[Aardwolf]

So you acknowledge that your "principles" dictate that the scenario with more Israeli deaths is preferable to the one with less?

I mean, if you really don't care about those numbers, then you're right, there's nothing to gain from further discussion. And part of me hopes you'll announce that opinion over a megaphone whilst standing in the parking lot of the ADL.

[Scotty]

That's what I said, yes.  The world is an ugly, stupid place.  It's not that I don't care (and rather resent the insinuation that I don't), it's that I recognize that individual lives are less important than matters of national survival.

This is a classic case of short term gain versus long term suffering.  You advocate short-term (70 years) gain.  I'm advocating the survival of a state and the millions of people in it.  If you feel like being crude about it, it's also a case of the ends justifying the means.

And all of this dances around one of the most important issues that you apparently don't understand: self-defense.  I'll quote MP-Ryan's far more eloquent discourse on the subject, in case you glossed over or skimmed it on your way to making your point:

No other nation in the world would be expected to see rockets and weapons targeting their civilian population centers and just ignore it.  It's patently unreasonable.  And I'll go one further - all those assholes who think its a great idea to disrupt the Gaza blockade, to support the delivery of controlled goods into Gaza?  Congratulations, you are the reason ground offensives become necessary, because that's one of the myriad of ways Hamas gets armed in the first place.

Israel is the only place in the entire goddamn world where this sort of thing results in people blaming Israel.  It's victim blaming at the national level, and it's complete and utter bull****.

[Aardwolf]

That's what I said, yes.  The world is an ugly, stupid place.  It's not that I don't care (and rather resent the insinuation that I don't), it's that I recognize that individual lives are less important than matters of national survival.

That is a matter of opinion, and one I disagree with. Furthermore I have asserted (and maintain) that the survival of the state of Israel would not be jeopardized by not retaliating.

This is a classic case of short term gain versus long term suffering.  You advocate short-term (70 years) gain.  I'm advocating the survival of a state and the millions of people in it.  If you feel like being crude about it, it's also a case of the ends justifying the means.

All people will eventually die, and all nations will eventually fall. The dissolution or annexation of a nation is not synonymous with the death of its inhabitants.

You have repeatedly asserted that not retaliating = doom. Presumably that means sooner, since it's going to fall eventually anyway. Nonetheless, this has been contested multiple times, both by myself and zookeeper.

And all of this dances around one of the most important issues that you apparently don't understand: self-defense.

It's not "self defense" if it's not "defense", and practically every claim I've made in this thread has been to that effect. It is "defense" in name only. No lives are saved, no people are protected. It is not "defense" in the immediate short term, nor the ~15 years it would take for Hamas to "get bored", nor the ~70 years or however long it would take for the conflict to end on its own. If you're talking about "self-defense" in the indefinite far future, see above.

No other nation in the world would be expected to see rockets and weapons targeting their civilian population centers and just ignore it.  It's patently unreasonable.

Is Israel's behavior reasonable? It's reasonable in the sense that I can understand it; it's instinctive. But as I have demonstrated (with no contest) it's also profoundly stupid, because it kills more Israelis than it saves.



To summarize:

• No, it is not self defense.
• No, nothing would be jeopardized if Israel refrained from retaliating.

[MP-Ryan]

What you fundamentally fail to graps is that Hamas' recruitment and support is NOT based on the number of civilians killed in Gaza by Israeli attacks.  Read the polls; listen to the interviews - so long as Hamas is perceived to be hitting Israel, they win.  They distract from the issue that they cannot support their own people because their terrorism - and that, without invoking the stupidity around the word since 9/1 but rather its traditional definition, is precisely what it is - actually prevents Gaza from receiving basic goods, services, and an economy.  Every rocket that Hamas lands into Israeli territory is a recruitment poster, and a perpetuation of the conflict.  Israel cannot lift the blockade of Gaza until the rocket attacks stop because that will simply provide them with an endless source of munitions; similarly, Hamas cannot stop the rocket attacks permanently because doing so leads to their political demise because Gaza can be opened to commerce.  Furthermore, a majority of Gazans *still* want Hamas gone - and the only way that's going to happen in the near future is through a military stomping of Hamas by Israel with the PA left to walk back in afterward and restore order and services to the Gaza Strip, because Hamas is not going to stop - they hold the Gaza strip at the muzzle of a gun and have since 2007.

