[BritishShivans]

His point is that both sides have an annoying narrative, and that both sides are butchering each other quite happily, not that the Palestinian populace isn't subjected to propaganda. I'm not sure where you're seeing "ethnic remarks" but I'm pretty sure that has nothing to do with PH's point. 

[Sandwich]

I'm still around... as I'm a freelance web designer/developer, you can imagine how my clients might have a somewhat heavier than usual workload for me, considering the situation here...

From my very limited understanding, the missiles being launched at israeli homes are not equipped with actual warheads, and as such are rather inneffective at killing people (as you also get a lot of time to take shelter). Sandwich being engaged in combat would involve people shooting bullets at him, which will most defenitely kill him.

Minor nitpick: The rockets send by Hamas are not equipped with actual warheads. Technically, they are not explosives but slightly more advanced versions of catapult stones, which is why they are horrendously blessfully ineffective.

Yeahno. They definitely have warheads:


Caption: A house in Sderot hit by a rocket fired from Gaza on July 21, 2014. (Photo credit: Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)

The only thing I've heard to indicate that some might not was the rumor that Hamas had to remove the warheads from the rockets they lobbed in the direction of Haifa in order to get the rockets to fly that far. It's safe to say that most of the ~1,900 other rockets have had warheads.

...and AFAIK no israeli troops have gotten killed either.

I realize that this was posted before we began the ground offensive, and as such was accurate at the time of posting. Just wanted to mention that as of now, there've been 25 IDF soldiers killed.

Indeed it is "reasonable". But it's also incredibly immoral. They could've responded in a way that would've resulted in far fewer civilian casualties, far fewer total casualties, but instead they optimized for minimum Israeli casualties.

At this point, I've stopped fussing about how both sides are obviously targeting each other's civilians.

There's definitely ways the Palestinian death toll could have been drastically reduced. Hamas could have set up rocket manufacturing centers, mobile rocket launchers, regional HQs, and cross-border tunnel openings in NOT civilian homes, kindergartens, hospitals, and schools. Hamas could have defended the very civilians they're supposedly fighting for instead of forcing the civilians to defend Hamas. Keeping their own civilians out of harm's way would have made a major difference in the situation. Not only would it have drastically reduced the Palestinian civilian death toll, but it would have meant that the Israeli offensive would have had much more legitimacy in the wor-oh wait, nevermind.

Ok, so you still claim Israel could do more to avoid civilian casualties? Very well... first of all, name one other country and incident - from the beginning of time until now - when a country went to the lengths Israel has gone to to avoid civilian casualties. Just one, and I'll grant you that Israel could do more.

Assuming you can come up with a mere single instance, I'd like to hear your suggestions on what, exactly, Israel should change in how it deals with Hamas and the 1,900+ rockets they've launched. Perhaps there's actually something we missed, but that you, with your vast military experience in combatting terrorism in urban environments, have thought of. After all, stranger things have happened.

It be better if Israel would just swoop in and annex the entire region entirely instead of those halfish attempts they have done so far. **** the whole moral issues and everything, they control everything that goes in and out of the region anyway, and it would ensure that they both have the means to have "boots on the ground" (so to speak) and bear more responsability (as they would be harming their own civilians at that point).

That's one possible solution, that a number of voices have been calling out for here. I kinda support it myself, actually. Hamas isn't doing any good for the Palestinians, but if we just eradicate Hamas and pull back out, we leave a power vacuum that's just as likely to be filled by the Muslim Brotherhood or Al Qaida as anything else. It's certainly not an ideal solution by any means, but overall it has the potential to improve the Palestinian situation by ensuring that international aid funds go towards building homes, kindergartens, and hospitals instead of cross-border tunnel networks and underground rocket factories. Another benefit might be an ability to prevent the hate-laden, death-obsessed brainwashing of children (!!!) in kindergartens and schools.

Hamas needs someone to hate in order to keep it's tyrannical rule over the populace, and Israeli military needs an excuse to justify pouring funds into the military. They could've overran Gaza long ago, slaughtered Hamas and handed the place off to Fatah (the other, somewhat reasonable Palestinian government), if they really wanted peace and really cared about those people. The thing is, they don't. It's too bloody convenient for both parties to really change anything. Hamas' bombardment is pretty much harmless, and Israel never makes a move towards Gaza despite all their technology enabling them to flatten the place if they wanted. Both sides have a target to hate and build up arms against, which is vital for Hamas (it's too despotic to survive otherwise) and convenient for Israel (they can keep their military on high alert and keep building it up, among other things).

