 1940's - that's 70 years, could easily go on for another 70 - after all, how many times did Europeans kill each other between Napoleon & World War 1?

[carl]

Carl,

I'm not sure this is "politically correct" to say, but I don't think Islam has a tradition of peaceful resistance so I don't expect Palestinians to reflect that - let's get that clear straight away.

This crisis started in the 1940's - that's 70 years, could easily go on for another 70 - after all, how many times did Europeans kill each other between Napoleon & World War 1?

To hell with PC! Say what you feel to be true. Nobody can ask anymore of you than that.

Your comment is interesting. I never looked at that way though it may be obvious. I always thought it was because the Palestinians didn't want to give up the idea of a mostly male dominated society, which they would have to do if they were to go non-violent with women and children in the lead.

So sad, because they could get most of what they wanted if they only played to the critical audience.

[Dayuhan]

So sad, because they could get most of what they wanted if they only played to the critical audience.

If the Palestinians had come up with a Gandhi instead of an Arafat, they'd have had most of what they wanted a long time ago. It's probably true that they are playing to Muslim audiences rather than the West, but the West has some degree of leverage over Israel, and the Muslim world doesn't.

[Firn]

As I said before I had no time to follow this tragic, bloody conflict, however I have taken a look at a 'novelty' - the attack tunnels of Hamas.*

Increasingly physically isolated by Israel and Egypt the laws of the market gave huge incentives for smuggling. With the sea and the land borders watched ever more closely tunnels to Egypt became it's main mean. Besides civilian goods weapons traveled also underground. While Israel and to a lesser degree Egypt tried to curb this route the strong incentives kept the tunneling going. This competitive environoment and possible remote knowledge caused an increasing degree of tunnel sophistication.

Recently the tunnel skill acquired and supported by no small ressources has been used by Hamas in completely different direction: To attack Isreali territory.

'Uncovering Gazan tunnel routes is critical, says prominent geologist and defense expert' (http://www.jpost.com/Enviro-Tech/Uncovering-Gazan-tunnel-routes-is-critical-says-prominent-geologist-and-defense-expert-363327) reveals that some in Israel have been long aware of that potential threat.


For 10 years I’ve been crying and screaming to the highest possible levels – to the Defense Ministry, the chief of staff, the commanding officers of southern and northern command – that although the tunnels are a low-tech option, they might be a strategic threat to our security,” Langotsky told the Post.

Langotsky said he continually “bombarded” defense officials with warnings, but little effort was made to correct this strategic liability for many years. He also criticized the officials for failing to involve the Geophysical Institute of Israel in researching the tunnels problem.

The defense system began heeding his advice about two or three years ago, Langotsky explained.

“This is a change and a very good one, but unfortunately seven years were lost,” he said.

Many tunnels have already reached Israeli land, and systems that could have been deployed to detect the digging of tunnels into Israel are no longer helpful.

“It’s like closing the gates of the stable after the horses were stolen,” he said.

Of course the military ressources of Israel, even if quite large, are limited and every decision comes with opportunity costs. However now it is no longer so easy to efficiently detect those 'hundreds' of existing tunnels for two main reasons:

a) There is no longer a 'clean' or tunnel-free state of which to create benchmark survey by various geophysical methods. In this case natural caves would have been mapped as - well - natural caves. Regular checks would have been a relative efficient way to show likely man-made changes.

b) The creation of the tunnels causes the emission of various signals, with a chain/network of for example seismic sensors which should also have a realtive good chance to detect work in progress.

A finished tunnel is far harder to detect, but there is of course little tactical choice in that regard for Israel. Overall the topic is not relevant to most borders and conflicts, but it is quite interesting.



*Military history shows that military tunneling is ancient and quite widespread.

[davidbfpo]

Firn,

Your post reminded me that North Korea (DPRK) at various times has been found to have dug tunnels across the DMZ with South Korea (ROK). A border which one would expect a lot attention to detecting the activity.

[davidbfpo]

I don't follow the Israeli press, nor do I know theditorial stance of Haaretz, but this opinion piece is pretty savage, especially over the wilful blindness of the drone camera operators when watching life in Gaza and their acute eyesight when a group of Hamas fighters in IDF uniform emerge from a tunnel.
Draw your own conclusions:http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.606645

The author Amira Hass is:
...the Haaretz correspondent for the Occupied Territories

Her very short bio is on:http://www.haaretz.com/misc/writers/amira-hass-1.278

[omarali50]

It is a Greek tragedy. Both sides have lost many opportunities to compromise and will lose more in the days to come. When those in power in Israel clearly want to keep all or most of the occupied territories (building new settlements is hardly a signal they are leaving) and avoid every opportunity to make a deal, they are not laying the groundwork for durable peace. When those in power in Gaza seem to believe ALL Jewish presence in Palestine is to be "reversed" ("Palestine will be free; from the river to sea"), they are not laying such a groundwork either.
If Likudniks think Palestinians are incorrigible terrorists and barbarians who can never be trusted, this is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If Hamas (and even more so, their millions of outside cheerleaders with nothing to lose) say the Israelis are worse than Nazis and are committing history's greatest genocide, then what sane Israeli would consider them a negotiating partner that wants to make peace? Its a lose-lose situation. Sad.
This is not a moral judgement. I am not making any claim about "both parties" being equally guilty (or unequally guilty). But here we are, with millions of Israelis and Palestinians, and not enough middle ground. Whatever the moral standing of either group, the facts on the ground are that Israel is the stronger power, but appears unwilling to trade that stronger position to get a deal the other party can also live with...Likud's minimum demands seem more than the Palestinians can reasonably concede. Meanwhile, Hamas are the weaker power, but (perhaps misled by periodic outbursts of vocal support from hundreds of millions of distant people with "no skin in the game"; or perhaps just mis-led) their strategy makes no sense to anyone who wants a reasonable peace. OK, maybe it makes some remote sense if one accepts that another 30-40 years of suffering and dying is perfectly worthwhile if the ultimate payoff is "no Israel" AND if one believes that eventually Israel can be worn down to where its friends will abandon it, its best minds will emigrate and the remaining "middle-eastern" level country will eventually be unable to sustain itself amidst a hostile Arab nation....this is not inconceivable, but I dont think it is as likely as many of my friends seem to think. ...and if this is NOT likely, then the strategy of endless confrontation is mindless and self-defeating (though it is undoubtedly attractive to faraway supporters who want heroes to admire, not compromisers).
It is probably not going to end well, no matter what. Too many factors work against a good outcome. Israel is currently so much stronger that it is hard to imagine human beings resisting the impulse to "crush enemies" when said enemies seem so much weaker. Some Palestinians may have been beaten into a more "reasonable" position but there are just enough fanatics and just enough "leaders" around to pursue dreams of the "mother of all battles" and other Arab fantasies...and to provide Israel with the excuses it needs to avoid peace...and last (and probably the least), the enchantment of wide public support in the Muslim world (and in the third world in general) also doesnt help....
It is hard to imagine human beings left to their default settings doing much better in such circumstances. Very exceptional leadership would be needed, and is not always around.
Its not going to end well.

[carl]

Omar:

A thought occurred to me as I was reading your well written piece above. I wonder how much of Israeli pigheadedness is because way in the back of their minds, they know they have a place to go if everything goes bad in Israel-the United States. If and when things fall apart there, given American culture and politics as it is now, every Israeli would have a refuge. Six million or more visas would be issued and every Israeli could sail away to Amerikay and never look east again. So given that and current levels of unquestioned military and political support, there is no immediate reason for compromise. There is nothing right or wrong about this, it is just the way it is...now.

But that assumes that the Americans will stay as true 50 years from now as they are now. That is not a wise assumption to make. Things change and if Israeli grand strategy depends upon certitude concerning the US they could end up all alone way out upon a skinny limb.

[Firn]

Firn,

Your post reminded me that North Korea (DPRK) at various times has been found to have dug tunnels across the DMZ with South Korea (ROK). A border which one would expect a lot attention to detecting the activity.

Hamas seen in isolation is of course disavantaged in important ways compared to DPRK famous tunneling years:

a) Far less economic ressources then the isolated and poor state DPRK
b) A considerable shorter border less then a quarter of DMZ length
c) The technology gap is far bigger

I have of course no idea about the geology, possibly the Korean hilly topography and vegation also made it easier to hid tunnel entrances and exits. The relative poplation sizes is also against Hamas. However Israel as a lot of other borders and areas to watch.