Israel ignoring the rocket attacks targeted to its civilian population is a losing strategy in both the short and the long term; it makes a successful peace process less likely, not more.  This may change if and when the Iron Dome program can be fully expanded to protect the entirety of Israel's civilian population and renders the rocket attacks completely ineffectual.  Until then, they HAVE to respond they have both a strategic interest in seeing the success of a two-state solution, and a moral obligation in protecting their citizenry in the short term, neither of which is served by just letting Hamas fire at them at will.

All of this further belies the matter that, to repeat, no other country on Earth would be expected to 'just take it.'  I'm sure you would feel very, very differently if your city of civilians was under sudden rocket attack from a neighboring listed terrorist organization.  To reiterate:  a listed terrorist organization is firing live weapons at civilian population centers with intent to do as much damage and kill as many people as possible.  No one should be OK with this, or advocating that the governing body responsible for those civilian population centers just ignore it.  It is a fundamental violation of the rules of war and human rights to intentionally target civilians.  The fact that Israel hits civilians as a consequence of Hamas' logistical positions is bad enough; Hamas is going after civilians and not military targets ON PURPOSE.

[Scotty]

That's what I said, yes.  The world is an ugly, stupid place.  It's not that I don't care (and rather resent the insinuation that I don't), it's that I recognize that individual lives are less important than matters of national survival.

That is a matter of opinion, and one I disagree with. Furthermore I have asserted (and maintain) that the survival of the state of Israel would not be jeopardized by not retaliating.

You are allowed to think this because your country or state or county or town does not experience constant threat of rocket bombardment, hostile invasion, and massive upheaval on a weekly basis.  Your government is stable, your borders are secure, and your neighbors have not sworn to eradicate everything you stand for.

You consistently ignore the political and geographical realities of the situation.  Israel is beset on all sides by openly hostile entities that have stated intent and determination to launch massive attacks and invasions simply because it exists.  All this in addition to prolonged, repeated, and extensive terrorist campaigns, rocket attacks, and mortar attacks.

And you have the gall to say that Israel should just sit there and let the rocket and mortar attacks happen?  MP-Ryan and myself have mentioned several (several) times that no one else in the world would be criticized for retaliating, and further that retaliating is the duty of any state that wants to protect its citizens.  It's a complex situation.  Clearly that's not quite sinking in.

I do not contest that lack of retaliation would lead to less Israeli deaths by way of the retaliatory operations.

I declare complete and utter bull**** that there's nothing lost from surrendering the initiate to retaliate.

Israel still exists because it projects force.  When it ceases to project force, it will cease to exist.  That is not a reasonable course of action for Israel to take, because it directly contravenes every good bit of sense that a governing body could exercise.

Your solution is morally reprehensible.

[Aardwolf]

If my strategy is actually capable of doing what it's supposed to, minimizing Israeli casualties, then none of that other stuff matters.

MP-Ryan has finally made an argument that suggests a possible reason why my strategy would not work.

You consistently ignore the political and geographical realities of the situation.  Israel is beset on all sides by openly hostile entities that have stated intent and determination to launch massive attacks and invasions simply because it exists.  All this in addition to prolonged, repeated, and extensive terrorist campaigns, rocket attacks, and mortar attacks.

If my strategy works, my strategy works. You made no indication that these "geopolitical realities" have any bearing on whether my strategy would work.

And you have the gall to say that Israel should just sit there and let the rocket and mortar attacks happen?  MP-Ryan and myself have mentioned several (several) times that no one else in the world would be criticized for retaliating, and further that retaliating is the duty of any state that wants to protect its citizens.  It's a complex situation.  Clearly that's not quite sinking in.

