Israel to World: "Suck It."

I hope there is no invasion on the ground. I think it would generate a lot more civilian casualties and would only be a temporary setback for Hamas. I think that Hamas daring Israel to invade indicates what kind of organization they are. They know what an Israeli invasion of Gaza looks like and if they wanted to protect the people who voted for them at all they would be sitting down to negotiate, not daring Israel to march back in. This is a political attack designed to destabilize Israel's relationship with Egypt (and maybe Turkey).

It's not being reported anywhere but I was just texted a rumor from Crown Heights that the army is entering Gaza (probably relayed by people there w/ family in the army, I'd imagine).

Meanwhile Haaretz last reporting:

3:54 A.M. Al-Arabiya reports cease-fire between Hamas and Israel a few hours away (Army Radio)

Here's the text The army is entering Gaza, the Rabbanim are asking everyone to say Tehillim: 130, 121, 83, 20, 91, 143.

I hope it's a mistake. I'm so upset I feel like I'm going to cry.

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/19/u-s-sends-warships-near-israel-in-case-evacuation-needed/

"Does Israel have the right to use their military to stop Hamas rocket attacks on their cities and civilians?"

Right sorta doesn't play into when Israel aren't terribly interested in establishing a peaceful alternative (same applies to Hamas, but I think this where the equitability of the playing field puts more of a greater onus on Israel to be trying--rather than just building up more settlements.)

What is the peaceful alternative to Hamas?

A peaceful alternative to the status quo (which cease fire or no is not terribly peaceful.)

Tell me the specific plan. Lift the blockade entirely? Do you really believe Hamas would not begin massively importing terrorists and weapons from Iran to use against Israel?

That's the hardline answer for everything though. Basically from that view any concession is worthless because the Palestinians will just attack Israel anyway.

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).

― Mordy, Monday, 19 November 2012

this post is absolutely loony

The "peaceful solution" is a non-starter when the conflict is being fueled in no small part by players other than the Palestinians for whom there is no "peaceful solution." Israel really could make ever conceivable concession, and Iran et al. will still supply militants with weapons. It's not an equitable antipathy, and the best case scenario is the war simply moves somewhere else.

What Josh said. Hamas' agenda to destroying Israel is in their charter. Even if it wasn't, they don't have the authority/monopoly on violence to keep other groups in Gaza from attacking Israel. There is literally no one there for Israel to negotiate with. Any concession IS worthless if there isn't a negotiating partner. That's why I'm hoping Egypt will vouch for Gaza through this ceasefire and get some skin in the game. I'm afraid though that Egypt is overselling their influence on Hamas. I keep hearing that people think the Egyptian government is 'softer' on Israel than Mubarak. And I don't think Egypt can just override Iranian influence.

I mean, a huge number of Israelis want peace. A huge number of Palestinians want peace. A huge number of peripheral players, from the US to Egypt, want peace. But there are a few players in the conflict who absolutely do not want peace under any terms, and should Israel and Palestine find some equitable solution, will continue to dedicate themselves to Israel's destruction. It's not about land or rights or even revenge. It's totally irrational, and there's no easy way to deal with it.

"Any concession IS worthless if there isn't a negotiating partner."

Woo hoo let's keep building settlements.

I'm not a fan of the settlements (though I think historical Jerusalem suburbs were always obviously going to be a part of a final land swap*), but I can certainly understand after 2004 why Israel wouldn't feel safe withdrawing from the West Bank. How many minutes after they leave do you think it would take before Hamas was firing rockets from Ramallah?

* I'm less optimistic about a future two-state solution than any other time in my life.

I think settlements are a totally legitimate complaint and a major impediment, but it is not the ultimate impediment. There's a lot about Israeli policy with which I disagree, from settlements to disproportionate responses to attacks, however much I under their justification. But at the end of the day, I think Israel has as much of a legitimate right to exist as any country, nearly all of which were formed artificially following wars, theft, negotiations, purchase, whatever. As long as there are players who do not believe that Israel has a right to exist, in whatever form, this will go on forever.

xp Again if that's the answer then you are correct that any action/inaction can be justified.

xp The problems is that injustice in the face of that intractability does NOT magically become justice.

I'm not optimistic about permanent peace any time soon. Certainly not in the current state of the Middle East. Not a single one of these states has any guarantee that they'll have the same government next month. Iran, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Gaza, Lebanon, Iraq, I mean, any one of these countries could have a revolution or counter-revolution tomorrow (one of them is having one today). The most I hope for is a reduction in violence. I think the Iron Dome could be great. Like the security wall shut stopped suicide bombers the dome could stop rockets. Maybe Egypt will have a good influence on Hamas. These are very small chances of barely incremental goodness.

Barely incremental goodness for Israel. The people on the other side of the wall are people too.

If Hamas moderates it'll be good for the people on the other side of the wall too.

So if they are suitably gracious Israel'll let them have a functioning economy. Maybe a water treatment plant. No airport or port though. They could bring in more rockets because they are sneaky sneaky with their government changing ways.

Do you sincerely believe that stopping firing rockets into a country is synonymous with being suitably gracious?

And again with the rockets. Do you think if you asked the average Palestinian he might be able to come up with a couple of grievances to "justify" those rocket launches? Or do you think that Hamas just exists in some sort of vacuum where insanity rules?