I forgort to add Hamas 'strategic' element of kidnapping a civilian or soldiers. Oddly enough the DPRK also used kidnapping even if for arguably slightly different purposes.

[BayonetBrant]

When those in power in Israel clearly want to keep all or most of the occupied territories (building new settlements is hardly a signal they are leaving) and avoid every opportunity to make a deal, they are not laying the groundwork for durable peace.

I'm sorry, but did the Israelis not forcibly remove every one of their citizens from Gaza about 4-5 years ago? They sent in the military to drag out every Israeli settler left there who refused to leave.

I would count that as a "signal they are leaving"

[omarali50]

They left Gaza, but I was thinking about the West Bank. Intentions there certainly seem different. The Palestinians still tend to see this as one problem, not separate issues. (of course, they never let Gaza go free either...without getting into the reasons and whose fault that is, access in and out of Gaza has remained tightly controlled)

[slapout9]

So far who is winning;Israel or Hammas?

[OUTLAW 09]

It is actually interesting to see how over the last years Iran and Hezbollah contributed to the fighting effectiveness of Hamas in Gaza---32 Israeli IDF killed and only an estimated 200 of which Hamas claims only 70 were fighters and the IDF estimates Hamas strength at 20,000.

Interesting also is the fortified underground and interconnecting tunnel systems remind me of Far Eastern battle tactics ie the North Vietnamese Army tatics of fortified villages.

There was a former Marine officer--Poole who wrote a number of books on the Far Eastern battle tactics being used in the ME by both the Sunni and Shia.

http://news.yahoo.com/hamas-tactics-exact-high-toll-israeli-ground-thrust-173119328.html

[omarali50]

I added a pulp fiction reference and turned my comment into a blog post

Palestine and Israel.. no end in sight
http://brownpundits.blogspot.com/2014/07/slate-columnist-william-saletan-has.html#more

[davidbfpo]

An Al-Jazeera article, with multiple links:http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/7/23/gaza-undergroundhamastunnels.html?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=*Situation%20Report&utm_campaign=SitRep_0724

[davidbfpo]

An IDF map of some of the tunnels; ignore the measurements - which as Rex Brynen on Twitter points out are hopelessly wrong:http://i1252.photobucket.com/albums/hh577/TIK184465902/ShajaiyaTerrorActivityCenter1.png

From:http://s1252.photobucket.com/user/TIK184465902/media/ShajaiyaTerrorActivityCenter1.png.html

[davidbfpo]

A short, good article in The Weekly Standard; it refers to the North Koreans and reminds us only four of the twenty-one suspected tunnels under the DMZ were found (Cites SWC member David Maxwell too):http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/underground-war-israel_797368.html?nopager=1

It ends with:
For decades Israel’s traditional military doctrine has been to fight its enemies on the other side of the wire. However, its enemies’ new North Korean-inspired doctrine is to go under the wire. If Israel doesn’t deal with first Hamas’s tunnels and then Hezbollah’s, the next war it faces may well be inside Israel itself.

[davidbfpo]

Awhile ago there was a thread on an Israeli documentary, The Gatekeepers, which interviewed a number of Mossad / Shin Beth directors. Posts about the film are on the Israel COIN & CT thread:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=4661

Today Der Spiegel has an interview with one of them:
Yuval Diskin was the director of Israel's internal security service Shin Bet between 2005 and 2011. In recent years, he has become an outspoken critic of the policies of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.Link:http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-with-former-israeli-security-chief-yuval-diskin-a-982094.html

Hard assessments made, e.g.:
Israel is now an instrument in the hands of Hamas, not the opposite. Hamas doesn't care if its population suffers under the attacks or not, because the population is suffering anyway. Hamas doesn't really care about their own casualties either. They want to achieve something that will change the situation in Gaza. This is a really complicated situation for Israel.

[Firn]

A short quote from that article.


Israeli officials have expressed amazement at the extent of the tunnel network. “Food, accommodations, storage, resupply,” one astonished official told reporters last week. “Beneath Gaza,” he explained, there’s “another terror city.” That is, Hamas’s tunnel network is evidence of a military doctrine, both a countermeasure to Israel’s clear air superiority and an offensive capability that threatens to take ground combat inside Israel itself, targeting villages, cities, and civilians as well as soldiers. Israel perhaps should not have been surprised to discover the size and seriousness of Hamas’s tunnel network because they’ve seen something similar before, in the aftermath of the 2006 war with Hezbollah. And indeed it was Iran’s long arm in Lebanon that helped build Hamas’s tunnels.

Before WWII the 'bomb tonnage' required to kill a city dweller considerably was underestimated by a considerable factor, partly due to effectivness of pre-warning and bomb shelters. Vastly increased and superior firepower has in the last hundred years forced those at the receiving end often underground, from the especially deep German underground shelters on the Western Front to the Austrian Ice City (http://www.worldwar1.com/itafront/marmolada.htm) under the Marmolada.

Another strange link to the past are the entries of those tunnels. Under intense Israeli observation they seem to start mostly under populated areas in buildings. The entries of the classic WWII tunnels of allied POW were also usually hidden in that way. In both cases the disposal of the earth poses problems.

All in all for the Israelis close distances between (large) Gaza and Israeli settlements might be areas where the detection of the tunnels has the highest priority. And indeed the IDF map shows possibly the most fitting one along the border.

[slapout9]

Awhile ago there was a thread on an Israeli documentary which interviewed a number of Mossad / Shin Beth directors. Today Der Spiegel has an interview with one of them:

Link:http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-with-former-israeli-security-chief-yuval-diskin-a-982094.html

Hard assessments made, e.g.:

Good find David!

[CrowBat]

I find various posts here outright 'fascinating'.

It started with one poster's explanation about him losing interest in this conflict because it will never end, and that it will never end because of American public opinion which the Palestinians are not trying to win. And, of course, on his commentary about Palestinians foolishly insisting on violence to confront Israel, and this because of their perceived grievances.

Another poster then added that the conflict began in the 1940s; yet another poster (well-informed readers are not going to miss the backgrounds of the character in question) went on to explain that 'Arab marauders expelled from Jordan have no right to anything there'.

Also 'fascinating' was the post about 'Moslem world going nowhere'....

With this, 2-3 people here have explained it all - about US standpoints about this conflict, created by Israeli PR and religion-based prejudice, plus a big dose of Americans insisting on forgetting their own backgrounds and fundamental ideas, not to talk about their own involvement in this conflict and promises they made.

Accordingly: 'There is no logic in this conflict; Palestinians have been created by the Israelis, who have found "a country without a people for a people without a country"); Palestinian Arabs (and Arabs in general) know - and understand - only violence, they have never tried it with peace' and this is giving Israel 'all rights' to continue doing what it is doing since 1947 etc., etc., etc.

Anybody here who has ever heard anything about establishment of the American University of Beirut? MacMahon Correspondence? Arab Revolts of the early 20th Century? Balfour Declaration? King-Crane Commission? Kingdom of Syria? San Remo Conference? Line in the Sand...and so many similar affairs from the 1910s and 1920s?

Has any of you at least a trace of clue why Herzl created the myth about Palestine as a 'wasteland'?

Any clue why could anything of above-mentioned be 'important' in the context of this conflict?

Perhaps it would be good for few people to inform themselves about such affairs - and do so even before going into discussions about Ahkenazi Jews; Zionism; Jewish terrorism in Palestine of the 1930s and promise of establishing Israel in military and economic hegemony over the Middle East (issued to US representatives already in 1947); ethnic cleansing of Arabs (whether Moslems or Christians) from Palestine; about Unit 101 and Qibya; about Lavon Affair; the Water War; the 1956 Suez War; the June 1967 War and the war in Jordan of 1970 (both resulted in yet more ethnic cleansing);
Sadat's peace offer from 1971 and the October 1973 War; dismemberment of Lebanon...etc., etc., etc... indeed, about various truces with people supposedly not existing...

Note: and that's something like 'required' long before one would enter discussion over the topics like 'Moslem world going nowhere'...

Bottom line: ever since Truman was afraid he would lose elections, the situation for American politicians became quite simple. Express unlimited sympathies, support Israel regardless the cost, and you'll get Jewish votes. And so, no matter how 'irrelevant', indeed 'uninteresting' the Arab-Israeli conflict might be for Americans, its future is directly related to US elections - and US-taxpayer's money.

Don't like it? Well, most of Israelis and their supporters abroad (in the USA and elsewhere) don't like all of this either.

Perhaps that's the reason you don't know about all of these affairs?