If my strategy works, my strategy works, and disproves your claim about protecting its citizens. Criticism has nothing to do with it.

I declare complete and utter bull**** that there's nothing lost from surrendering the initiate to retaliate.

Surrendering the what now? Response to best guess: I never said anything about "Israel may not defend itself", I said what it's been doing is defense in name only.

Your solution is morally reprehensible.

If my strategy works, my strategy works. It only seems morally reprehensible to you because you do not think it would work, in which case you should have damn well argued you didn't think it would work. But you repeatedly refused to contest any of the points I made in support of it working, except for your constant repetition of your initial claim that "not retaliating = doom", which I contested multiple times.



I'm going to bed.

[Grizzly]

    Hamas didn't kill any Israelis. You want to count that one guy who had a heart attack? Fine. Idgaf.

Actually, an israeli civilian was killed by mortar fire a few days later.

Have you considered the possibility that your strategy may mean that Hamas can develop more powerfull missiles? These current versions are rather ineffective, but they are fired at Israel with the intent to kill.

[jr2]

On a different but related tangent :

http://gizmodo.com/israels-adding-lasers-to-its-iron-dome-defenses-1505223034


Called Iron Beam


Edit:

And, fwiw (Rocket launch sites) :


Check out @ IDFSpokesperson's Tweet: https://twitter.com/IDFSpokesperson/status/491066898641985536


Edit2: http://israelhasbeenrocketfreefor.com/   (Rocket count up timer that resets with every Rocket attack)

[zookeeper]

No other nation in the world would be expected to see rockets and weapons targeting their civilian population centers and just ignore it.  It's patently unreasonable.

Yes, they would be! If Estonia was very unstable and some part of its government decided to start launching rockets into Finland (which is where I live), with about one in thousand rockets resulting in a finnish civilian dying, then yes, absolutely we should ignore it rather than airstrike them back if doing so would be practically guaranteed to result in a much greater number of estonian civilian casualties. Dogma is irrelevant, consequences of one's actions less so.

[666maslo666]

Cycle of violence must be broken if there is to be any hope of peace, and Israel as self-proclaimed "more civilised" and more responsible party with overwhelming force and organised army is the one that is much better suited to break it first. Israeli response is doing the exact opposite, it is inflaming the conflict and at the same time turning public opinion everywhere against them. I am convinced that this will result in much more victims, on both sides, than if Israel just didnt respond at all. I agree with zookeeper, there is a threshold where waging war is certainly a good response, and those rocket attacks have not yet crossed it.

Israel still exists because it projects force.  When it ceases to project force, it will cease to exist.

This has everything to do with responses to actually existential threats and nothing to do with current situation. If Israel did not respond to the rain of amateur rockets, not only would their existence not be endangered in any way whatsoever, it may actually help them by turning the public opinion globally in their favor and over time reducing the support hamas has. And they can always retaliate with great force when the situation actually warrants it, not after single civilian death.

Every rocket that Hamas lands into Israeli territory is a recruitment poster, and a perpetuation of the conflict.

Every civilian death is a hundred times better recruitment poster than that.

[Luis Dias]

What you fundamentally fail to graps is that Hamas' recruitment and support is NOT based on the number of civilians killed in Gaza by Israeli attacks. Read the polls; listen to the interviews - so long as Hamas is perceived to be hitting Israel, they win.

This is a very wrong interpretation of the events and opinions. Hamas is perceived to be hitting a hated enemy and that's what they use as recruitment. But what makes Palestinian hate the Israelis? What is the driving fuel of this hatred? Isn't this hatred fueled by the total blockade empoverishing them to the absolutely miserable state they are in? Isn't this hatred being confirmed daily by the pictures of dead babies in their territory? The moment you say "But Israel is a civilized country, we are humanists, we are this and that" they point to the children casualties and the discussion is immediately moot.

