Hamas vs Israel in the streets of Gaza
 

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip – Israeli troops battled Palestinian gunmen in a suburb of Gaza City Sunday in one of the fiercest ground battles so far as Israel's military inched toward Gaza's population centers.

A top Israeli defense official said Hamas has been badly hurt by the offensive in Gaza — especialy by the deaths of senior militants and shortages of ammunition — but predicted that the group would fight on.

The group "is not expected to raise a white flag," military intelligence chief Amos Yadlin told the Israeli Cabinet Sunday.

The fighting in the Sheikh Ajleen neighborhood erupted before dawn and continued through the morning as Israeli infantrymen and tanks advanced toward Gaza City and its approximately 400,000 residents, Palestinian witnesses said. Hamas and the smaller militant group Islamic Jihad said they ambushed the Israelis, leading to some of the heaviest fighting since Israel sent ground forces into the coastal territory on Jan. 3.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090111/...l_palestinians

Once again proving that Israel is awesome.

I would say I'm pretty much in agreement with Ban who said "To both sides, I say: Just stop, now," the U.N. chief said. "Too many people have died. There has been too much civilian suffering. Too many people, Israelis and Palestinians, live in daily fear of their lives."

This is one of those conflicts that seemingly has no resolution. It's been going on for decades and will probably continue to go on for decades. Sad.

The EU weighs in
 

From a Paris paper -

"The European Union (EU) criticized the Israeli incursion into Gaza this week as a violation of international law. Louis Michel, the EU's aid chief, called upon Jerusalem "to respect their international obligations and ensure a humanitarian space for the delivery of vital relief." Michel underscored that "blocking access to people who are suffering and dying" forms a breach of "humanitarian law" as does the infliction itself of high number--some 500--of civilian casualties.
The Israeli Defense Force (IDF) has not respected international humanitarian aid efforts during its war on Gaza, given that only one crossing into Gaza is open and a naval blockade remains in place. The latter has been ongoing for eighteen months."

Israel has a right to defend its people from terrorist attacks. Diplomacy has failed for decades. Perhaps it's time for a different tactic on Israel's part. They have the right to defend their people from terrorist attacks. This situation is 100% Hamas' fault, not Israel's. Hamas could have prevented this and negotiated their way to prosperity for their people, but apparently, that's not their end game.

This situation is definitely not 100% Hamas' fault. Isreal did not have a right to the land in the first place and Israel definitely did not have the right to push the People into the small area of Gaza and then cut off their borders prohibiting trade and other essential economic functions. Isareal has a right to defend its people, but it does not have the right to slaughter innocent civilians while cutting them off from adequate help. The borders have been cut off for some time now. Its not like Hamas started an all out attack on Israel's citizens killing over 500 of them. The ratios are quite evident. 870:30 with the ratio of dead civilians looking something like 500:10. Want to know how to make a terrorist? Bomb their community consistantly, keep food and other essentials away from them, bomb mosques and schools, Kill more Civilans than "Hamas bad guys". That will turn people in to terrorists. Israel is completely wrong for this attack on Gaza. How do you justify the murders of innocent women and children?

FYI: Very Graphic!
These are some tuff unarmed terrorists. Throwing rocks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvwvxA9tgH4&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K461x...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnIjp...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=But9m...eature=related

Israel bombs U.N. headquarters and refugees
 

http://apnews.myway.com//article/200...D95NIRBG0.html


Even as a top Israeli envoy went to Egypt to discuss a cease-fire proposal, the military pushed farther into Gaza in an apparent effort to step up pressure on Hamas. Ground forces thrust deep into a crowded neighborhood for the first time, sending terrified residents fleeing for cover.
Shells also struck a hospital, five high-rise apartment buildings and a building housing media outlets in Gaza City, injuring several journalists. Bullets entered another building housing The Associated Press offices, entering a room where two staffers were working but wounding no one. The Foreign Press Association, representing journalists covering Israel and the Palestinian territories, demanded a halt to attacks on press buildings.