So many issues with this...

Ok, first off, do you really think that it's Gaza, of all the threats around Israel, that's being used as an excuse to pour funds into the military? Gaza?? Not the Hezbollah in Lebanon, not Syria, not Egypt, not Turkey, not Iran, not France... Gaza???? O.o

Next point... have you seen the vitriol, hatred, and violence directed at anything and everything Israeli or Jewish in the last week or two? What for - assaulting Hamas after being bombarded by rockets? Imagine the backlash if we'd invaded just 'cuz. Don't get me wrong, I think we probably should have done that when the first rocket was launched from Gaza into Israel after we pulled out in 2005, world opinion be damned. But we didn't. Instead we hoped that, just perhaps, given what they claimed they wanted, the Palestinians would leave us in peace. Then they went and actually elected Hamas into power in 2006. Dumb us.

You're leaving out a ton of additional meaning in that summary, is all I can say. Sandwich is portraying this conflict as a unilateral affair brought about entirely because of the aggression of the 'brainwashed' Palestinian populace, one in which Israel bears no agency or responsibility except in 'self-defence'. In support of this he appropriates the Israeli Arabs as his poster children, claiming that they live peacefully and happily with their Jewish neighbours; and meanwhile an actual Israeli Arab feels that he and his family have to leave their homeland, because he no longer feels safe amidst the rising aggression of the Jewish majority.

I hope you can see why I find this narrative very annoying, at least.

You mockingly place quotes around the term 'self-defence'. Why? 1948. 1967. 1973. 1987. 2000. 2002. 2004. 2012. 2014. (those are not the rumored release dates of Duke Nukem Forever, btw). Do we not need defense? Should we just meekly go back into the gas chambers?

Tell me, did you hear the good news about that family in your city who had a healthy new baby boy the other day? No? Oh... how about that terrible murder/rape/shooting? That you heard about, right? Nobody in the media (understandably so) gives half a crap about the normal, happy, life-is-fine stuff. That's boring as heck, and doesn't sell. Violence sells. Unhappiness. Misfortune. Wrongness.

My point is that just because there's one unhappy Israeli-Arab (and yes, I'm sure there's more than just the one), doesn't mean there aren't multitudes of Israeli-Arabs who would much rather live in Israel than in any other Arab country in the world. Or didn't you hear that Arabs in Israel have better rights and freedoms than anywhere else in the Middle-East?


All that said, it seems to me like the Hamas is really, really bad for the Gazan Palestinians. I really hope they (Hamas) get dealt a truly fatal blow, and that the Palestinians actually elect someone decent instead of another set of oppressors. As long as they are being used as a base for terrorist operations against Israel, their situation will never improve. :-/

[Phantom Hoover]

I put quotes around 'self-defence' inasmuch as it implies Israel's actions have been purely reactive, that it has never escalated or instigated violence. Cleaving to that mindset is going to accomplish nothing, and the same applies to your attitude that the proper road to peace is for the Palestinians to forego their own nation and assimilate into Israel.

[headdie]

That's one possible solution, that a number of voices have been calling out for here. I kinda support it myself, actually. Hamas isn't doing any good for the Palestinians, but if we just eradicate Hamas and pull back out, we leave a power vacuum that's just as likely to be filled by the Muslim Brotherhood or Al Qaida as anything else.

that dosnt sound like long term occupation to me, in fact it sounds like a faster in and out that Iraq, but with a more clearly defined justification, namely the Palestinians are firing rockets over the border with in any other situation would be an outright act of war

[Dragon]

Hamas needs someone to hate in order to keep it's tyrannical rule over the populace, and Israeli military needs an excuse to justify pouring funds into the military. They could've overran Gaza long ago, slaughtered Hamas and handed the place off to Fatah (the other, somewhat reasonable Palestinian government), if they really wanted peace and really cared about those people. The thing is, they don't. It's too bloody convenient for both parties to really change anything. Hamas' bombardment is pretty much harmless, and Israel never makes a move towards Gaza despite all their technology enabling them to flatten the place if they wanted. Both sides have a target to hate and build up arms against, which is vital for Hamas (it's too despotic to survive otherwise) and convenient for Israel (they can keep their military on high alert and keep building it up, among other things).