[davidbfpo]

Israeli attitudes to IDF use of force in Gaza. Tweeted by Rex Brynen, from:http://www.peaceindex.org/indexMonthEng.aspx?num=276#.U9fQfaORcdW

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BtuY8pFIAAEiQ2V.png

[davidbfpo]

A blogger has translated an Israeli press report, which helps to explain the situation:http://blogs.forward.com/jj

[davidbfpo]

A Kiwi academic blogged on the issues. He starts with:
Just war comes in various forms, but at its core it is based on seven key principles. These principles state that in order for a war to be just,
1. The war must be fought for a just cause.
2. The war must be declared by a lawful authority.
3. It must be fought for a right intention.
4. It must be a last resort after peaceful alternatives have been tried.
5. It must have a reasonable chance of success to avoid prolonging suffering.
6. The force used must be proportionate.
7. Innocent civilians should not be harmed.
In short, wars should be fought only for a just or legitimate cause, and the war itself must be conducted in a just manner. The argument is that in order for a war to be considered just (or legitimate), it should adhere to all of these seven principles.

(Later) In sum, it is plainly obvious that this is far from a just war. It violates four of the seven principles of just war outright, and may also arguably violate the other three. The only reasonable assessment is that this in fact, a deeply unjust war, a disproportionate massacre of a largely defenceless people. It is exactly the kind of war of aggression that just war theory was designed to prevent or mitigate, and by engaging in it, Israel is behaving like a rogue state.Link:http://richardjacksonterrorismblog.wordpress.com/2014/07/30/gaza-and-the-lonely-death-of-just-war-theory/

Painful reading for some I think.

[JMA]

This is merely an opinion piece and certainly not a definitive position.

Not all academics are 'smart'.

Israel is fighting a war of survival and seem to be making every effort to limit the collateral damage in keeping with the survival of the state of Israel... IMHO.

It would be interesting to contrast the current Gaza offensive with that of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.



A Kiwi academic blogged on the issues. He starts with:Link:http://richardjacksonterrorismblog.wordpress.com/2014/07/30/gaza-and-the-lonely-death-of-just-war-theory/

Painful reading for some I think.

[AmericanPride]

Israel is fighting a war of survival and seem to be making every effort to limit the collateral damage in keeping with the survival of the state of Israel... IMHO.

It's absurd to make the argument that Israel is fighting a "war of survival" when 5% of the casualties are Israeli contrasted with the estimate that of the remaining 95%, 70-80% are estimated to be civilians.

[davidbfpo]

Israel is fighting a war of survival and seem to be making every effort to limit the collateral damage in keeping with the survival of the state of Israel... IMHO..

This is not a 'war of survival' for Israel; rockets, mortar bombs and raiding from Gaza have occurred for many years. The current episode is no different. Yes the attacks, especially the rockets, can be lethal for unlucky Israelis not in a shelter - which is amply shown in the deaths to date:
...two Israeli civilians and a Thai national killed by Hamas rockets fired from Gaza.

The bigger impact on Israel is the losses to the IDF:
... 53 members of the Israel Defense Forces have died..

Alongside the mobilization of IDF reservists, the BBC cites 65,000.

In 2008-2009 Operation Cast Lead Israeli losses were: 9 (IDF 6) and in the November 2012 Operation Pillar of Defense losses were: 6 (IDF 4).

All quotes, map and figures are found here:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28252155

Leaving Palestinian deaths aside you can make a far more plausible argument that Gaza is facing 'national survival' as Israel's bombardment destroys buildings, alongside the extension of the imposed three kilometre "buffer" zone, further concentrating the population. Destroying the only electricity generation plant in Gaza will have an effect, although some power comes from Israel.
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/76622000/gif/_76622248_gaza_shejaiya_624_latest.gif

[JMA]

This is not a 'war of survival' for Israel; ...

OK you also miss the point, let me help you.

This is just the latest battle in Israel's 'war of survival'

Here is a short article to give you a short historical idea of what Israel has faced ...

Israel is fighting for survival (http://www.columbiatribune.com/opinion/columnists/israel-is-fighting-for-survival/article_78e89779-8fae-50d7-a88a-b4859ae838d6.html)

The war started in 1948 and has continued battle after battle, with this being the latest.

I quote from the article:


The wayward Hamas rocket, so idiotically trivialized by Israel’s critics, doesn’t have to kill anyone to take a toll. People will seek safety as surely as water seeks its own level.

You would have noticed that even here some fail to see the simple truth in this quote. I have asked before whether these people who support the media line are just not as smart as they think they are or are they actively plugging the leftist line.


Israel is the legal creation of the United Nations. It has an absolute right not merely to exist but to do so safe from rockets or incursions by tunneling terrorists.

Tell me I am wrong.

[carl]

You're really going to cite a column by Richard Cohen as your source? The same Cohen who is repulsed by mixed-race couples and thinks it's perfectly acceptable to shoot black youth because well, they're black... Oh wait - now your citation makes sense.:

Citations please.

[carl]

This is not a 'war of survival' for Israel; rockets, mortar bombs and raiding from Gaza have occurred for many years. The current episode is no different. Yes the attacks, especially the rockets, can be lethal for unlucky Israelis not in a shelter - which is amply shown in the deaths to date:

Not a war of survival, but as JMA says perhaps a battle in the war for survival. I don't see how Israel can not respond to the rockets.

Let me make it clear that my personal opinion is that overall Israel is conducting its war for survival so poorly as to insure its ultimate demise.

[AmericanPride]

carl,

No problem. Here is Cohen on 15 July 2013 explaining the Trayvon Martin murder (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/richard-cohen-racism-vs-reality/2013/07/15/4f419eb6-ed7a-11e2-a1f9-ea873b7e0424_story.html):


There’s no doubt in my mind that Zimmerman profiled Martin and, braced by a gun, set off in quest of heroism. The result was a quintessentially American tragedy — the death of a young man understandably suspected because he was black and tragically dead for the same reason.

Bold is mine.

Here is Cohen a few months casually revealing his disgust (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/richard-cohen-christies-tea-party-problem/2013/11/11/a1ffaa9c-4b05-11e3-ac54-aa84301ced81_story.html) for mixed race couples since, you know, it's a "conventional view":


People with conventional views must repress a gag reflex when considering the mayor-elect of New York — a white man married to a black woman and with two biracial children.

Back to Israel: of course the state has the right to respond to rocket attacks. Is it essential or necessary for that response to result in 70-80% civilian casualties, to result in the destruction of Palestinian infrastructure, or the forcible removal of large segments of the population from their homes?

[Firn]

A terrific infomap by Haaretz, published on the 27th. Since then the casualities have of course gone up.

http://www.haaretz.com/polopoly_fs/1.607580.1406536924!/image/2320157484.jpg

[davidbfpo]

Israel -v- Palestine is always a heated SWC topic and a number of posts here reflect that. Personal invective has appeared which detracts from the discussion.

SWC enjoys debate. In a moment I will review the posts again and seven posts were deleted.

[carl]

Here is Cohen a few months casually revealing his disgust (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/richard-cohen-christies-tea-party-problem/2013/11/11/a1ffaa9c-4b05-11e3-ac54-aa84301ced81_story.html) for mixed race couples since, you know, it's a "conventional view":

This is the entire paragraph from which your Cohen quote cited above is taken.

"Today’s GOP is not racist, as Harry Belafonte alleged about the tea party, but it is deeply troubled — about the expansion of government, about immigration, about secularism, about the mainstreaming of what used to be the avant-garde. People with conventional views must repress a gag reflex when considering the mayor-elect of New York — a white man married to a black woman and with two biracial children. (Should I mention that Bill de Blasio’s wife, Chirlane McCray, used to be a lesbian?) This family represents the cultural changes that have enveloped parts — but not all — of America. To cultural conservatives, this doesn’t look like their country at all."

I think it apparent that the opinion you said Cohen had, is not his at all. It is his view of other's opinion.

[carl]

No problem. Here is Cohen on 15 July 2013 explaining the Trayvon Martin murder (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/richard-cohen-racism-vs-reality/2013/07/15/4f419eb6-ed7a-11e2-a1f9-ea873b7e0424_story.html):

Bold is mine.

Here is the first sentence from the Cohen article you quoted.

"I don’t like what George Zimmerman did, and I hate that Trayvon Martin is dead."

Mr. Cohen made a fairly complicated point in this article that cannot be boiled down to one sentence, neither yours nor mine.