Why did Israel not have a right to the land in the first place? Who even cares about that. The six-day war happened, the Arab countries tried to exterminate the Israelis, they got whipped. Sometimes when you go to war and get your ass handed to you, unpleasant things result.

As for the ratios, they're meaningless. This is the whole whiny argument that the countermeasures by Israel are not "proportional." What a crock of siht. If we had proportionally responded to 9/11, what would we have done? Flown a couple planes into the two tallest buildings in Afghanistan?

Israel has a right to defend its people. Diplomacy has failed for decades. You can't negotiate with someone whose central value is exterminating you. While appearing extreme, dealing a crushing blow to Hamas is about the only way Israel can stop these attacks.

The ratios of dead also fail to mention the fact that many of these dead (the great majority) are Palestinian fighters. Many of the rest are individuals purposely placed in harm's way by Hamas as human shields. Israel drops leaflets and tells people to get the hell out of dodge if they don't want to have bombs dropped on them. They are not intentionally targetting civilians. Hamas, on the other hand is packing rockets with metal balls in an attempt to kill as many innocent civilians as possible. There's just no comparison.

Finally, as for your "you want to know how to make a terrorist" spiel, I don't think Israel can help that. A reasonably objective Palestinian, at least by western thought standards might view the situation as being mostly Hamas' fault, i.e., if they weren't shooting rockets at Israel's people, the Palestinian people would have food, electricity, shelter and security. Hamas knew that an invasion like this was likely if they continued their activities, and they did so despite repeated warnings. Finally, these folks from Hamas are ordering Palestinian children to locate themselves around probable Hamas targets as human shields. To my mind, if I'm a Palestinian, I'm dragging the nearest Hamas official out into the street and beating him to death for so recklessly endangering my people.

As an aside, I find the 'shock' and 'horror' of some at this event to be ridiculous. This sort of thing has been happening in various locations all over the world and on a much grander scale (Darfur, anybody?) and the world community has hardly peeped about it. Is it because you don't like Jews? Is it because you don't think the lives in Darfur are as important as those in Gaza?

Israel is the antithesis of the United States and our involvement with this nation is disgusting and abhorrent and goes against the founding principles of our Federal Republic.

It all hit the fan a few years after WWII, and it's going to get far worse before it gets better.

Why was the U.N. building bombed?
 

U.N. spokesman Adnan Abu Hasna said the U.N. had given Israel the coordinates of the building and the compound was also clearly marked with U.N. flags and logos. Large stocks of food and fuel used to supply hospital and water pumps were at risk of destruction, as were valuable U.N. archives dating back to 1948, Abu Hasna said.


My question is - why? The crack Israel military surely didn't make a mistake, having been given the coordinates.

Still waiting . . .

Because they are just as hateful as the Nazi's before them. They think that their land is only for their people, and they won't stop until they get rid of everyone who doesn't tow that line.

Show me a gas chamber and you win. Otherwise, I'm invoking Godwin's Law. It is estimated that around 6 million Jews were exterminated during WWII in a plan calculated to quickly and efficiently eradicate them.

If the Israelis wanted to eliminate Gaza, they absolutely have the military might to do that. Instead, they're targeting a specific enemy and placing their own people in harm's way (house to house fighting with infantry) to try to minimize collateral damage.

There simply is no comparison. Trying to compare the Israelis of today to the Nazis is comical.

yeah 6 Million jews and probably more than 6 Million others

The methods of the deaths don't matter. People who die because the Israelis bull-dozed their house are no less dead than someone who pushed into a gas chamber.

No one in the Gaza has anything to do with the war Israel is having with Hamas.

Actually, it is comparable. Some find it comical? Everyone is in entitled to their opinion of humor. That doesn't make the note any less valid.