So many issues with this...

Ok, first off, do you really think that it's Gaza, of all the threats around Israel, that's being used as an excuse to pour funds into the military? Gaza?? Not the Hezbollah in Lebanon, not Syria, not Egypt, not Turkey, not Iran, not France... Gaza???? O.o

Next point... have you seen the vitriol, hatred, and violence directed at anything and everything Israeli or Jewish in the last week or two? What for - assaulting Hamas after being bombarded by rockets? Imagine the backlash if we'd invaded just 'cuz. Don't get me wrong, I think we probably should have done that when the first rocket was launched from Gaza into Israel after we pulled out in 2005, world opinion be damned. But we didn't. Instead we hoped that, just perhaps, given what they claimed they wanted, the Palestinians would leave us in peace. Then they went and actually elected Hamas into power in 2006. Dumb us.

Last time I checked, Egypt and Syria were quite busy with problems of their own (and I have a feeling that the new government of Egypt might get along with Israel somewhat better). The others are a threat, but last time I checked, only Gaza was actually shooting at Israel (unless Hezbollah started doing this again. That said, Lebanon has been getting somewhat less fanatical lately). Also, what beef France has with Israel? I understand Turkey, they're pretty civilized, as far as Middle East goes, but I know they don't look at Israel fondly. But France?

I agree that retaliation wasn't nearly as swift as it should've been, and definitely not as swift as Israel's previous reactions to being attacked. You'd think world opinion wouldn't be that much of a problem after what was essentially an act of war on their part... Which is what got me thinking that someone somewhere found having such an active enemy nearby pretty convenient. But then, I don't have a high opinion of most of today's world leaders in general.

We'll see how this offensive goes. If they do it right, they could wipe Hamas out, perhaps capture or assassinate their leaders and break their command structure up. If they don't, it'll be just an incursion that'll quiet Hamas down for a while, but make no changes in the long run. We'll see. It's especially important to properly follow up on the attack. Ideally, Gaza would be occupied for a short period of time, then hold an election with UN monitoring.

As for the hatred, I'm hardly surprised. Hamas wants to spread hate, so they'll obviously play up any action against them to that effect. Especially since it distracts people from how horrible they are. Oh, and I'm sure that given the chance, Palestinians would swiftly vote Hamas out of power. It's not like Hamas intends to give them that chance, though.

[Lorric]

The thing is a lot of people don't have time (or care) to look at the facts. And all they see is the news which shows the bodies going through the streets in Palestine, the buildings exploding in Palestine, which makes Israel look like the big bad bully. It's a lot easier for the news media to go to Palestine to get a story than to go to Israel.

[Aardwolf]

Ok, so you still claim Israel could do more to avoid civilian casualties? Very well... first of all, name one other country and incident - from the beginning of time until now - when a country went to the lengths Israel has gone to to avoid civilian casualties. Just one, and I'll grant you that Israel could do more.

Japanese involvement in the War of 1812.

Don't bother looking it up, the answer is "they didn't get involved".

Assuming you can come up with a mere single instance, I'd like to hear your suggestions on what, exactly, Israel should change in how it deals with Hamas and the 1,900+ rockets they've launched.

How about "don't kill civilians". More specifically: "let the enemy waste their rockets".

You don't have to go to "great lengths" to not kill civilians. It takes literally zero effort. It's only when you add objectives like "destroy the enemy" that civilian casualties happen.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I get the impression that in the time it takes to launch a counterattack against a site that rockets are being launched from, most of the rockets will have already been launched.

Perhaps there's actually something we missed, but that you, with your vast military experience in combatting terrorism in urban environments, have thought of.

If anything it's experience in that subject that's the problem. Israel's response to "Hey they are shooting rockets at us" has been "We have experience combating terrorism in urban environments, let us go combat terrorism in urban environments!"; a more reasonable person would first ask "Is any (immediate) action necessary at all?". And if, as I suspect, their total rocket-launching capacity was not much more than what they actually managed to launch, the answer would be "No".