[AmericanPride]

Carl,

We can agree to disagree, and that's fine. Anyway - in the same thread that JMA dismissed one of David's posts because the linked article was an "opinon" and that "not all academics are 'smart'", he cites a column by Richard Cohen, who is not even a professional researcher and as a career reporter has his own share of controversial opinions. Whatever his views, I'm just not a fan of double standards.

[CrowBat]

...Israel is fighting a war of survival...
This is not only absurd, but the same as if you would have said that Aparthaid was fighting a 'war of survival', back in the 1980s.

Israel didn't fight 'for survival' even back in 1947, when Jewish militants launched ethnic cleansing of 700.000+ Arabs from the (still) British-controlled Palestine, in turn provoking counterattack ('invasion') by Arab neighbours, in May 1948.

Even less so nowadays - when Israel's existence is as safe as its nukes.

The ongoing 'battle' is an armed conflict between two parties (Israel and Palestinian militants) insisting on impressing their conditions on the other party.

Israel's aim is to force Palestinians into complete submission. They should not arm themselves, not defend themselves, but actually disarm themselves and agree to a cease-fire, which Israel is then going to continue breaching through repeated 'targeted killings' of selected Palestinian leaders. The Palestinians should not vote for parties that have military wings either, and preferrably be so friendly to ethnically cleanse themselves from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip too.

From that standpoint, it doesn't matter that it wasn't Hamas that hijacked three Israeli teenagers, or that it's the PIJ that's shooting most of rockets on Israel. 'Hamas' is to blame, because - as an organization declared 'terrorist' in Israel and the USA - it's an opportune target.

Aim of Palestinian militants (foremost Hamas and the PIJ) is rather simple: lifting of the Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip. In exchange, they have offered a 10-years cease-fire.

Israel turned this offer down because for reasons mentioned above.

So, since every armed conflict is an extension of politics, you have two parties attempting to force the other to accept all of their conditions, without any exceptions. Major difference (in comparison to earlier times) this time is: after all of earlier experiences, Hamas is not ready anymore to make any kind of concessions.

[JMA]

This is not only absurd, but the same as if you would have said that Aparthaid was fighting a 'war of survival', back in the 1980s.

Come on CrowBat you are smarter than that.

By 1945 Nazi Germany - the Third Reich - was fighting for its very survival. The Apartheid regime was indeed fighting for its survival back then.

Just so is the state of Israel fighting for its very survival right now on a continuing basis battle by battle.

[JMA]

Carl,

We can agree to disagree, and that's fine. Anyway - in the same thread that JMA dismissed one of David's posts because the linked article was an "opinon" and that "not all academics are 'smart'", he cites a column by Richard Cohen, who is not even a professional researcher and as a career reporter has his own share of controversial opinions. Whatever his views, I'm just not a fan of double standards.

David's calling Richard Jackson an 'academic' was a mis-characterisation. To understand where Richard Jackson is coming from one needs to note that he describes himself as a pacifist and a Christian. Given the former he is sure to list as many conditions as he can to render a 'just war' impossible and given the latter he presents his case in a sanctimonious and holier-than-thou manner.

So David should have introduced this person's article as follows: "here is the opinion of an obscure Christian pacifist living in New Zealand, for what that's worth".

[Firn]

The Gaza damage assessment view by satellite done in Feb. 2009 shows were most of the bombing, shelling and heavy ground fighting took place then. One can see both difference and trends with the eastern and northern urban areas and settlements suffering seemingly the brunt of the fighting.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/UNOSAT_GazaStrip_Damage_Review_19Feb09_v3_Lowres.p ng

[Firn]

Protective Edge Vs. Cast Lead at Day 22 (http://www.defensenews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2014307290042) is a 'snapshot' comparing both operations.


As of late July 29, Israeli fatalities stood at 56.

That’s a fourfold surge from the Cast Lead incursion, which claimed 13 lives, four of them from friendly fire.

....

As for deaths in Gaza from Protective Edge, the latest July 29 data from the Palestinian Ministry of Health cites 1,210 “martyrs.” That marks a drop from the 1,440 reported killed during Cast Lead.


It has also some information about the firepower employed:


As for artillery, IDF gunners by the end of Day 22 fired more than 30,000 rounds, according to an unnamed battalion commander quoted in a July 29 account posted on the military’s official website.

In contrast, the IDF Artillery Corps fired only 7,000 rounds in Cast Lead.

[Firn]

Israeli Firm Provides Power-by-The-Hour Intel in Gaza (http://www.defensenews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2014307290031) is from the same site and shows a possibly not-so well-known aspect of the war.



Rami Shmueli, chief executive of RT LTA Systems, said the firm has fielded civilian teams to operate about a dozen SkyStar 180 aerostats, providing tactical intelligence and surveillance data from various points along the Gaza border.

“Without getting into too much detail, much of the imagery coming from Gaza that you see on YouTube and in the media is coming from our products,” he said.

....

Shmueli, a former director of aerostat operations in an elite military intelligence unit, said SkyStar made its operational debut in Gaza in 2006, providing power-by-the-hour video for IDF Southern Command. In Israel’s Cast Lead incursion into Gaza in 2008-2009, RT teams operated two systems.

[davidbfpo]

David's calling Richard Jackson an 'academic' was a mis-characterisation. To understand where Richard Jackson is coming from one needs to note that he describes himself as a pacifist and a Christian. Given the former he is sure to list as many conditions as he can to render a 'just war' impossible and given the latter he presents his case in a sanctimonious and holier-than-thou manner.

So David should have introduced this person's article as follows: "here is the opinion of an obscure Christian pacifist living in New Zealand, for what that's worth".

JMA,

I offered Professor Richard Jackson's viewpoint for SWC to read and maybe discuss. I have met him once, so I know he has a sharp writing style. On the linked wbsite his bio starts with:
In February 2012, I took up the post of Deputy Director of the National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies (http://www.otago.ac.nz/ncpacs/), the University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. Prior to this, I was Professor of International Politics at Aberystwyth University in Wales, UK. I study and teach on issues of terrorism, political violence, war, security, peace and conflict resolution. I have published several academic books on these topics...I have not looked further into his viewpoint, whether he is a Christian or a pacifist to me is a moot point. One thing I will not do is introduce any source with the remarks you use; I will and have noted before on a few sources their origins to enable "reader beware".

[CrowBat]

Come on CrowBat you are smarter than that.
Get emotions out of it and tell me, please: what kind of 'existential threat' is Israel facing?

Is it about to get overrun by a massive US/British-led or Soviet-style conventional military force? Or by the Hamas, PIJ, perhaps these two combined with Fatah? Would even 1,000 'terror tunnels' bring it to collapse? Are Zionists about to get negotiated out of power?

Despite all of this supposed 'fight for survival', the Israelis are free to select and direct the level of threat emitted by the Hamas, as and when this is suiting them - as can be read here (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/07/31/bibi-wants-hamas-to-stay.html#):


...
Israel’s ideal outcome would be for Hamas to capitulate to Israel’s demands to disarm and reform into a defanged version of its current self—a troublesome but manageable part of a larger Palestinian political infrastructure. But if Hamas won’t bend, it might break, and that would be the worst possible outcome for Israel, said Aaron David Miller, a former Middle East negotiator now with the Wilson Center.

“Reform or regime change, that’s the central question,” he added. “An unanchored, unmoored, lawless Gaza in the hands of something like ISIS or Islamic Jihad, this proposition would be fundamentally worse than the one we inhabit and inherit now.”

The problem with Netanyahu’s strategy, according to Miller, is that Netanyahu may never be able to achieve the ending to the war he’s looking for. He’s unlikely to get a capitulation by Hamas and he can’t afford to destroy its leadership. He also can’t accept a tie, as the 2012 ceasefire was widely viewed in Israel.
...


What part of this sounds like an 'existential threat' and 'battle for survival'...?

Perhaps you mean a 'battle for survival of Israeli hegemony in the Middle East and on the Capitol...?

BTW, the sarcast in me can't miss the following point:


....
“Right now, Bibi is stuck. He doesn’t have an answer to the question, how do you give the Israeli public the kind of decisive victory that he and others have been talking about?” said Miller. “Bibi is risk-adverse. He wants a way out of this. The problem is, he can’t find one.”
...

...which makes it clear that the Israelis are not only in full control of this circle of violence, but therefore fully responsible for it too, for their own and the deeds of their opponents, and for consequences of both.

