Israel to World: "Suck It."

hmm seem to remember something else being exchanged

a true saint!

only forgetting few little points: responsible for sending suicide bombers to Israel+ attacks on buses killing citizens (short memory?), for kidnapping Shalit (of course he ensured his safety - he knew he would get much more in negotiation), made Hammas even more extreme than they were..

and he sometimes knew how to use the media to it's own interests.

again, it's easier to forget the details when you only read about the conflict only once in awhile.

u can read it here if ur registered

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-killed-its-subcontractor-in-gaza.premium-1.477886

it's by the editor-in-chief aluf benn

on the other hand, i might had different opinions if i lived in quiet SF. i guess it's easier there to see things in black and white.
--nostormo

Not saying that Hamas or whomever would be capable of actually running things in Gaza without Israeli "interference" but pretending they're the "whole problem" is just nonsense.

on "hand[ing] the territory over entirely", per mordy

http://www.btselem.org/gaza_strip/gaza_status
http://www.btselem.org/gaza_strip/rafah_crossing

various incursions and strikes not detailed

trying to be think out of the box doesn't make an opinion necessary right.
the fact is that the south of Israel went under more than 1000 missiles attacks on the last months, and jhabbari was in charge.
or maybe Aluf Benn thinks that was also a part of the pre-election conspiracy plan?

xxxpost

eah it's only us SFers who think that no one else.
― One bad call from barely losing to (Alex in SF), Sunday, Novembe

you know what i meant.

"pretending they're the "whole problem" is just nonsense."

didn't say that, but at least you don't think Israel is the "whole problem" do you?
certainly it looks that way.

"but at least you don't think Israel is the "whole problem" do you?"

Yeah pretty much I do. I can acknowledge that Israel has a stated reason (you parroted it above) to exert the control they do over Gaza's economic destiny, but they are basically largely responsible for Gaza's complete inability to build a constructive economy (or even reconstruct something resembling their former economy.)

Cue Mordy b-b-but Egypt! and they have tunnels! and besides that Red Cross person said there was no humanitarian crisis, etc.

Hammas does and they are responsible (irresponsible).

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_n4g9uLTTQUo/S7uBdYSbNVI/AAAAAAAAA1Q/mvvaRMI1kvg/s1600/confetti+hummus.jpg

this seems to fit w mordy line of thought http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?ID=292466&R=R1&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

What a psycho.

I don't think that's fair to Mordy

that writer's such a war-fan he can't resist the sports metaphors. POS

I'm trying to take a breather from posting on this thread (I don't think it's particularly great for my mental health to talk about Israel too much), but I think ideally the IDF will not send ground troops into Gaza at all (Haaretz claims there's a 50% chance they won't go in), and that if they do send troops in, I will be praying that civilian casualties are minimized. I think that defending Israel's right to protect its citizens is important, but that doesn't put me on the same page as Gilad Sharon. For one, I think an Egyptian brokered cease fire will be more effective in the long run than a full scale invasion (though it has been noted that cease fires are often used by Hamas to buy time to restock their arsenals). Secondly, though, I am not comfortable enough with war and death to cheer this kind of thing at all. I think all wars are tragic, but I don't think all wars are avoidable.

stratfor thinks a ground invasion is likely:

http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/pause-negotiations-israeli-hamas-conflict?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=official&utm_campaign=link

...and the whole thing hinges on hamas' stockpile of longish-range rockets

though friedman's analysis of US politics over the past few years leads me doubt plenty. but people have their blind spots i guess.

i did not said mordy = gilad, just saying that the line of thought he expressed in this thread was very similar to the one gilad expressed in the article.

esp. this: "it is not under Israeli siege – it shares a border with Egypt." or "That’s what’s called “deterrence” – if you shoot at me, I’ll shoot at you. There is no justification for the State of Gaza being able to shoot at our towns with impunity."

however, his conclusions are not similar to mordys: "A Tarzan-like cry that lets the entire jungle know in no uncertain terms just who won, and just who was defeated." or "The residents of Gaza are not innocent, they elected Hamas. The Gazans aren’t hostages; they chose this freely, and must live with the consequences."

diff conclusions, but similar "reading" of the situation. his conclusions are pathetic, psycho-like, but what i consider v. dangerous is this "line of thought" im referring to. i tend to think a lot of israelis follow this line of reasoning (much because of the "apartheid poll"). a lot of israelis (like the residents of gaza who arent innocents cause they elected hamas and MUST LIVE WITH THE CONSEQUENCES...) arent innocents then.

kind of lol, kind of o_0, kind of sad:

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/542832_10151167341308003_1128272432_n.jpg

I believe that civilians in Gaza are innocents and I believe that the IDF takes numerous precautions to preserve civilian life including calling ahead to buildings and dropping leaflets warning civilians to clear target areas. No other country takes such precautions during war because they increase the likelihood that the legitimate military targets will also move before the strike. I find the suggestion that I believe Gazan civilians deserve to be killed personally offensive, and indicative of a superficial ethics. If you can't make your case without misrepresenting me I think you may need to reconsider the case. xp

ha ok that last post makes that officially funny
xpost

I believe that civilians in Gaza are innocents and I believe that the IDF takes numerous precautions to preserve civilian life including calling ahead to buildings and dropping leaflets warning civilians to clear target areas.