[Scotty]

How about "don't kill civilians". More specifically: "let the enemy waste their rockets".

You don't have to go to "great lengths" to not kill civilians. It takes literally zero effort. It's only when you add objectives like "destroy the enemy" that civilian casualties happen.

The naivete in this statement is very nearly physically painful

No nation and/or country that wishes to remain its own nation and/or country can afford to outright ignore acts of war from its neighbors.  Israel cannot afford to ignore these incidents with an urgency not surpassed anywhere in the world (with the possible and continuously fluctuating exception of Ukraine).  That is the result when the majority of your neighbors have signed treaties declaring their intent to eradicate your entire nation.

I'm not going to pretend that Israel does everything right or are totally without reproach, but the circumstances are far less clear cut than that.

[Mongoose]

Seriously.  I'm not a huge fan of many of Israel's past actions, and I think Bibi is a total nutjob, but if someone is shooting rockets at your civilians, you don't just sit on your hands and think "welp."

[Bobboau]

...

/*Punches Aardwolf in the nuts*/

your move...

[Aardwolf]

@Bobboau: More like "attempts unsuccessfully to punch Aardwolf in the nuts, instead only injuring his fist on Aardwolf's fancy Iron Underpants system".

@Others: I'm still waiting for someone to show me figures on the efficacy of the counterattack. Or even to contest my claim that it was ineffective.

Did it actually affect the rate or volume of rocket fire? Without such action, would the rockets have been able to overwhelm the Iron Dome system? ...or been likely to accrue, through "lucky hits" in low-coverage areas, a kill count anywhere within an order of magnitude of the 194 cited earlier?

[Bobboau]

/*keeps trying... eventually scores a direct hit*/

[Scotty]

@Bobboau: More like "attempts unsuccessfully to punch Aardwolf in the nuts, instead only injuring his fist on Aardwolf's fancy Iron Underpants system".

@Others: I'm still waiting for someone to show me figures on the efficacy of the counterattack. Or even to contest my claim that it was ineffective.

Did it actually affect the rate or volume of rocket fire? Without such action, would the rockets have been able to overwhelm the Iron Dome system? ...or been likely to accrue, through "lucky hits" in low-coverage areas, a kill count anywhere within an order of magnitude of the 194 cited earlier?

In realpolitik terms (i.e. the only ones that actually matter to Israel's survival as a state surrounded by hostile states), whether the counterattack has achieved any meaningful results is absolutely irrelevant.

Israel still exists because it has shown the propensity and the willingness to tell the folks that shoot at them to **** off.  If the Israeli state ceases to respond to aggression, the fear is that the next aggressive move (or the next, or the next) will be a redux of the first few days of the Yom Kippur War.  Israel cannot afford to take that risk simply because a few innocent folks got caught in the crossfire.

Your idealism is laudable.  It would also get a lot more people killed.

[Colonol Dekker]

All that matters is that our boi Sandvich is ok.

[Grizzly]

Ok, so you still claim Israel could do more to avoid civilian casualties? Very well... first of all, name one other country and incident - from the beginning of time until now - when a country went to the lengths Israel has gone to to avoid civilian casualties. Just one, and I'll grant you that Israel could do more.

Assuming you can come up with a mere single instance, I'd like to hear your suggestions on what, exactly, Israel should change in how it deals with Hamas and the 1,900+ rockets they've launched. Perhaps there's actually something we missed, but that you, with your vast military experience in combatting terrorism in urban environments, have thought of. After all, stranger things have happened.

What exactly does Israel do to prevent civilian casualties?
How can it be compared to the 'new' measures Americans have taken in Afghanistan?.  The gist of it being that they hardly employ airstrikes at all, only if they know they do not cause harm to civilians, a massive change from earlier strategies.

It be better if Israel would just swoop in and annex the entire region entirely instead of those halfish attempts they have done so far. **** the whole moral issues and everything, they control everything that goes in and out of the region anyway, and it would ensure that they both have the means to have "boots on the ground" (so to speak) and bear more responsability (as they would be harming their own civilians at that point).