[davidbfpo]

Once again the London Review of Books (LRB) has a fascinating commentary, the author is with ICG and makes the political context far clearer IMHO:http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n16/nathan-thrall/hamass-chances

[JMA]

Get emotions out of it and tell me, please: what kind of 'existential threat' is Israel facing?

Look we are going nowhere with this. I made a simple statement shared I might add the majority of western nations and get a knee jerk response from you.

Not arguing the obvious with anyone.

[Firn]

Looking back the last thirty years alone it is, despite all of what we know, quite depressing how the relationship between the Palestinians in Gaza and Israelis turned out. An article with interviews, which I read a while ago showed that during the direct Israeli occuption there was a level of social and commercial relations absolutely unthinkable today. For example it was absolutely normal for the kids of some Kibbutz to buy the daily share of fruit and vegetables in Gaza from their Palestinian farmer of choice. Nobody should idealize that past and deny the conflicts there and then, but how things have changed.

Over the last decades both sides have become physically and also mentally seperated. One side is increasingly known to the other only as the enemy.

[davidbfpo]

Firn,

Amidst the recent reporting was an article on the IIRC 300k Palestinians who crossed daily into Israel from Gaza, of late no-one does.

Perhaps the Israeli economy no longer such a labour force, which I suspect was manual work in agriculture and construction.

This report suggests dependency is one objective for Israel, as it hits a wide range of targets:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/gaza/11007914/They-want-to-make-us-dependent-on-aid-Gazas-economy-ruined-by-Israeli-shelling.html

I note there has been no reporting since last week about disorder within Israel, IIRC West Bank Palestinians; I've not spotted anything about the Israel-Arab reaction.

[TheCurmudgeon]

As I look at this problem it seems to me that the UK and the US created this mess. What we are seeing is the inevitable result of one of the last of the colonial mistakes of trying to create a state (https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/creation-israel) where one formerly did not exist and without the consent of the local population.


Soon after President Truman took office, he appointed several experts to study the Palestinian issue. In the summer of 1946, Truman established a special cabinet committee under the chairmanship of Dr. Henry F. Grady, an Assistant Secretary of State, who entered into negotiations with a parallel British committee to discuss the future of Palestine. In May 1946, Truman announced his approval of a recommendation to admit 100,000 displaced persons into Palestine and in October publicly declared his support for the creation of a Jewish state. Throughout 1947, the United Nations Special Commission on Palestine examined the Palestinian question and recommended the partition of Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state. On November 29, 1947 the United Nations adopted Resolution 181 (also known as the Partition Resolution) that would divide Great Britain’s former Palestinian mandate into Jewish and Arab states in May 1948 when the British mandate was scheduled to end. Under the resolution, the area of religious significance surrounding Jerusalem would remain a corpus separatum under international control administered by the United Nations.

What we are seeing now is no different than the future partition of Iraq.

This is a political mess we created. Worse, it was created at a time when the historic solutions to such problems, like the decimation of the local population by the newly created power (or genocide), was just about to be recognized as a crime against humanity. The old days of unlimited sovereignty, where the population was the governments to control by any means necessary, was passing into history. So we created a problem that was now in need of a new solution. Watching "The Gatekeepers" it was clear that the political leadership in Israel had no idea how to deal with the new terrorist threat. They still don't. Emotion now rules the day - an eye for an eye.

Unless we step in and stop this I suspect that we will see another 50 years of war.

[carl]

Unless we step in and stop this I suspect that we will see another 50 years of war.

Oh yeah, given the steely eyed, resolute and decisive nature of our foreign policy we should be able to do bang up job.

[JMA]

Unless we step in and stop this I suspect that we will see another 50 years of war.

OMG you can't be serious.

For the US to attempt anything requiring longer than 4 or 8 years (your presidential election cycle) has proved to be unworkable (other than the Cold War).

Golda Meir had it right:

http://meetville.com/images/quotes/Quotation-Golda-Meir-love-peace-hate-children-Meetville-Quotes-14505.jpg

[TheCurmudgeon]

OMG you can't be serious.

For the US to attempt anything requiring longer than 4 or 8 years (your presidential election cycle) has proved to be unworkable (other than the Cold War).

Golda Meir had it right:

http://meetville.com/images/quotes/Quotation-Golda-Meir-love-peace-hate-children-Meetville-Quotes-14505.jpg

No, I am not serious. Just venting.

As I look at the problem I tried to trace it back to its (modern) source, which seems to be the creation of Israel. It was done with the best of intentions and a total lack of forethought. People believed you could just create a new state with total disregard of the local population. I can't blame them; we still believed it in 2004.

Any of the past solutions to such problems are foreclosed by new moral standards. If Israel believes it can "punish" Hamas into submission it is fooling itself. Short of a Leviathan stepping in and taking control, I would guess that there will be no end to the conflict. Hopefully, I am wrong.

If there is any point to my lament it is that we cannot blame the Israelis or the Palestinians for the current conflict. They did not create the situation. They were thrust into it. The US and Britain created a situation that pitted two groups with a historic distrust built on the absolutes of religion against each other for the same territory. How could anything but war have resulted?

[CrowBat]

...If there is any point to my lament it is that we cannot blame the Israelis or the Palestinians for the current conflict. They did not create the situation. They were thrust into it...
Erm... a nice attempt at being 'balanced', but the bottom line of this conflict is anything but 'balanced'.

Nobody was pushing the Zionists into settlement, and even less so into ethnic cleansing of Arabs from the Palestine, looting and razing hundreds of their villages and even several minor towns, and then establishing a 'new Sparta' that is at war with all of its neighbours ever since. That was their own idea, and they were pushing for it whoever and wherever they could - starting in the UK of the 1910s, and continuing to do so in the USA ever since 1947.

Sure, one can go back and say that pogroms of Jews in Russia of the 19th Cenutry, and especially the Holocaust of the 1930s and 1940s were 'valid' reasons for creation of Israel. However, no genocides are valid reasons for ethnic cleanings, war and state-sponsored terrorism, and as can be seen from so many Jews not living in Israel, people in Europe and elsewhere have learned a little bit since 1945, and the situation is simply different than it was back then.

Sure, the British made a double, counterproductive promise to two different parties at the same time (see MacMahon Correspondence/Arab Uprising and the Balfour Declaration), and thus set their own hair on fire. And sure, successive US administrations blatantly ignored the rights (and the will) of indigenous population, and then simply sided with the Zionists.

But, the motor for all of this was Zionism, i.e. Jewish violence against Arabs (whether as reaction to European violence against Jews or not, that's something we can discuss separately).

Re. 'historic distrust built on the absolutes of religion': although various Austrian experts were warning of 'the power of Islam' already in the 19th Century, and various British experts (including Thomas E Lawrence ['...of Arabia']) did the same in the early 20th Century... somehow I doubt this is what you mean here?

If not, then please realize that religion became a factor in the Arab-Israeli conflict only after the next major Arab defeat (after the one in 1948), namely that of June 1967.

Finally, re. 'how could all of this result with anything but a war'...

Well, all the wars could have been easily prevented - through non-application of idiotic yet typical Western prejudice towards Arabs, just to start with. For example, a conflict could have been averted by respect for treaty between Arab Kingdom of Syria and the Jewish Agency, from 1920, which granted permission for Jewish (i.e. Zionist) settlement on condition of settlers respecting rights of indigenous population. But no: the Kingdom was squashed by the French invasion of Syria (with British, USA etc. looking the other way) and then going on to 'teach democracy' (read: corruption, favourism of minorities etc.) to multi-cultural/ethnic/religious and generally tolerant Syrians.

It could have been prevented through even-handed treatment of Arabs and Israelis ever since. For example:

a) the fact the Zionists not only ethnically cleansed Arabs out of Palestine, but assassinated all the US emissaries reporting about their misdeeds, and most of top US officers fighting 'for Jewish state' in the Palestine during the 1948-1949 War (as soon as these began complaining about corruption, nepotism, mishandling of Arab civilians etc.).... or

b) the fact that the clique around Ben Gurion sabotaged peace negotiations with Egypt through terrorist attacks on US and British representatives in Egypt, in 1954 (see 'Lavon Affair')....

....should have been understood as clear warnings of what kind of regime is coming into being there (in Israel). However, this was completely ignored, and Nasser - who began buying 'Soviet' (actually Czechoslovak) weapons to defend Egypt from such and other sorts of Israeli attacks, and did so because the USA turned down his requests for weapons, was instantly declared a 'Soviet puppet' instead.

Or at least Johnson and Nixon should've done the same after the June 1967 War what Eisenhower did after the October 1956 War, namely force Israelis back within their cease-fire lines.