As far as people dieing when their homes are bulldozed is concerned -- first, who the hell stays in a house when a slow bulldozer is coming towards it? I would call this suicide rather than murder. It's not these bulldozers sneak up on folks. Secondly, I believe the policy of bulldozing houses had something to do with retaliating against suicide bombers' families or terrorist collaborators. I find Israel's policy here to be reasonable. It's a lot like a civil forfeiture proceeding in the U.S., except that with the current situation in Gaza, Israel technically "owning" someone's home via civil forfeiture would be meaningless as no one would respect their property right. Let's not forget that in the vast majority of these cases, the people in those homes knowingly raised kids as murderers or cohabitated with individuals conspiring to murder innocent civilians. That is not a blameless situation and to pretend to be shocked and appalled in these situations completely ignores the reality of the situation and the fact that Israel has a right to defend itself.

I don't see how you could possibly believe this, but whatever.

Actually, it is less valid. Genocide is different from war. 800 (with the majority being legitimate targets) is different than 6 million+ targets

It's not hard to see that.

No, actually, the fact that you really believe such an inane comparison is, as they say on the Internet, "all sorts of LOL."

Very basic reason: the Nazis attacked an unarmed, unassuming group for no particular reason other than hatred and feelings of supremacy (scapegoating, essentially). Hamas has actually fired thousands of rockets into Israeli territory, and has made its bacon off repeated threats to Israel and Israelis, attacks on civilians via suicide bombings, and . . . oh yeah . . . its stated purpose is the annihilation of the nation of Israel. So there's that. It's kind of a key difference, especially since the threats are quite credible.

Or are you going to deny that there are rocket bunkers in Gaza, that a significant number of suicide attacks have come from Gaza and Hamas, etc.? If so, just save the typing, as you've lost all credibility with me.

1. Because it was not their land. Because it belonged to other people.
2. The people who have had their land stolen and been pushed into Gaza.
3. Israel is currently trying to exterminate Arabs.
4. WTF? How are these ratios meaningless? I would think recognizing the fact that this "war" is totally one sided and that the majority of people who are being killed are civilians is extremely meaningful.
5. I hardly think that recognizing that Israeli forces are killing more civilians than militants and that it is wrong is being whiny. The ratio also shows that this is not 100% Hamas' fault and it is not a tit for tat killing spree. It is an Israeli killing spree.
6. This statement can be made for both sides. Palestine has a right to defend its people. You cannot negotiate with someone who wants to destroy you. Hamas did in some ways try to keep an agreement with Israel. Israel has chosen to commit unacceptable acts. It is not possible to have peace when you block trade, steal land, and prevent the military from protecting its people. It failed after WWI and it failed with Israel and Palestine.
7. This would make sense if it were true, but it is not. If there are 900 dead and 500 of them are civilians then how is it that the majority are Palestinian fighters? Even American news reports are claiming that half the deaths are civilians (which means that truthfully more than half are). So I dont know what majority you're talking about. At best its 50/50.
8. You're right that there is no comparison. Israel is killing so many more civilians. Leaflets? Seriously? I havent heard of Israel dropping leaflets saying get out of town because we're bombing tomorrow at 3pm. As far as I know there were leaflets that asked civilians to turn in Hamas ops. And droping leaflets makes no sense when there is NO WHERE for the people to go! The UN is saying that Isreal has made it impossible for people to get to safety and/or get help.
9. There is no way Israel could aviod bombing Mosques, schools, UN buildings that the had the EXACT coordinates of? Really?
10. I honestly think that the only reason you can say that is because you are not in Gaza. These people are witnessing innocent family and friends being murdered by Israelis. If I was in Gaza I can say that once the people who are killing my people start bombing schools all bets are off. Why would you beat a Hamas op. when Israeli soldiers are the ones who are killing your people and stealing your land?
11. By any standards this is a horrible situation. Not shocking at all. Just because more heinous acts have occurred and continue to occur does not make this situation any less shocking and horrifying. For the most part no one life is greater than another.