That's one possible solution, that a number of voices have been calling out for here. I kinda support it myself, actually. Hamas isn't doing any good for the Palestinians, but if we just eradicate Hamas and pull back out, we leave a power vacuum that's just as likely to be filled by the Muslim Brotherhood or Al Qaida as anything else.

Hence annexing: Invade Gaza, and stay there. Not the half-arsed 4th-geneva-convention-violating pseudo-occupation currently ongoing in the west bank, mind: Full on land grab. Integrate Gaza into Israel entirely (and the west bank too whilst one is at it). If Israeli-Arabs indeed have it so much better, the most humane solution would be to turn everyone you can into israeli-arabs.

[headdie]

thing is a long term annexing of gaza would force Israel's international allies to back off with their support, possibly denounce the action in the process and then on top of that, as the arabs are traditionally customers of Russia so they will probably press for measures to be put in place to hurt Israel, onto which China will probably add fuel to the fire, so basically Israel is damned if they do and damned if they dont.

Also as an escalation of an already illegal situation the UN will be forced to get involved which possibly means at a minimum international observers, possibly neutral and potentially largely ineffective peacekeepers which would in all likelihood benefit any extremist remnant/resistant groups more than Israel because Israel would be forced to follow the rules as a uniformed army whereas the will be able to hit and fade as they please.

So yes, Annexing while would seem like the quick fix has the potential to badly hurt Israel long term

[Luis Dias]

I would love to see a One-State-Solution to the whole problem, but that would mean the end of a "Jewish Nation" altogether. Which wouldn't be that bad a thing (the last thing I want is for countries to be defined by their "Religion"), but given the historical circumstances I'd say no one's ready to make that bold step yet. All the muslim hard voices surrounding them haven't shown enough restraint and respect for Israel's existence for this to even being considered, let alone happen.

[zookeeper]

In realpolitik terms (i.e. the only ones that actually matter to Israel's survival as a state surrounded by hostile states), whether the counterattack has achieved any meaningful results is absolutely irrelevant.

Israel still exists because it has shown the propensity and the willingness to tell the folks that shoot at them to **** off.  If the Israeli state ceases to respond to aggression, the fear is that the next aggressive move (or the next, or the next) will be a redux of the first few days of the Yom Kippur War.  Israel cannot afford to take that risk simply because a few innocent folks got caught in the crossfire.

The idea that one must demonstrate strength to deter aggression gets thrown around a lot, but I don't recall ever seeing it backed up by anything. Actual strength and willingness to use it are of course what drives politics (on a grand scale at least), but that isn't a blank check to assume that use of force as a demonstration of those things is a good idea in any given situation.

What deters hostile neighbours from attacking Israel are Israel's actual defensive capabilities, and those would in no way change even if Israel never retaliated against rocket attacks from Gaza. It would not be a case of Israel proverbially laying down its arms and inviting everyone to take a bite, and it wouldn't result in its neighbours getting the idea that they'll be an easier target now.

[Aardwolf]

What Joshua said, and then some. Ground forces are a lot better about not killing civilians per target hit. Maybe the airstrikes did a little to "soften up" the area to make it safer for the Israeli ground forces? I'd like to see some figures (or hell, guesses). And it's still clear that Israel is (or was, prior to the ground deployment) optimizing for minimal Israeli casualties, rather than minimal total casualties.

Your idealism is laudable.  It would also get a lot more people killed.

I take it from your use of the "Realpolitik" argument that you do not wish to contest my assertion that the counterattack did not significantly reduce the rate or volume of rocket fire, and thus did not actually save (m)any Israeli lives in the short term.

So this must be in reference to "the next aggressive move (or the next, or the next)". I am unconvinced. Use your imagination for a change. If you actually tried to construct a scenario wherein Israel shrugs off a failed attack and it doesn't bite them in the ass, you could probably do it.



Aside: Joshua, you kinda botched those quote tags; right now you've got me saying Sandwich's line.

[Scotty]

I explicitly did not contest that assertion.  I did not contest it because that assertion is meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

Israel cannot afford to gamble on the idea that not retaliating won't invite more attacks.  It's a chance that any government in their situation would be stupid to take, because it risks tens of thousands of lives in exchange for a dozen or a hundred now.

Governments in hostile environments cannot afford to gamble with their existence if an alternative presents itself.