They didn't. On the contrary: first Johnson and then Nixon launched the policy of wholehearted support for Israel, regardless of consequences - for the USA, the West, and the rest of the World. That needs some 'well substantiated argumentation', and therefore majority of the people in the West are exposed to such bull-####ting propaganda like that Meir's about 'Arab mothers loving their children less than they hate Israelis'... :rolleyes:

[TheCurmudgeon]

Erm... a nice attempt at being 'balanced', but the bottom line of this conflict is anything but 'balanced'.

Re. 'historic distrust built on the absolutes of religion': although various Austrian experts were warning of 'the power of Islam' already in the 19th Century, and various British experts (including Thomas E Lawrence ['...of Arabia']) did the same in the early 20th Century... somehow I doubt this is what you mean here?



CrowBat,

I was referring to the initial failure - the "original sin" - if you prefer, of creating a state based on religious identity. I would think that the Europeans, with their own history of religious wars, should have realized how unyielding religion can be. I submit that what followed was predictable as the lines were drawn between us and them, those who God gave the territory to thousands of years ago and those who have been usurpers on that land. Islamist, Christian, Zoroaster, Buddhist, agnostic, or atheist … it makes no difference, they are all usurpers.

Further, the us-versus-them of religion extends naturally to any individual or group not a member of that religion - which includes secular states, like the US and Briatain.

[davidbfpo]

I cite The Curmudgeon in part (Post 59):
As I look at this problem it seems to me that the UK and the US created this mess. What we are seeing is the inevitable result of one of the last of the colonial mistakes of trying to create a state (https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/creation-israel) where one formerly did not exist and without the consent of the local population.I will only briefly comment on the role of the UK. The violent campaign by Jewish extremists / terrorists started in February 1944, with a more widely supported Jewish revolt on the 31st October 1945. The murder of unarmed soldiers in April 1946 hardened opinions, but the British government declined to use 'traditional' responses, such as blowing up houses, collective fines and curfews. The British HQ, in the King David's Hotel, was blown up in July; by January 1947 over three divisions were deployed - amidst an economic crisis at home.

It appears that remaining was unpopular with all in the UK, even Churchill and so instead of being the referee in a thankless task, the problem was handed back to the UN - the mandate was over. In July 1948 two kidnapped soldiers were hung, in reprisal for three Jewish terrorists and their bodies were bobby-trapped. On the 1st August 1948 the mandate ended and the UK had largely gone by the 30th June.

Summary based on a chapter in 'Withdrawal From Empire: A Military View' by General William Jackson (Pub. 1986).

Blame the UK, yes. Was it a mistake to leave? Maybe, but on a quick review we had no wish to remain as the "jam in the middle" as Arab and Jew readied themselves for what was to come. That hardly helps today.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Summary based on a chapter in 'Withdrawal From Empire: A Military View' by General William Jackson (Pub. 1986).

Blame the UK, yes. Was it a mistake to leave? Maybe, but on a quick review we had no wish to remain as the "jam in the middle" as Arab and Jew readied themselves for what was to come. That hardly helps today.

David,

The UK were hardly alone in this. We, the US, were much more responsible for the creation of Israel.

You are perhaps correct that the mental exercise of tyring to determine when events of the present were finally set in the past is a lot like trying to determine the number of angels who can dance on the head of a needle. I like the exercise because it allows me to look at parallels in history. The ones I find are not helpful, largely because the solutions of history are no longer viable.

[davidbfpo]

From the IDF:
IDF forces in the Gaza Strip found a Hamas manual on “Urban Warfare,” which belonged to the Shuja’iya Brigade of Hamas’ military wing, the Al-Qassam Brigades. The manual explains how the civilian population can be used against IDF forces and reveals that Hamas knows the IDF is committed to minimizing harm to civilians.

This Hamas urban warfare manual exposes two truths: (1) The terror group knows full well that the IDF will do what it can to limit civilian casualties (http://www.idfblog.com/blog/2014/07/16/idf-done-minimize-harm-civilians-gaza/). (2) The terror group exploits these efforts by using civilians as human shields against advancing IDF forces.

Link:http://www.idfblog.com/blog/2014/08/04/captured-hamas-combat-manual-explains-benefits-human-shields/

http://www.idfblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/shajaiya.jpg

[Firn]

Perhaps just a little economic background, which I personally found quite interesting...

Twenty years ago (http://www.csmonitor.com/1993/0406/06071.html/%28page%29/3). In response to a spike in attacks on Jewish civilians and the influx of Soviet and Ethopian Jews Israel changed to a large degree it's economic relationship with Gaza.


ISRAELI-OCCUPIED GAZA STRIP — THE Army checkpoint between the Gaza Strip and pre-1967 Israel remains quiet, the traffic lanes usually choked with busloads of Palestinian workers entering Israel virtually empty.

About 1,200 workers were allowed across Sunday, the only ones since Israel sealed off the occupied territories March 29 following a sharp escalation in Palestinian attacks on Jewish civilians.

But even when the traffic flows again, the 110,000 Palestinians employed in Israel - 30 percent of the Palestinian work force - face an uncertain future.


"My goal is to reduce in stages, as fast as possible, the number of Palestinians working in Israel," Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin declared upon closing the borders. "It is this intermingling which allows them to endanger our security."

The paper Palestinian Labor Flows to the Israeli Economy: A Finished Story? (http://www.palestine-studies.org/sites/default/files/jps-articles/4555.pdf) written by Leila Farkash (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leila_Farsakh) contains a wealth of data.



Until the late 1980s, Palestinian daily commuters to Israel, predominantly male unskilled workers, represented a third of the employed population and generated more than a quarter of the WBGS gross national product (GNP). With the advent of the peace process, however, it appeared that Palestinian labor flows no longer would play the same integrating role.
The number of Palestinian workers going to Israel dropped from a peak of 115,600 in 1992 to less than 36,000 in May 1996.


The absolute numbers don't do justice to the deep intergration, despite (or perhaps because of) the direct occuption between the two entities. For example in the 80s between 40 and 50% of the working Palestinians of Gaza were employed in Israel [Figure 2]. That is an amazingly high amount, of course mostly young and male.

Economic Performance and Reform under Conflict Conditions (https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/med/2003/eng/wbg/wbg.pdf) by the IMF, written in 2003 gives a wider perspective on the Palestinian economy ten years ago. Note once again the importance of the commuters into Israel for the economy, which was considerably higher thirty years ago.


Box 2.1. Palestinian Workers in Israel and Israeli Settlements

The Palestinian economy has for a long time been dependent on employment inside Israel and settlements. Geographical proximity, and the fact that wages are much higher in Israel, makes employment in Israel a very attractive alternative for Palestinian workers to working in the West Bank and Gaza (WBG). Before the Intifada started in late September 2000, 146,000 Palestinians were working in Israel and the settlements (about 22 percent of total Palestinian employment), and average wages for Palestinian workers in Israel have generally been about 70 to 75 percent higher than those in WBG.

This explains the importance of employment in Israel as a source of income for the Palestinian economy. In 1999, laborincome from Israel accounted for about 20 percent of Palestinian GDP.


Israel tried to curb terrorism against it's citiziens and in 1993 greatly reducing the percentage of Palestinian workers in Israel was one of the political means to achieve that goal. While the direct occuption later ended in Gaza the increased overall isolation of a small economy with very little ressources under a corrupt regime helped to create a terrible economic reality for it's population. Those conditions certainly played a big role in the landslide victory of Hamas which installed a new, increasingly corrupt regime which continued to attack Israel in various, sometimes new ways.

Israel also benefited in economic terms from the cheap labour but has increasingly substituted it mostly with workers from Asia. Perhaps later more on the Israeli economy.

[CrowBat]

...I was referring to the initial failure - the "original sin" - if you prefer, of creating a state based on religious identity. I would think that the Europeans, with their own history of religious wars, should have realized how unyielding religion can be...Frankly, British government included a number of Zionists, or their sympathisers, and these were surely not the least interested in warning about creation of a state based on religious identity.

The rest fell for the same absurd propaganda like most of people ever since. 'Classic' example is that already Herzl knew that Palestine was densely populated and all cultivated land 'occupied', i.e. that the Zionists would have to ethnically cleanse local Arabs in order to create 'Israel'. Yet, knowing Jews of those times (mind: this was shortly after millions of them fled from pogroms in Russia) were not really keen on going to slaughter people and kick them out of their homes, he launched that nonsense about 'a land without a people for a people without a land'...