So, you commit a suicide bombing and the American government has the right to kill your family? Thats reasonable?
A civil forfeiture would only make sense if it were in the US. A CF claim could not be made on land in Iraq. It is not US land. Israel would have no property rights because it is a different country! They have NO property rights at all.
The idea that most people are raising their kids to be murderers is total crap.
You keep saying that Israel has a right to defend itself. Isreal is not currently defending itself. Israel is attacking Gaza. Two different things.

I mean . . . we can play the "spin game" all day, but isn't Israel defending itself from . . . thousands of rockets lobbed into Israel all willy-nilly?

You're reaching here sport.

1. & 2. You can only make that statement if you ignore what has happened in the area over the last 60 or so years. The Palestinians voluntarily left thinking that the Israelis were going to be annihilated. As you may recall, the only actual attempt in that area to exterminate a race of people was a pretty dismal failure, and the rest is history. Theft and conquest ain't the same thing. Otherwise, you'd owe your house and land back to some Native American tribe.

3. Again, if Israel wanted to do that, why have they not simply firebombed Gaza?

4. So if Israel let more of its soldiers be killed in this action, you'd be okay with it? Just so long as the ratios are somewhat similar, right?

5. The ratio doesn't have squat to do with who is at fault here. Israel is there for one reason and one reason only. To stop Hamas from shooting rockets into Israel. Hamas could have ceased doing this (as they agreed to) and Israel wouldn't be there right now, ergo, 100% Hamas' fault.

6. In what ways has Hamas ever kept any agreement with Israel? Their stated goal is extermination, not reconciliation. They are the only party involved here which has such a goal. As for 'blocking trade,' when that trade primarily consists of weapons to be used against the Israeli people, blocking trade is pretty reasonable. Prior to Hamas' jackassery, the people of Palestine had shelter, food, water, electricity, etc. Now they don't.

7. The only numbers we have are from Palestinian and U.N. officials -- hardly neutral observers.

8. http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...,5371775.story

9. Bombing those places likely occurred because they were being used to shelter Hamas leadership and contraband. Hiding such things in Mosques is a pretty tired tactic at this point, unfortunately, it's also very popular.

10. Because without the Hamas folks, Israel wouldn't have been forced to do what it's doing now.

11. This is neither shocking nor horrifying. This is self-defense. Darfur is not. Find something legitimate to express horror about.

Did you miss the post about the bombing of the U.N.? They were responsible for the majority of humanitarian aid in Gaza, but now Israel has succeeded in rendering them unable to help the citizens of Gaza. I KNOW - it must be that all those refugees were known terrorists! And anyone in Gaza must SOMEHOW be related to, or know, a militant, and thus deserve to die - be it by military means, starvation, lack of access to medical care, whatever it takes. They are justified in their inhumanity, simply because they are Israel.

The fact that the IRC, the EU and the UN are condemning Israel should mean something.

And if you want reports from others than the UN and Palestinians, let the reporters in . Unless they have something to hide . . .

eta - there has to be a negotiated truce that can hold. But both sides will have to concede on some issues, and I don't see that happening. Hope I'm wrong. Hamas will have to cede Israel the right to exist, and Israel will have to allow Gaza their autonomy and control of their borders.

You nor I even know for a fact that it was Israel who attacked the U.N., nor do we have knowledge of why Israel might have done this if they did it [Hamas could have been using it for a weapons dump].

The media isn't there because Israel doesn't want to get negative media attention for accidentally blowing up a few journalists. They're in a lose-lose situation there.

There is no dispute as to the bombing itself. Anonymous Israel sources are saying they did it in response to actions by those in the U.N. compound - but the official word is yet to come. But - Israel is not disputing the bombing occurred.

The fact that you will not concede even this point, but have to immediately come up with a scenario in which Israel is blameless speaks volumes.

FWIW, I don't think either side is blameless.

War journalists, by definition, take the risk of being killed as part of the job. Did Israel kick journalists out of its country? No. If they are in danger in Gaza, because Israel is responding to rocket attacks which are continuing, aren't they also in danger in Israel?

