Hamas vs Israel in the streets of Gaza

[SWTXBelle]

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?

[cheerfulgreek]

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.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

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?

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.

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam

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!)

[agzg]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

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"

[agzg]

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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

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

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.

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

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?

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.

[SWTXBelle]

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."

[PhiGam]

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

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.

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.

[PeppyGPhiB]

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.

[SWTXBelle]

Latest cease-fire agreement is up for a vote by Israeli Security Council.

http://news.aol.com/article/israel-gaza-conflict/232890

[DaemonSeid]

Israel likes to believe that its Defense Force is the world's most "moral" army, and it insisted throughout the recent Gaza war that great care was always taken to avoid inflicting civilian casualties. It may surprise and rile many Israelis, then, that their government is trying to protect its citizens from war crimes charges that could be filed in foreign courts over the conduct of hostilities in Gaza. Fearful that Israeli commanders could be targeted for arrest while traveling abroad as private citizens on business or vacation, Attorney General Menachem Mazuz on Tuesday ordered the Israeli media to refrain from revealing the names of any military personnel who took part in the 22-day offensive. Officers involved in the operation who want to travel abroad are now required to first check in with the office of the Judge Advocate, which will determine if the soldier is on a foreign watch list that might lead to his arrest.


Israeli military experts insist that their forces are far more careful to avoid civilian casualties than, say, the U.S. military has been in Iraq and Afghanistan. Still, the high civilian casualty toll in Gaza has put the Israeli military's conduct of operations there under scrutiny, and one senior U.N. official has suggested Israel may have committed "crimes against humanity" in the course of its campaign against Hamas militants hiding among Gaza's civilian population. Palestinian medical sources claim that over 300 children and 100 women were among Gaza's 1,200 fatalities. And the United Nations, Amnesty International, the International Committee for the Red Cross (I.C.R.C.), Human Right Watch, as well as Israeli and Palestinian human rights groups have all been investigating allegations of conduct that violates the laws of war


http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/2009012...08599187349600

[RU OX Alum]

the brutality in gaza was as much about scarring Israeli (especailly the youth) into acting in line than it was about fighting Hamas. That makes their government terrorists.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

the brutality in gaza was as much about scarring Israeli (especailly the youth) into acting in line than it was about fighting Hamas. That makes their government terrorists.

Prove this. Otherwise, stop passing off opinion as fact in these threads - you come across as wildly flailing to make incendiary statements just to take a contrarian viewpoint, and I know that's not what you're intending (plus I'd like to learn something too).

While you're there, you probably need to disprove the 'null hypothesis' - that this is posturing for the upcoming Israeli elections by incumbents who fear being labeled as soft.

[RU OX Alum]

I don't have to prove anything, and I'll state my opinion in whichever thread I like.


Not everything needs to be broken down for you, and you should be able to discern fact from opinion at this point in your life