I heard Netanyahu say something remarkably stupid the other day, that these dead babies are "telegenically" used by Hamas. It's not stupid per se, the sentence. I think it's absolutely correct. The very very very stupid thing about this sentence is the obvious come back that no reporter seems to have the balls to say to him: Then why the **** are you delivering them these photos? Why the **** are you granting them victory after victory?

Israelis may kill dozens of Hamas operatives, if not hundreds. It's still a victory for them: They'll have effectively done the best recruiting photos for the past ten years, and will have thousands knocking on their doors asking "What can I do to fight back at those baby murderers?"

All of this further belies the matter that, to repeat, no other country on Earth would be expected to 'just take it.'  I'm sure you would feel very, very differently if your city of civilians was under sudden rocket attack from a neighboring listed terrorist organization.

See NRA, see ETA. Had the UK bombed Northern Ireland to destroy the NRA all that territory would be a similar quagmire. Mind, the NRA wasn't using innefectual rockets against UK territories, they actually attempted to kill Tatcher and almost succeeded at one point, they did terrible killings and so on.

The fact that Israel hits civilians as a consequence of Hamas' logistical positions is bad enough; Hamas is going after civilians and not military targets ON PURPOSE.

I feel the Israeli tears over Palestinian dead babies. And I almost mean it without sarcasm. But really, between Israeli tears and dead palestinian babies, I think I can easily decide where most of my sympathy lies.

[Phantom Hoover]

IRA, not NRA. I would note that the peace process in NI would never have been able to proceed if the British government had insisted on stamping out and prosecuting the IRA.

[MP-Ryan]

This is a very wrong interpretation of the events and opinions. Hamas is perceived to be hitting a hated enemy and that's what they use as recruitment. But what makes Palestinian hate the Israelis? What is the driving fuel of this hatred? Isn't this hatred fueled by the total blockade empoverishing them to the absolutely miserable state they are in? Isn't this hatred being confirmed daily by the pictures of dead babies in their territory? The moment you say "But Israel is a civilized country, we are humanists, we are this and that" they point to the children casualties and the discussion is immediately moot.

You'll note that I covered that.  Israel could do a lot to damage Hamas long-term by ending the blockade immediately.  Unfortunately, that would also allow Hamas to do a lot of damage to Israel's civilian population centers in the short term.  Ending the blockade is not an option at this point.  Similarly, the pictures of dead children and civilians are horrifying, but large chunks of Gaza still DON'T support Hamas now anyway - latest independent polls show a majority of Gazans want Hamas out.  They maintain power at the point of a gun; Israel striking back against rocket positions makes little difference to the situation on the ground.

Western sentiment thinks the photos of civilian casualties are benefiting Hamas, but the public opinion being expressed in Gaza does not reflect that.  Those who support Hamas do it because they fundamentally hate and want to hit at Israel - you'll note that, as in the past, this start with rockets flying out of Gaza (actually, it started with 3 dead Israeli teenagers, which is similar anyway), not shots fired into it.  Those people support Hamas no matter what.  However, the bulk of Gazans don't - they just have no means to get rid of Hamas.  Dropping the blockade will make that situation worse, not better, as Hamas will be better able to arm itself against Israel and the Gazan population.

See NRA, see ETA. Had the UK bombed Northern Ireland to destroy the NRA all that territory would be a similar quagmire. Mind, the NRA wasn't using innefectual rockets against UK territories, they actually attempted to kill Tatcher and almost succeeded at one point, they did terrible killings and so on.

And here is the point in the thread where everyone fails to recognize the differences between Northern Ireland and Gaza.