Indisputable fact: Israel would not be currently invading Gaza if Hamas had stopped firing rockets and otherwise targeting Israeli citizens.

That's not a fact - that's an excuse. Israel could have chose to invade because of any number of reasons. That is the one they are using this time.

Given that you've already said neither you nor I can know as a fact something which is not disputed by any source I can find other than you, I think your use of the word "fact" is suspect. But it's a nice attempt at trying to turn the conversation away from some awkward logical points.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

That does nothing to allay the indisputable fact that Israel would not be currently invading Gaza if Hamas had stopped firing rockets and otherwise targeting Israeli citizens.

You don't think that's a fact? You think that Israel would currently be invading regardless of whether rockets were fired? What reason would they have had to do that?

How has the U.S. typically responded to acts on its people? Protip: Not proportionally.

Fact: Hamas has been firing rockets at the town of Sderot, Israel, for a long time now, about once a month (sometimes 2-3 times a week).

Fact: Israel has attacked Gaza several times in response to these rockets. They have also attacked for other reasons.

I think these are the only indisputable facts in all of this. Minus fact #3.

Fact #3: This whole thing is a big mess, full of finger pointing and blaming.

I don't think either side is 100% responsible for what's going on. The whole thing, however, is sad, because so many innocents (on both sides) have paid for it with their lives.

Yes, and our reaction to 9/11 resulted in our being in the quagmire of Iraq. Not only was it not proportional, we later learned that it wasn't even solely directed at the source of the 9/11 attack. You can make a case for our involvement in Afghanistan, but Iraq? Oh, that's right, they have weapons of mass destruction. That at one time was supposedly a "fact". So I don't think we were right, and I don't think Israel is either. You may not agree with me, but you cannot accuse me of not being consistent.

And yes, I believe that if Israel decided to attack Gaza they would do so, rockets or no. I think that Israel's actions demonstrate that they do not support a two-state solution. That would also explain the attack on Gaza, and in fact many of Israel's actions.

This is a gross oversimplification, and is probably plainly wrong.

Here's a hint: the offer you propose from Israel been on the table in the past. It was turned down.

Well, yes,it is simplified. It's a post on a thread, not my master's thesis.

But here's a question for all the pro-Israeli posters - how would you like to see this resolved? What, other than my already stated "right for Israel to exist" and the unstated but surely understood ceasing of rocket fire would you want Hamas to agree to, and what should Israel sign on to in order to bring this to a resolution?

I know this may be kind of an awkward question, but does anyone think there will be a draft? I'm asking because Obama wants to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan. I'm just wondering if there will be an eventual draft.

Actually, it's funny you post that. My Master's thesis was on the terrorism/counter-terrorism dynamic and whether it really has an effect on world events.

Well, butter my butt and call me a biscuit! You are the person we need to hear from - what do you think?:) C'mon - how often do you get to use your thesis? (I'm ready, willing and able to weigh in on all matters Thomas Hardy, and use mine!)

*dead*

OK, well the basic premise of the idea is that terrorist action feeds counter-terrorist activity, and counter-terrorist activity feeds terrorist action. However, it takes a terrorist act to start the cycle.

That's the logic behind it. However, some believe that terrorist activity feeds a counter-terrorist OVER-reaction, which leads to bigger terrorist acts, which leads to bigger counter-terrorist overreactions, and so on.

My point, at the end of the day, is that there definitely is a cycle. And while overreactions happen everywhere, it doesn't happen every time. In fact, sometimes it's an under-reaction (if that's even a word), for example, in the case of Saudi Arabia after the Khobar Towers attack many counter-terrorism analysts believe we, and the Saudis, did not do enough to prevent the attack in the first place (considering we found a car FULL of explosives about 2 weeks beforehand, and had intelligence about the strength of the barrier and perimeter of the building that was ultimately blown up), and after the fact, we had a biotch of a time even following protocol as to interviewing suspects.

For the Khobar Towers example, however, foreign diplomacy and international relations in general did get in the way of the counter-terrorist reaction after the attack, which could be a reason why it was not at least equal, if not greater, than the relative scale of the original attack.

