Rolling MENA 2014 (Middle East)

not sure if you needed to be told but you seem pretty confused in general so better to be on the safe side.

wait are you gonna tell us that hamas actually burned that palestinian child alive cuz yr gut tells you or are you just gonna tell us that throughout history plenty of children have been burned alive so big whoop amirite. help me i'm confused. are either of these morally bankrupt? cuz god knows you're not that.

Mordy is there any actual support in Israel for your annexation plan? This is not a solution I hear bandied about anywhere else tbh, and while forcibly absorbing a population that doesn't want to be part of your country into your civil society obviously presents, um, certain difficulties (particularly at this late date) it does seem preferable to me - just from a political and moral standpoint. Of course it would be ... complicated.
xxp

Is there support for any plan? I mean, there is some support for a similar plan. Bennett has proposed annexing most of the area (though not all of it) and he is in a political party with a legitimate amount of support from the population. Caroline Glick wrote about a similar plan. A lot of the concern is about "demographic timebomb" stuff which imho is not a real consideration. I think it's a more feasible solution than two state atm. Well, the binational solution looks somewhat promising too.

idk what to tell you balls. i hope the perpetrators get life sentences.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_world_/2014/07/08/gaza_attack_how_egypt_s_military_government_helped_isolate_hamas_ahead_of.html

I assume being annexed by Israel is not a very popular plan for Palestinians, citizenship or no...

No, probably not.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2014/07/08/world/middleeast/ap-un-united-nations-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?ref=aponline

More Iraq news:

http://www.newsweek.com/isis-destroys-shiite-mosques-and-shrines-iraq-257683

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/06/ahmad-chalabi-pariah-iraq-next-prime-minister

Oh no, he's back.

Chalabi return is like hearing Paul Wolfowitz is going to be the next president of the US

Public health officials in Gaza said Wednesday that 35 people have been killed in the coastal strip by Israeli airstrikes, including 16 minors and five women. At least 300 other people, more than half of them women and children, were injured seriously enough to be taken to area hospitals, they said.

Israeli casualties = 0

There were no immediate reports of injuries from the rockets [fired from Gaza], most of which fell in open areas or were intercepted by the Israeli anti-missile system.

im pulling 4 palestine in world cup over us/germany/israel

wld guess palestinians are backing argentina http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19861023

We tried to strike nuclear reactor, Hamas says
Hamas says the most recent attack on the southern city of Dimona targeted Israel’s nuclear facilities.

The Iron Dome shoots down two rockets, but others are thought to have fallen in the area. No damage or injuries are reported.

smart, trying to hit a nuclear reactor

doesn't seem like it matters very much what they are trying to hit, since they can't hit anything

they've hit some homes + commercial residences, but the iron dome has shot down the most dangerous rocket trajectories

$1.5 billion in american taxpayer dollars for iron dome alone.

Palestinians don't even get an Aluminum Dome

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/07/09/330160839/what-happens-when-israeli-mourners-visit-a-palestinian-family

It's pretty silly to discount rocket volleys just because most of the rockets either don't hit their targets or get shot down. The logical implication is that if the rockets start killing Israelis then the Israelis are fully justified in whatever response. But I can't imagine that's the position of the folks taking that stance.

The problem seems to be and has always been that both countries harbor and coddle a sizeable extremist population. Most Israelis I imagine support some sort of satisfactory compromise, as I imagine do most Palestinians. But a hunk of both groups support no compromise and/or the destruction of the other side. Maybe not formally, like Hamas does, but certainly implicitly. I and apparently no one has any idea how to simultaneously curb two sets of policy-dictating extremist factions. That's what seems to be what sets this conflict apart. Usually there is an establishment and a rebellion, say. In this case, we've got two establishments, and two rebellious, internal extremist groups capable of really anything. Yet the odds of the establishment cracking down on its own people, people who provide an existential component of the respective country, are nil. Which of course makes each impotent govt responsible for the actions of its minorities, which leads to perpetual conflict and blame and revenge, since it becomes everyone's collective fault.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2014/07/gaza_civilian_casualties_while_hamas_targets_innocent_people_israel_tries.html

always hear this thread to the tune of

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAcB787DfQ4

Funny, I always hear this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4qh_9vH1Ww

lol

Most Israelis I imagine support some sort of satisfactory compromise, as I imagine do most Palestinians.

I agree with most of what you're saying but this might be understating the gap between normative positions on both sides. I think questions like the division of Jerusalem, or the right of return for refugees, and descendants of refugees from 48, are controversial even for moderates. I'm also not convinced (unlike Kerry) that you can possibly settle the conflict without handling these major issues.

Well, compromise means compromise. Division of Jerusalem I could see, or the transformation of the city into some sort of neutral territory. (Not that that would stop extremist violence). But yeah, not a lot of give on the issue of right of return, for obvious reasons.

One difference between the two groups, I think, is that if you are Israeli and for any sort of compromise or peace, you are not branded a turncoat traitor and targeted as such. Israel may be on the restrictive side of democracy, but they enjoy free speech. The Palestinians and their supporters, I think it's really hard to generalize what they believe, because for lots of reasons they are not always free to say what they feel or believe for fear of repercussion.