...I submit that what followed was predictable as the lines were drawn between us and them, those who God gave the territory to thousands of years ago and those who have been usurpers on that land. Islamist, Christian, Zoroaster, Buddhist, agnostic, or atheist … it makes no difference, they are all usurpers.Some parts yes, others not. What is obvious is that ever more extreme methods of violence are creating ever more extremism. So, the longer this takes, the worse is it going to get.

BTW, another thing that's time and again coming to my mind when there's a talk about this is a parallel between the coming-into-being of the medieval Crusader state, and its fall, back in the 11th-13th Century - and creation of Israel. Back then, namely, the emergence of Crusaders and all of atrocities they committed against local population (no matter if Arabs, Christians, Jews or else), created a similar wave of refugees and calls for counterattacks; indeed, some minor counterattacks etc. Still, it took Arabs nearly two centuries to finally unite (under a Kurdish leader that coupped himself to power) and launch that counterattack...

Makes me wonder how long is it going to take this time...


...IDF forces in the Gaza Strip found a Hamas manual on “Urban Warfare,” which belonged to the Shuja’iya Brigade of Hamas’ military wing, the Al-Qassam Brigades. The manual explains how the civilian population can be used against IDF forces and reveals that Hamas knows the IDF is committed to minimizing harm to civilians.

This Hamas urban warfare manual exposes two truths: (1) The terror group knows full well that the IDF will do what it can to limit civilian casualties. (2) The terror group exploits these efforts by using civilians as human shields against advancing IDF forces.
...
Better hurry and check that - not only for content but for origins too: one can't trust the 'IDF Spokesperson' the least.

And versa-vice: HQ of the IDF and Shin Beth are in densely populated (by civilians of course), neighbourhoods. What do you think would we get to hear if Hamas would target one of these - and miss....?

(Probably the same we've got to hear about Iraqi air strikes on Ramat David and Tel Nov ABs, in June 1967: 'only civilian targets 2-3km outside these air bases were attacked and hit, air bases are not even mentioned...'.)


...Israel tried to curb terrorism against it's citiziens and in 1993 greatly reducing the percentage of Palestinian workers in Israel was one of the political means to achieve that goal....Another, more subtle reason for this was that the Zionists are hell and bent insistent on separating and distinguishing themselves from 'Arabs' (i.e. Palestinians), proving themselves as 'better' etc.. Given original Jews (not all the Asheknazis) are just as Semitic as Arabs are, that's rather absurd, but one of sad realities in this conflict.


While the direct occuption later ended in Gaza the increased overall isolation of a small economy with very little ressources under a corrupt regime helped to create a terrible economic reality for it's population. Those conditions certainly played a big role in the landslide victory of Hamas which installed a new, increasingly corrupt regime which continued to attack Israel in various, sometimes new ways.......very much 'truth'. One of major problems was that the Fatah was 'sitting' on any business (in Gaza Strip) that was thriving. For example, Casinos Austria have opened a big casino in the Gaza Strip, back in the early 1990s. Within shortest period of time, this was highly profitable - mainly thanks to income from Israelis and Turks, entire plane-loads of which were arriving to gamble there, every day. Of course, the Fatah was pocketing all the profit (which went well beyond US$100 million per annum, and increasing), and wouldn't let Hamas-members work even as gate-guards (which were anything than that, then we've had our own security service there).

Unsurprisingly, Hamas began threatening with attacks...Fatah explained this with 'Hamas are Islamist extremists'...eventually, we were forced to leave so the casino closed. But, the best part is still waiting its turn: when the fighting started again, that casino was one of first targets of Israeli bombardment...


Israel also benefited in economic terms from the cheap labour but has increasingly substituted it mostly with workers from Asia....... which are easier to mis-treat/handle too...

Fully in best traditions of this Absurdistan: not few of leading Zionists are describing them as 'cockroaches' and want them all out of Israel...

************

Here some more 'food for thoughts':
Snowden latest: NSA targets Gaza, pumps intelligence to Israel (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/08/04/snowden_latest_nsa_helps_israel_target_palestinian s_gaza/)


"According to the latest drop of leaks from NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, the US spy agency provides financial assistance, weapons and signals intelligence to Israel.

The Intercept reports that Canadian, British and Jordanian signals intelligence is also shared with Israel. This intelligence relates to Palestinian targets, including those in Gaza, according to the documents handed to Snowden confidante Glenn Greenwald.
...

Anonymous Declares Cyber War on Israel, Downs Mossad Site, Many Others (http://blackbag.gawker.com/anonymous-declares-cyber-war-on-israel-downs-mossad-si-1615500861/+barrett)


"They're Back. Anonymous has launched a full-frontal assault on the Israeli government's web presence over recent events in Gaza. It's alleged that the attacks escalated after the death of Tayeb Abu Shehada, 22, a Palestinian protestor shot wearing a Guy Fawkes mask.
...

The shooting of Shehada was another of IDF's 'accidents' that are going to be 'investigated', I guess... :rolleyes:

Anyway, the link contains a running tally of downed Israeli sites too.

[davidbfpo]

Shashank Joshi has a succinct column on a local UK politcal spat, but provides a short overview of policy on a Jewish homeland. He starts with:
When the Ottoman Empire crumbled during the First World War, Palestine – already home to 94,000 Jews – was handed to Britain. As early as November 1914, long before Allenby rode into Jerusalem, the future high commissioner, Herbert Samuel, had suggested creating a Jewish homeland in Palestine. The idea was dismissed, but British policymakers soon warmed to it: they saw it as a way to persuade Russian Jews to keep St Petersburg in the war after the Bolshevik Revolution, to persuade American Jews to push US President Woodrow Wilson into supporting Britain’s occupation of Palestine, and to avert what they feared would be a pro-Zionist declaration from Germany. The result was the famous Balfour Declaration of November 1917, promising the coveted Jewish homeland.

Link:http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/shashankjoshi/100282605/baroness-warsis-resignation-wont-damage-britains-unique-relationship-with-israel/

[JMA]

This goes back a while but is now needed around here to balance the furious propaganda being posted:


WHO ARE THE PALESTINIANS?
By Yashiko Sagamori.
November 25, 2002

A rebuttal:

If you are so sure that “Palestine, the country, goes back through most of recorded history”, I expect you to be able to answer a few basic questions about that country of “Palestine”

See here (http://myfutureamerica.org/?p=2903):

[AmericanPride]

JMA,

You need to really find some actual serious sources (she calls the Palestinian people collectively a "terrorist organization"). And in basic theory, there's a difference between 'country' and 'people'. Her "argument" is basically that: "Arabs have plenty of land, so it shouldn't be a problem if some is given to Jews".


If the people you mistakenly call “Palestinians” are anything but generic Arabs collected from all over – or thrown out of – the Arab world...

Well - there's a logical problem with that line of argument. If Arab land is to be considered to belong to "generic Arabs", the region in question (Israel, Palestine) has been governed by Arabs far longer than any other group. She acknowledges that the land was won by Jews in war - from Arabs, who had occupied the land previously, which would make it a crime against peace by war of aggression.

Going down these rabbit holes based on history misinformed by hate (really, all Palestinians are terrorists?) never turns out well.


Arab countries must acknowledge and accept their defeat in their war against Israel and, as the losing side, should pay Israel reparations for the more than 50 years of devastation they have visited upon it.

Based on the rule of 'might makes right', what happens when the Arabs refuse or Israel loses the next war?

[JMA]

Before you get all excited go back and read what I said... and that was to post that to balance the propaganda from the other extreme. See, you wasted your time trying to dig the dirt to throw at me. You will learn as you get older.

But, then as I have learned of you is that you do this when you can't respond to the substance. She asked a number of questions... you have answers to them or are you creating a diversion?


JMA,

You need to really find some actual serious sources (she calls the Palestinian people collectively a "terrorist organization"). And in basic theory, there's a difference between 'country' and 'people'. Her "argument" is basically that: "Arabs have plenty of land, so it shouldn't be a problem if some is given to Jews".



Well - there's a logical problem with that line of argument. If Arab land is to be considered to belong to "generic Arabs", the region in question (Israel, Palestine) has been governed by Arabs far longer than any other group. She acknowledges that the land was won by Jews in war - from Arabs, who had occupied the land previously, which would make it a crime against peace by war of aggression.

Going down these rabbit holes based on history misinformed by hate (really, all Palestinians are terrorists?) never turns out well.



Based on the rule of 'might makes right', what happens when the Arabs refuse or Israel loses the next war?