Now, the question essentially is, minus the diplomacy "getting in the way" of counter-terrorist activity, would the reaction be more likely equal and opposite or would it be greater?

I couldn't answer that question definitively, and since it was only a semester-long thesis I didn't have to. I was able to point to examples of what I thought my hunches led to.

Some nations are more likely to overreact, some are more likely to react equally, and some are likely to react to a lesser degree.

The United States and Israel fell into the category of overreaction.

Most European countries (in recent history, remember, not in colonial times) fell into the category of equal reaction.

Now, the category of reaction to a lesser degree is a mixed bag. In instances of state-sponsored terrorism, obviously they would not react, but would pretend to. In some cases it depends on who is the intended target of the terrorist attack. In the Khobar Towers example, Saudi Arabia did not have much more of an incentive to react than keeping us happy, since American Air Force personnel were the target of the attack. Obviously, we weren't happy with their reaction, but at least they reacted.

Then, as to it feeding more terrorism, that also depends. Was a resolution reached as a result of the terrorist and counter-terrorist activity? More likely than not, the dynamic is as it is. Terrorist activity feeds counter-terrorism which feeds terrorist activity which feeds counter-terrorism and so on.

The way I see it, the only thing that can stop that cycle from playing out over and over and over again is one of two things:

1. The satisfactory resolution of the conflict at hand (to both sides), or
2. The complete and total annihilation of the group that is carrying out the attacks, including all of their sleeper cells, all of their families, and all of their cultural group (also known as the impossible plan).

It also should be noted that economic situations feed into the cycle by creating a larger pool of people for terrorist groups to exploit in their aims. They have more people to draw on for members, they have more people to draw on for sympathizers, and they have more people to draw on as donors.

At the end of the day, do I think Israel overreacts to Hamas' aggression? Yes. Do I think Hamas is wrong for taking the terrorist route instead of the negotiations route for solving the problem? Yes. Do I think Hamas is completely wrong for attacking Israel? No. Do I think Israel is completely wrong for retaliating against Gaza? No.

As you can see, if you get into the nitty gritty of it, it becomes an even more complicated question.

ETA: $20 says I get at least one reply with "tl;dr"

I suppose I should add that terrorism is often originally a response to state action or policy, but not state action of a counter-terrorist nature. The US Invasion of Iraq was not, purely defined, a counter-terrorist action (no matter what anyone says!). The terrorist activity in Iraq is a reaction to the occupation, but as that is not a counter-terrorist activity, the terrorist activity itself is what sparks the dynamic.

Yeah, and I don't expect a thesis, but when Israel's proposed "concession" has already been offered and rejected, it's kind of going too far into simplicity in my mind.

Hm, I don't know . . . maybe that an "independent" Gaza (or others) aren't merely a front for Iran-funded extremists to launch from? Some actual guarantee that the cease-fire (none of which have ever held) would be effective?

I think you'll see where I'm going with this - there are fundamental problems with any resolution, and I'm not sure either side should be expected to compromise enough for the other to accept. The real change needs to come in each side's actual endgame. I don't see that happening any time soon.

Why is the U.S. doing this in a time of recession?
 

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...gaza_invasion/


"In short, U.S. taxpayers are paying for U.S. energy companies to buy Arab crude, ship it across the Atlantic to refineries in the U.S., refine it, and then ship it back across the Atlantic so that the Israel Defense Force can use it in its wars."

By your standards then the Allied offensive during WWII is comparable to the holocaust? Countless civilians were targeted and killed during that war in Europe and Japan.

The Israel vs. The Whole Arab World conflict will never end until one of them is completely eradicated. This is about religion, which is greater than anything on Earth. If there's anything we should have learned by now from our experience in Iraq it's that there are parts of this world where "separation of religion and state" does not and cannot exist. Americans and Europeans cannot possibly understand this war, because it wouldn't happen in our countries - we don't care enough about religion.