Hamas is largely funded by folks who couldn't give a shit what Israel does or does not do.

the peaceful solution according to hamas today is the two-state one predicated on a return to the 1967 borders.

xp So they are supported by shadow-y figures outside of Gaza and have no popular support there in your opinion?

It's not shadowy figures, is it? I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but Hamas gets a lot of its money and/or weapons from Iran and Syria. Right?

I think most of Gaza is severely disenfranchised, but Hamas clearly has more political power than Fatah (Abbas can't even step foot into Gaza). And yes, not very shadowy. The Fajr-5 is an Iranian rocket. xp

I imagine Hamas gets a lot of support for the reason any politician gets support: providing goods and services, working for the betterment of the people it represents, etc. But there is also a small faction that surely likes the idea of lobbing missiles at Israel. I'm not sure they are representative, but they do know how to get your attention.

It'd be like a US election where your choices are:

Republican
Democrat
Green Party
Celebrity
Write-In Militants with Missiles

Most would vote for the first two, but I bet the number one priority/concern of the first two would be the guys with the missiles.

And again, no one actually believes Hamas can stop the attacks on Israel (that's why Egypt is involved). Even if Israel unilaterally withdrew to the 1967 borders we would most certainly see a continuation of the violence. When the Gaza belonged to Egypt and the West Bank belonged to Jordan there still wasn't 'peace in the middle east.'

The violence will never stop completely, true, but I think the situation could be at least be somewhat improved. Of course when you set the only possible goal as "peace in the middle east" anything short of that isn't even worth trying for.

This is improved compared to the second intifada, the yom kippur war, the six day war, the war of independence, even improved compared to cast lead and the lebanon invasion. Outside what I've already mentioned I'm not sure what is realistic to hope for at this point.

Again things have only improved for the Israelis. There are other people. Their lives have not improved.

Anderson Cooper, twitter boss.

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/311181_10151186032812745_1337807181_n.jpg

Really, you can't take the settlements out of this discussion. Yeah, hamas might state outright that they want to get rid of israel, while israel states they want a two-state resolution, but israel is the side actively stealing more and more of the land of the other side. I can easily see why people in the arab world(and especially in gaza) would think, that the true difference between hamas and israel on this question is, that hamas is more honest about it's goals. Really, why should hamas stop attacking israel? Israel keeps on stealing ground in the west bank after they pacified it, why would anyone think it would be different in gaza?

Have we had this one yet? It's good.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/11/after-gaza-a-single-state.html

Eh. It's really easy to list all the things Israel is doing wrong, but that piece falls short of explaining what it is that Israel should be doing instead. Ending settlements, sure. But then also not fighting back, right, because the Palestinians have reason to be angry? Then Incorporating all of the (suddenly placated?) Palestinians into a democratic (?) one-state solution? Is that accurate? And then what? I think I know what that solution will ultimately solve.

I'm incensed at Israel's poorly thought out strategy of self preservation above all else, with extreme prejudice, just as I am incensed at the Palestinian insistence on self-destruction to prove a righteous point. But at the end of the day, the situation makes me extremely uneasy as a Jew. As I noted above, nearly every nation on earth boasts artificial borders, typically ill-gained, or at least claimed through some decree of diplomatic chicanery. The focus on Israel as some sort of uniquely horrible flash point really underscores for me how much of the antipathy (not all, but a lot) is driven by racism. As is some of the Israeli attitude, too. The difference as I see it, or at least one difference, is that Israel as a nation is not inherently anti-Muslim, whereas several Muslim nations are inherently anti-Jew. I feel no spiritual link to Israel the country, but there is at least a latent link to its people. If they were someone else then it would just be some other assholes who would be the one lobbing the missiles.

If they were somewhere else, I meant to right.

I don't know, the whole thing makes me uneasy. I'm safe and sound in the US, but there's only so much circulated global anti-semitism I can stomach.

I think it's hard to argue that Israel "isn't inherently anti-Muslim" when the nation does so much to prevent muslims from immigrating or returning to the country or even coming there to work. But I agree inasmuch as while I theoretically favor a one-state solution, my concern is that the resulting state would just be a flip of Israel with a muslim majority.

Oh, I just mean there's no explicit "destroy the Muslims" platform in Israeli politics. But sure, I can see why some might read it as implicit, though little rises to the level of the stuff that comes directly from government officials in Iran or whatever.

ok, I mean there's no explicit "destroy the Jews" platform in most arab countries either, they're just not very welcome. Iran actually has a modest-sized Jewish population, and while their status is arguable, they're certainly not under threat of destruction.

There are 8000 of them or something in a country of 75 million.

"Inherently" can in practice mean "not actually" - to go back to the earlier example, the Irish constitution had for 60 years (in Articles 2&3) words to the effect of those are our six counties and don't you forget it.

Government officials in most of Israel's belligerent neighbours find Israel's continued defiance of international law a pretty useful distraction from their own injustices. Removing the primary grievance of occupation and the attempt to stymie a viable Palestinian state is arguably going to do more to increase Israel's own security than anything else.

Aside from the humanitarian cost, what's so frustrating about Israel's reaction over the last week is the bizarre belief that destroying more infrastructure, making more enemies in the wider region and creating more orphans in Gaza is actually going to contribute to the safety of Israelis.

I totally agree that is a horrible policy.

Government officials in most of Israel's belligerent neighbours find Israel's continued defiance of international law a pretty useful distraction from their own injustices.

you always hear this, but, don't the examples of mubarak and assad kind of complicate this idea?