Britain had a fortified military presence in Northern Ireland, where the pIRA was basically based.  It was, for all intents and purposes, an occupied territory.  It was similar in many ways to Gaza, pre-2005.  That is no longer the case.  The reason I posed the hypothetical 'if' previously was in order to draw the comparison, as it was otherwise not applicable.  It's also further distanced by the fact that the pIRA never used distance weapons from civilian population centers to target civilian population centers to target civilian population centers - their primary weapons of choice were the gun and the bomb, both of which were deployed surreptitiously to cause carnage.  There were no installations to hit with military ordinance and, even more unlike Gaza, Britain already had a military presence in Northern Ireland and was effectively able to deploy a number of specialty units (22 SAS among them) to hunt down specific individuals who were hiding in a territory that was not completely hostile to the British presence.  The situation is completely unlike that with Gaza, which is why I used a completely hypothetical scenario in the first place.

I feel the Israeli tears over Palestinian dead babies. And I almost mean it without sarcasm. But really, between Israeli tears and dead palestinian babies, I think I can easily decide where most of my sympathy lies.

So can I.  The difference is I recognize the reality that Israel has no other alternative other than to hit back, because the longer Hamas can fling rockets into Israel, the longer this conflict will continue.  Israel already has agreed to a ceasefire.... guess who hasn't?

[MP-Ryan]

IRA, not NRA. I would note that the peace process in NI would never have been able to proceed if the British government had insisted on stamping out and prosecuting the IRA.

1.  See my reply to Luis.
2.  The conflict in Northern Ireland had fundamentally different causes, effects, and solutions than that in Gaza.  The Peace process there worked with the power-sharing agreement because the conflict was fundamentally about the historical lack of power of the Catholic political population in the North.  Even the pIRA didn't advocate against Britain's right to exist.

[Luis Dias]

Well if you are going to argue that other examples are not quite like Gaza so they don't work, then I'll argue that you can't make the move of "there is no other country that under the same circumstances wouldn't behave in the same way", because philosophically speaking, the only country who could ever be "that analogous" would be Israel itself and nothing else entirely, so the counterfactual just doesn't work.

You say that we in the west are not well informed about palestinian's actual drives because while we think it's the rockets and the killings which are making the people support Hamas, it's actually their own particular racist hatred towards Israel. My problem with this whole argument is that it is not only borderline racist (almost saying things like "These palestinians are just hateful people"), it's that it misses the whole point of the very "racist" concept at all. People are always racist when they perceive the Other as a Problem. This "Problem" may well be manufactured (like the "Jew Problem" in nazi Germany), or it could be due to a real issue (like the pervasive racism of english people towards the germans post-war). Thing is, that even if this is a case where this "Problem" is a manufactured one through islamofascist propaganda against the "Jews" and so on, the worst thing the Israel government can ever do is to prove them right and empirically confirm to them the things they are brainwashed in, that these are people who will kill children, who will endlessly oppress palestinians, etc.

However, I don't think this is without "issue". The fact that this territory is de facto controlled by Israel, blockaded, sieged, and has engaged in what looks like straight out of the gut cowboy revenge does indeed transcend this "Problem" from an ideological brainwashing towards something more.

The only possible route for Israel to get out of this quagmire is to utterly destroy this image they have on the palestinian heads. It is possible that this could happen "on its own", with the big majority of Gaza pop saying "enough is enough" and end Hamas, etc., but I don't bet on this.

[MP-Ryan]

It's like you didn't even read my last 3 posts.  Or you did and failed to understand them.  Try again.  I have previously addressed every issue you've brought up.

Read the independent qualitative opinion poll information.  Hamas' support in Gaza is limited to less than half the population and contingent not on Israel's attacks on Gaza, but rather Hamas' ability to rain rockets on Israel and distract from the fact that Hamas' attacks are why the blockade, which cripples the Gazan economy, exists to begin with.

[Luis Dias]

You know, "addressed" doesn't mean "successfully argued". The difference between us is not the assessment of the situation, but your lack of confidence in any other solution than "Bomb bomb bomb palestine". If we look at this in purely pragmatical rationality, this operation was both unnecessary, disproportionate (one dead israeli, therefore lets kill a dozen terrorists plus some hundreds of innocent civilians?), great stuff for any Hamas propaganda, and probably, just probably, extremely inneficient.

