Rolling MENA 2014 (Middle East)

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.

If a 100% efficient Iron Dome were to exist, would a nation still consider it an act of aggression to have missiles fired at it? Would they feel like it justified retaliation, even though the attack could never harm anyone? (I know this seems like I'm being facetious, but i'm not).

ladies and gentlemen, the voice of Jewish ethnofascism, Knesset member Ayelet Shaked:

“This is not a war against terror, and not a war against extremists, and not even a war against the Palestinian Authority. The reality is that this is a war between two people. Who is the enemy? The Palestinian people. Why? Ask them, they started it... Behind every terrorist stand dozens of men and women, without whom he could not engage in terrorism. They are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads. Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there.”

from here

What a weird piece.

I know what it is to have been helpless victims, living and dying under racist oppressors’ boots, and I know that today’s Israelis are no longer the victims but the perpetrators of the current crisis. Yes, Hamas are dreadful hate-filled killers and woe betide Israel had they had the wherewithal to carry out their intentions. But the fact remains that it is Israel which has the tanks, bombers, artillery, nuclear warheads and missile defences of Goliath, while ordinary Gazans had nothing a week ago and even less today, as even hospitals and schools were bombed.

The takeaway being: yes, Hamas are dreadful hate-filled killers and out for blood, but currently less capable of doing mass damage than Israel, therefore Israel should stop what it is doing? Isn't the logical progression of that position that Israel should just keep taking it until Hamas actually does do some real damage? And as I asked above, isn't the progression past that point essentially that then Israel would be totally justified retaliating? Or would that justification only arrive if they helped better arm Hamas first?

And then the author actually cites alleged Israeli teen tweeting as a further source of outrage? She's got to be kidding on that point. I can only imagine that social media is horrific on both sides. Or social media anywhere, about anything, for that matter.

Where is that "This is not a war against terror ..." quote from? It says it was quoted on that far right wing person's Facebook page (red flag right there), but it is unclear if she was quoting someone else.

Response in that paper: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/war-is-war-why-i-stand-with-israel-9601001.html

I agree that social media is p much horrible always everywhere (which is why I stay away from it for the most part)

Isn't the logical progression of that position that Israel should just keep taking it until Hamas actually does do some real damage?

I think the logical progression is don't be a bully. Hamas will never match Israel militarily, let's be real here.

you don't use a shotgun to kill a fly etc

Sure, but I think this is well beyond bullying, isn't it? Isn't it war? And seriously, given Israel has the capability well at hand to do faaaaaaar more damage, and inflict far more casualties, than it currently is doing, I think it's safe to assume Israel is in flyswatter mode. As the second piece notes, there have been 9000 children killed in Syria. 9000.

Man, the comments. Love the first dude who decries the creation of Israel "so a mere 6million, which is the population of Israel, could go live in a desert after Europe had been made safe for them in 1945."

(The 9000 number, btw, is not meant to conflate the two conflicts, just underscore what a real shotgun approach evinces).

I got the impression that any figures for casualties in syria are highly speculative (& often conservative) 1

the IDF is reporting far fewer total rockets entering israeli airspace than the gaza NGO safety office is reported launched - which suggests that a lot of these rockets are falling short and landing in gaza. altho hamas has not caused any casualties on the israeli side, it's very likely they're killing palestinian civilians who get hit by poorly designed rockets.

to change subjects a bit, and interesting conservative take on syria+iraq

http://www.the-american-interest.com/garfinkle/2014/07/11/mullah-dreams-not-counting-sheep/

basically "let's try to dump the whole thing on iran"

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.604898

LIVE UPDATES: Egypt proposes Gaza cease-fire for Tuesday morning, sources say
Egypt sources offer cease-fire deal starting 9 A.M. on Tuesday; top IDF officer says Hamas ready for cease-fire

saw this in that annoying right-wing columnist Jen Rubin's w. post column:

Cokie Roberts hit the nail on the head when she noted that the Gaza conflict is part of a bigger problem, namely “a real absence . . . of American leadership in the region.” She explained that “ you’ve got these rockets going into Gaza from Syria and Iran,” in part because “we haven’t made a strong enough presence in that region to have people be afraid of this country. And so I think there’s a sense that, you know, they can get with anything they want to get away with.”

I am skeptical that the US could really stop Hamas from getting Syrian and Iranian missiles, and this just sounds like more blame Obama cliches.

hamas rejects ceasefire

Ezzedin al-Qassam rejected it, the political branch hasn't responded yet.

israeli security cabinet accepted the cease fire

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/15/gaza-ceasefire-israel-hamas-bombing

Israel's deputy foreign minister, Danny Ayalon, suggested that Israel may now escalate military action to include a ground invasion as well as aerial and sea bombardment. "If Hamas does not accept a ceasefire by 9pm tonight, my estimation is that the IDF [Israeli Defence Force] will have to enter," he tweeted.

However there were signs of division within Hamas. Conflicting messages were delivered by the Hamas leadership within Gaza, and its international leadership. The organisation's military wing also took a more defiant stand than the political leadership.

...
Hamas has set out its key demands for ending rocket fire, which include the lifting of Israel's eight-year blockade on the Gaza Strip, the opening of the Rafah border crossing with Egypt and the release of more than 50 Palestinian prisoners Israel recently rearrested after freeing them in exchange for kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit in 2011.

Mordy, Israel believes that ending the blockade will just allow Hamas to get even more weapons, right? While Hamas and others say ending the blockade will help the economy, bring in more food, etc.

deputy hamas foreign minister (i think that's who he was) claimed hamas leadership heard of the cease fire through the media, not by being contacted by anybody

that was on npr this morning anyway