Obvious solution is to require the mutual excision/repression/outlawing of extremist elements on both sides on the grounds of their representing an existential threat

Sure. But each like I said is a sizeable, significant existential component that dictates the direction of the government, often democratically. It'd be like saying the US could get a lot more done if we just outlawed Republicans and Tea Party and religious right people. Both extremist groups have long been integrated into the respective Palestinian and Israeli governments. It's not so simple to suddenly kick them out, esp. since the alternative is, what, Egypt under Mubarak? Libya under Gaddafi? Just about any Arab nation under just about any dictator? And a lot of good that does when the dictator goes away and, go figure, the extremists are still there.

my pie in the sky fantasy resolution is that w/ the lack of iranian funding, Egyptian support, gulf states concentrating on syria + PLO antagonism plus israeli aerial campaign hamas collapses (wishful thinking #1). israel then empowers (wishful thinking #2) abbas to run new elections in gaza + west bank. maybe PLO can pull together a moderate government (wishful thinking #3) that might have the representation to negotiate w/ israel. at that point maybe kerry releases the US framework plan and both peoples can have a referendum vote or something.

more likely: israel bombs hamas until hamas runs out of rockets (through shooting them - losing them in depot explosions) and then they agree to a cease fire, repeat in two years.

If the GOP was advocating for the destruction of California I dont think there would be any issues w outlawing such a traitorous element. We did already sort of fight a civil war over these ideas.

lol GOP has long done the best it could sans rockets.

unfortunately agree w mordy on likely scenario here

War of attrition has been default mode for decades. Unfortunately for the Palestinians, being played as puppets by other countries basically dooms them to lose again and again. No other country would dare declare direct war against Israel, especially when proxy by wire transfer allows them to keep the fight going without getting involved.

The more I read about the Iron Dome, the more surreal this scenario becomes. Sure, no Israelis are being killed by shelling ... because they are hiding in their bunkers while a high-tech anti rocket system takes out the incoming missiles. As someone said on the radio this morning, if this Iron Dome were not in place, and if Israelis were not hiding in shelters, then yeah, you would have Israeli casualties. Also, you would have Israel likely already invading the Palestinian territories, which would lead to Israeli deaths, yes, but many, many more Palestinian deaths. Iron Dome, in one of the many ironies of war, is keeping plenty of people safe on both sides.

I remember ppl discussing that during Pillar of Defense in 2012 - that the iron dome gave Bibi the freedom to hold ground troops back until a cease fire could be reached

At the risk of linkdumping, Chomsky on BDS rhetoric and tactics: http://www.thenation.com/article/180492/israel-palestine-and-bds?page=full

eugh

chomsky railed against boycott and divestment of south africa in their day, too.

(My linking, in this case, was not based on more than thinking this was relevant to the thread, I should say.)

x-post to:
As someone said on the radio this morning, if this Iron Dome were not in place, and if Israelis were not hiding in shelters, then yeah, you would have Israeli casualties

The NPR radio report I heard said that Iron Dome was only blocking a very small percent of the incoming rockets

i heard something like 80-90% success rate? but they only target rockets that are on trajectory to hit residential areas so of the whole quantity of rockets it might be a much smaller percentage

"Iron Dome racks up 90% success rate so far"

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.604039

here's the important bit:

The Iron Dome missile defense system has achieved a nearly 90 percent success rate since Monday night, an improvement over its performance during Operation Pillar of Defense in November 2012.

The defense system is activated only when the rockets fired by Palestinian militants at Israel appear likely to hit populated areas.

It has been activated to intercept about 27 percent of the approximately 180 rockets fired between Monday night and midday Wednesday. Of the times when Iron Dome was activated, it successfully intercepted the rockets nearly 90 percent of the time, and there have been few rocket hits or serious injuries.

The success of the defense system marks an improvement over the 84 percent success rate during Operation Pillar of Defense.

As my dad used to say, they only have to lose once.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-21751766

I heard an interview with the MIT guy quoted in this article who is the one naysayer re the success rate. The MIT guy apparently interprets success as destroying the incoming rocket completely, while others count making contact with it

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BsNxStWIMAE6eHM.jpg

Yes, despite saying I wouldn't be back, here I am. And I am truly sorry, Mordy, if I have been unfair to you - which I have been, in regards to 'how do you sleep at night'.

The above image sums up the sad state of affairs though. Do you still think this is an "appropriate response"?

i can't imagine bibi stopping the aerial campaign until gaza either stops or runs out of rockets - from a political calculus pov. from a personal pov i am reserving my emotional energy for hoping that ground troops are not sent in. my feeling is that they won't be - that bibi demonstrated in 2012 how little he wants to bring the IDF back into gaza. w/out the muslim brotherhood in egypt tho i don't know who is going to negotiate on behalf of hamas - it seems like they need a real state power to sit at the table w/ israel for them. maybe erdogan?

vice ran this doc recently about idf training for urban warfare:
http://www.vice.com/vice-news/israeli-urban-warfare

it's pretty terrifying imo. i first read about it here: http://www.skor.nl/_files/Files/OPEN18_P80-99(1).pdf < if you've never read that paper i highly recommend it

I don't think Bibi will go for a ground way (no matter how much people like Liebermann would love to see it happen). Nothing to gain from it but international scorn. Still, killing 87 Palestinians for the sake of it... The 'precision'-attack plan has gone right out of the window. Beach huts were bombed yesterday, killing a dozen people just watching football.

I will try and read that paper tomorrow, thanks.

The solution, it seems, has been right in front of our faces the entire time. The Palestinians should get their own Iron Dome defense, then both sides could safely lob missiles and rockets at each other forever.