This is kind of belied by officials saying publicly that we need to punish Gaza, bomb it back to the stone age, etc. Also, official policy and what the people with guns in their hands (or soldiers at their command) actually do are not always the same thing.

I mean, I'm not saying they try to maximize civillian deaths, or that they don't take some measures to reduce them, but the whole "nicest military in the world" schtick is starting to run a little thin

Yeah it's bullshit.

Sharon Udasin reports on on environment, energy, scientific innovation and Negev issues. New Jersey born and bred, Sharon moved to Israel in September 2010, after spending two years as a staff writer at The New York Jewish Week in Manhattan. Prior to her position there, she earned a Master's degree in 2008 from the Graduate School of Journalism at Columbia University, which directly followed her four years as an undergraduate at the University of Pennsylvania.

But of course.

IDF consistently has the lowest civilian to combatant casualty ratio in the history of armed conflict.

Colonel Richard Kemp, former Commander of British Forces in Afghanistan, spoke in 2011 about Israeli operations in the Gaza War. He said that a study published by the United Nations showed "that the ratio of civilian to combatant deaths in Gaza was by far the lowest in any asymmetric conflict in the history of warfare." He stated that this ratio was less than 1:1, and compared it favorably to the estimated ratios in NATO operations in Afghanistan (3:1), western campaigns in Iraq and Kosovo (believed to be 4:1), and the conflicts in Chechnya and Serbia (much higher than 4:1, according to anecdotal evidence).

Quiddities and agonies of olim.

an 1 for an 1.

re: that media center

4:47 P.M. Palestinian militant group Islamic Jihad says an Israeli strike on a Gaza media center has killed one of its top militant leaders. It's the second strike on the building in two days. The Hamas TV station, Al Aqsa, is located on the top floor.

Islamic Jihad has sent a text message to reporters saying that Ramez Harb was killed in the strike Monday. Harb is a leading figure in their militant wing, the Al Quds Brigades.

Sharon Udasin reports on on environment, energy, scientific innovation and Negev issues. New Jersey born and bred, Sharon moved to Israel in September 2010, after spending two years as a staff writer at The New York Jewish Week in Manhattan. Prior to her position there, she earned a Master's degree in 2008 from the Graduate School of Journalism at Columbia University, which directly followed her four years as an undergraduate at the University of Pennsylvania.

― buzza, Monday, November 19, 2012 10:59 AM (22 minutes ago)

update to "all sad"

Dude, just because they weren't firing on a TV station for being a TV station, doesn't mean they weren't, you know, firing on a TV station.

There are people who are deliberately self-hardened to the suffering of others. I would like to believe that the Sharon Udasins of the world are not like this, but rather are just so sheltered that they have never even been able to conceive of the suffering of others, and that maybe they would be capable of change with exposure to the right circumstances.

The IAF killed senior Islamic Jihad member Ramez Hamez, who was involved in launching long-range missiles toward Israel. The IDF reports it hit three more Jihad operatives: Baha Abu al-Alta, a member of the organization's supreme military council, who was also involved in launching long-range missiles; Tayasir Jabari, also a member of the military council in charge of its operations portfolio; and Khalil Bahatini, also involved in long-range launches. According to the report, the four were hit at the Gaza media center. Antennae and other broadcasting equipment stationed on the roof of the building were also damaged.

Hamas keeps its militants located at civilian areas like TV stations, hospitals, and schools, so that they can maximize civilian collateral damage.

xp Maybe she just has a shitty job?

yeah, actually it's also possible that this was her editor's idea, not hers

mordy, i think everyone accepts hamas does that. the quibble is whether it's then ok to fling a fuckin rocket towards them anyway, on the off-chance

It obviously wasn't flung on the off chance that maybe they were there. It was fired because they had intelligence that indicated they were there. It wasn't a lucky random hit.

ha fair enough

The quibble is that it's not ok, even if you're 100%

Hamas keeps its militants located at civilian areas like TV stations, hospitals, and schools, so that they can maximize civilian collateral damage.

Well that ought to work out pretty well for them I think, I mean what kind of monsters would intentionally aim at those targets?

If the chance of civilian fatalities should preclude any military response to violence, then that's a first principle I can respect but with which I disagree.

According to Haaretz, Israel's Interior Minister, Eli Yishai, said this about Israel's attacks on Gaza: "The goal of the operation is to send Gaza back to the Middle Ages." Let me know if any of the US Sunday talk shows mention that tomorrow during their discussions of this "operation".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/17/israel-gaza-us-policy

It's a good thing that Eli Yishai does not dictate strategy to Ehud Barak.

that might be superfluous and redundant.

that old chestnut "doctrine of double effect" is relevant here:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/

you are welcome to disagree with it but the idf did not invent it

note however that neither aquinas nor any other moral philosopher would defend sharon udasin's lifestyle piece about freaked-out pets

well st. francis might

god has given the rocket to government with good reason

I don't read the Jerusalem Post but, assuming that most of their coverage is concerned with the actual major issues of the fighting and its effects on people, I'm not sure that it's a moral error to also throw in a fluffy piece about the effect of sirens on pets, although I get why it's kind of funny.