The only way they can prove me wrong is if they are able to decapitate the leadership of Hamas. In this point, I am extremely radical, so to speak. If Israel is doing this, they should do it to the bitter end and erradicate every single Hamas cell in existence within Gaza. Either they should have done the moral right thing and "take it", or they should do the most "cruel" thing and cleanse the place of that shenanigan. Anything in between will only prolong this quagmire.

[InsaneBaron]

I'll quote MP-Ryan's far more eloquent discourse on the subject...

No other nation in the world would be expected to see rockets and weapons targeting their civilian population centers and just ignore it.  It's patently unreasonable.  And I'll go one further - all those assholes who think its a great idea to disrupt the Gaza blockade, to support the delivery of controlled goods into Gaza?  Congratulations, you are the reason ground offensives become necessary, because that's one of the myriad of ways Hamas gets armed in the first place.

Israel is the only place in the entire goddamn world where this sort of thing results in people blaming Israel.  It's victim blaming at the national level, and it's complete and utter bull****.

So much this. The negative response from the UN and the "Can't we just get along?" attitude of President Obama make me ashamed of my government (which I was already, but...). Israel is the most stable and safest nation in an unstable and vital part of the globe, and now we're leaving them hanging?

Best hopes and prayers to you, Sandwich.

[MP-Ryan]

I don't have a lack of confidence in any other solution than bombing the Gaza strip.  I rather believe that Israel must continue to respond militarily to rocket attacks until Hamas stops shooting them at civilian population centers.  The second that happens, Israel needs to stop shooting back and pull back all forces it has in Gaza.  Israel's military action is only justified so long as it is conducted in a way that prevents attacks on Israel and minimizes Gazan civilian deaths to the greatest possible extent.

Only after these conditions are achieved can progress toward the only real solutuion - the two-state solution - proceed.  That process will not proceed and will in fact be harshly derailed if Israel ceases to respond to Hamas' continual attacks on its soil and citizenry.  So long as Hamas is able to strike at Israel, there is no impetus for the negotiations to continue concerning the Gaza strip as Hamas retains both its control and its raison d'etre.  Hamas is weakened every time they fire on Israel, provoke a response, and then take a ceasefire - shifts in public opinion in Gaza since 2005 have shown that admirably.  However, the longer they can fire on Israel, the more control they temporarily maintain.  Right now, a majority of Gazans want the PA to oust Hamas, but that can't happen so long as they're attacking Israel.

The unfortunate reality of all this is that, because Hamas' tactic is to surround their firing points and logistics with civilians, ordinary Gazans die in the response, and Hamas both knows that and works that angle for international pressure against Israel in the hopes that the Israelis will be forced to just sit back and take the constant rocket fire, further solidying Hamas' position among the minority of Gazans who do support them and intimidating the majority who do not.

Not responding to the rocket attacks is not an option for Israel until such time that they can be completely prevented, or completely neutralized (via Iron Dome, etc) because it hinders the long-term two-state solution.  I don't have unwavering support for Israel here; I'm being pragmatic.

[Aardwolf]

Israel is the only place in the entire goddamn world where this sort of thing results in people blaming Israel.

(yes I know it was a quote within a quote, but you reiterated it emphatically)


This assertion amounts to "you are only blaming Israel because they're Israel", aka "because you don't like them". I have told you why I am criticizing Israel, and the reasons I gave were clearly not that. Yet you continue to repeat this claim ascribing some motivation for my "blaming" Israel other than the one which I explicitly stated.

I will now explicitly state that "because they're Israel" or "because I don't like them" is not my motivation for criticizing Israel. If you repeat this claim again, you are calling me a liar, and I will not stand for that.



Note: "I" = succinct version of "myself and others in this thread who have expressed similar criticisms of Israel's recent behavior"; the same goes for other first person pronouns, verb conjugations, etc..