[CrowBat]

JMA,
I can't but join AP's recommendation for you to soberly make difference between 'facts' and 'propaganda'.

The article you posted is typical for those advocating 'might makes right' and that 'Palestine cannot belong to generic Arabs that are not from there' (indeed, some of characters in question are going as far as to compare Israeli deeds to Arabs with those of American settlers to native Indians, and argument that 'if Americans could do it, why should Israelis be prohibited from doing the same?').

The problem is: if these 'generic Arabs' were indeed 'collected from elsewhere' - and this only after the start of Aliyah (Zionist settlement in the area) as usually babbled by such characters - then any one propagating this kind of nonsense should explain me the following writing by Asher Ginsberg from 1891:
'We abroad are used to believing that Eretz Israel is now almost totally desolate, a desert that is not sowed, and that anyone who wishes to purchase land there may come and purchase as much as he desires. But in truth this is not the case. Throughout the country it is difficult to find fields that are not sowed. Only sand dunes and stony mountains that are not fit to grow anything but fruit trees - and this is only after hard labour and great expense of clearing and reclamation - only these are not cultivated'.

That's a report from a (at that time quite famous) Jewish author who visited the place in 1891. If you like - or prefer not to consider this report for a 'fact' - I can add citations from official British and French documents from around the same time. The essence of what all of say is, 'densely populated', 'no wasteland'; on the contrary, some cite 'flourishing economy', based on 'export of wheat, fruits' etc.

Overall, such reports are making it a FACT that 'somebody' was already living there, in 'Palestine', when the British crafted it as a result of Sikes-Picot Agreement, and before Zionists began settling in this area. Unsurprisingly, when Max Nordau (one of Herzl's closest aides) learned that there were Arabs living in Palestine, he concluded:
'I never realized this - we are committing an injustice'.

In the light of all of this, it is unsurprising that nobody of all the characters that are so hard at trying to explain that 'Israelis/Jews/Zionists (pick your choice) creating Palestinians from Arabs collected from all over – or thrown out of – the Arab world', managed to provide similar reports and documentation.

Conclusion: if you like, we can endlessly discuss 'what is Palestine' - or, better yet: 'when is Palestine' - but it is pointless to discuss about 'Palestinians were created by Israelis/Jews/Zionists', simply because that's no fact, but propaganda.

Therefore, I am herewith joining AP's recommendation: find yourself credible, serious source to learn about the history of the country you support (and I criticise). If nothing else, take some of Prof Benny Morris' books: these are based on official Israeli documentation, and essentially say the same like all other authoritative sources (including those I mentioned above) - with sole difference being that Morris is advocating ethnic cleansing of Arabs/Palestinians out of Palestine-cum-Israel.

**********

BTW, AP, regarding:


Arab countries must acknowledge and accept their defeat in their war against Israel and, as the losing side, should pay Israel reparations for the more than 50 years of devastation they have visited upon it.
It's nothing short of sarcasm for anybody to explain that a 'losing side should pay reparations'. Except for few famous cases (like Germany after WWI), there are few cases where anything of that kind has happened.

Furthermore, considering that there is clear evidence (and that it is well-documented) that:
- the 1948-1949 Arab-Israeli War was provoked by ethnic cleansing of Arabs from areas assigned to them by the UN, which began already in 1947 (see Morris) and not by 'invasion of five Arab states', as usually explained;

- the 1956 Suez War was an unprovoked Israeli-British-French aggression

- the June 1967 War was no 'preventive war' as usually explained (neither Egypt nor Syria had serious intention, and even less so had their militaries any kind of a plan for invasion of Israel), but a mere 'land grab' (see corresponding statements in interviews with Dayan, from 1979, censored and released to the public only in the 1990s), which in turn provoked the War of Attrition, 1968-1973, and the October 1973 Arab-Israeli War too

- that the areas occupied by Israel in the course of these conflicts saw extensive looting and destruction of private property (foremost by the so-called '2nd echelon' of IDF troops), not to talk about summary executions, violations of human rights etc., while Israeli proper experienced next to no damage at all

- that the Israeli invasions of Lebanon in 1976 and 1982 were launched under extremely dubious conditions and with an obviously fake explanation (see books by Ze'ev Shiff and few others)

- that even the Israeli attack on the nuclear reactor in Iraq, in June 1981, was argumented with a lie (Saddam never 'threatened to nuke Israel'; this explanation by Begin was proven a lie by the specialists of the Congress Library in the weeks after that attack)

... well, I would say that if anybody demands any kind of 'war reparations' there, Israel has the least reason to do so.

[CrowBat]

BTW, it seems that no agreement was reached by the time the 72-cease-fire expired; Israel refused to stick to promises it provided in the cease-fire agreement from November 2012 and merely offered to extend the cease-fire. Palestinians found this inacceptable, despite all the possible pressure from Egypt.

Correspondingly, since 08.00 hrs local time, Palestinians began shooting rockets at Israel (Israelis claim that first two were shoot at Eshkol already at 05.00 local time).

[JMA]

Correspondingly, since 08.00 hrs local time, Palestinians began shooting rockets at Israel (Israelis claim that first two were shoot at Eshkol already at 05.00 local time).

Aimed at military targets or any random civilian target in the area?

[JMA]

JMA,
I can't but join AP's recommendation for you to soberly make difference between 'facts' and 'propaganda'.

You seem to find that difficult as well.

[JMA]

Jimmy Carter shows his true colours:


Ending this war in Gaza begins with recognizing Hamas as a legitimate political actor.

How to Fix It (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/08/04/how_to_fix_it_jimmy_carter_mary_robinson_israel_pa lestine_gaza_hamas)

You see... terrorism pays!

[CrowBat]

Aimed at military targets or any random civilian target in the area?
That's unclear. Though, two things appear likely:

- Given at least one IDF soldier was injured by rocket or mortar fire that hit S'dot Negev today, it is perfectly possible that at least some of fire is directed at military targets.

- Hamas is not involved in this round of firing rockets. That's why today only areas within 40 kilometres from cease-fire lines to the Gaza Strip have been hit.

Well, who knows: perhaps somebody in Israel might eventually learn to distinguish between the Hamas, PIJ, PRC, DI, HE etc....


You see... terrorism pays! Israel is the best example that it does.

Why do you seem surprised others have learned from that example?

[davidbfpo]

Hamas policy on media relations, albeit from an Israeli source:http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/en/article/20699

[JMA]

Israel is the best example that it does.

Why do you seem surprised others have learned from that example?

This would justify Hamas' use of terrorism?

[Dayuhan]

This would justify Hamas' use of terrorism?

Justify, no... their use of terrorism cannot be justified, any more than the Zionist use of terrorism can be justified. Knowing the history does help to understand what cannot be justified.

I personally think that the Palestinian use of terror has been not only unjustified but strategically disastrous: it certainly hasn't worked for them. If they'd found a Gandhi instead of an Arafat they might have done better.

[davidbfpo]

A reminder of the "home front" viewpoint, useful as several ex-soldiers have advocated intervention.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bu3hGiaCMAAU8C-.jpg

Richard Dannatt:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/11023847/Lord-Dannatt-We-know-the-dangers-of-inaction-the-West-must-intervene-in-Iraq.html

Tim Collins and Michael Jackson reported in:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/11029914/UK-troops-must-help-the-Kurds-says-Iraq-War-hero-Colonel-Tim-Collins.html

[CrowBat]

This would justify Hamas' use of terrorism?
You said 'terrorism pays'. I answered that there is no better example for this than that of Israel: it was created with help of terrorism (which, should you have missed learning about this, forced the British out of Palestina Mandate, in turn enabling the Zionists to create Israel).

In what relation should that stand to 'justify Hamas' use of terrorism'?

Though, should you insist on an answer: Hamas was created with help of Israeli intelligence services as a counterweight to the PLO.

So, actually: why should it be a surprise it is using terrorism?

[davidbfpo]

A short commentary by Professor Paul Rogers, with a two sentence summary:
Israel's military forces have embraced new tactics, weaponry and a network-centric strategy. But the latest conflict in Gaza leaves the country's security problems as intractable as ever.
Link:https://www.opendemocracy.net/paul-rogers/israel%27s-security-after-gaza

Being a small nation might this have an impact, with my emphasis:
The IDF losses have been far higher than in 2008-09 (https://www.opendemocracy.net/article/gaza-the-israel-united-states-connection), with sixty-four killed and 450 wounded, many of the latter maimed for life.