Tweet
Any word from the Egyptians on this? They can't be too happy with having a radical Islamic state on their border.
-
-
Which wouldn't change a thing in the grand scheme of things, except, on the downside, increase strife within Israeli society at a crucial point in time, and on the upside, end the idiocy of IDF soldiers guarding a single family in the middle of nowhere and get some positive PR for Israel. Admirable, but negligible on the strategic level.Originally posted by DinoDoc
Well at the very least he could either expel the ones in the illegal settlements or simply just withdraw any IDF protection they might be recieving."Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master" - Commissioner Pravin Lal.Comment
-
Widely deserve? By now its pretty obvious Hamas would have lost a new election, which is why when Abbas proposed it they opposed it with everything they had. Would a new election have violated the Pal Basic Law?
That wasn't the issue. We've discussed this before. It's about Fatah maintaining the levers of power within the PA despite its electoral defeat. It's about Abrams and Dayton funnelling arms to Dahlan's militia. So we're supposed to be suprised when Hamas takes a cue from the 40th Anniversary of a certain pre-emptive war?"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
No one is surprised.Originally posted by Ramo
So we're supposed to be suprised when Hamas takes a cue from the 40th Anniversary of a certain pre-emptive war?
It's a question of whose side are you on.Comment
-
No, it isn't. The question is how our public policies contributed to this cluster****."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
Internal cohesion is nonsense.Originally posted by Eli
Sorry Siro, but what kind of utter idiocy is this?
I still fail to understand how the hell it became reasonable to simply give up on territory, prestige and bases to operate from, not to mention the damage to internal cohesion caused by forcibly moving citizens. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, unless this territory cannot be defended, which is definitely not the case.
The semi-messianic settler movement dislikes the centrist non-religious peaceniks, and the peaceniks dislike the messianic movement.
The supposed "cohesion" between both sides is a stupid display of a non-existant status quo - non existant, because neither side is content with it (settlers want "greater israel", lefties want to rid of the territories), and because it is not kept (settlers try to expand their lands on the ground, the lefties try to change the national / international political mood).
I figure that every year we let the messianic movement continue to exist, we increase its power and lose control of a growing part of Israeli society.
Essentially - we're creating our own fundamentalist movement Obviously it is incomparable in scale and function to Hamas - but it is similar in essence. We already had a Jewish Undregroud. It could rise again.
If anything, I think that the Gaza pullout strengthened the Israeli democracy by finally proving, after years of inaction, that the law of the state is higher than the law of the religious groups.
I think that major blocks should stay in Israel's control indefinitely, but the silly outposts are a time waste. Not to mention that the IDF is transforming from being an army to a militia.
Instead of relying on deterrence and an active and decisive offense, the IDF has began relying on a very poorly coordinated perimeter defense and very lazy half-assed offensive "signals".
Defense against low intensity combat is a b*tch as it is, and requires very high discipline and drills. The same stuff that is the largest weakness in the IDF.Comment
-
If you're trying to imply that had we not supported Fatah then Hamas would have idly sit there and enjoyed sharing a democratic rule with a hated political opponent then you're delusional.Originally posted by Ramo
No, it isn't. The question is how our public policies contributed to this cluster****.Comment
-
Share? Hadn't "we" supported Fatah, surely there'd been a pure Hamas gov't?Originally posted by Sirotnikov
If you're trying to imply that had we not supported Fatah then Hamas would have idly sit there and enjoyed sharing a democratic rule with a hated political opponent then you're delusional.
Edit: That's to say, without outside support for Fatah, I can't see why there should've been a unity government at all.Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?
It's no good (from an evolutionary point of view) to have the physique of Tarzan if you have the sex drive of a philosopher. -- Michael Ruse
The Nedaverse I can accept, but not the Berzaverse. There can only be so many alternate realities. -- ElokComment
-
If you're trying to imply that had we not supported Fatah then Hamas would have idly sit there and enjoyed sharing a democratic rule with a hated political opponent then you're delusional.
Huh? We saw exactly the opposite situation. You're forgetting that a primary trigger for the conflict was that Dahlan refused to fold the PA security forces (a force that nearly everyone concerned has been arming, and we in particular have been pushing to pull off a "hard coup") into the command of a politically neutral Interior Minister.
And what LC wrote..."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
No, we're surprised Abbas was such weak leader, and allowed the Fatah forces to be rolled over so easily.Originally posted by Ramo
Widely deserve? By now its pretty obvious Hamas would have lost a new election, which is why when Abbas proposed it they opposed it with everything they had. Would a new election have violated the Pal Basic Law?
That wasn't the issue. We've discussed this before. It's about Fatah maintaining the levers of power within the PA despite its electoral defeat. It's about Abrams and Dayton funnelling arms to Dahlan's militia. So we're supposed to be suprised when Hamas takes a cue from the 40th Anniversary of a certain pre-emptive war?"A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin BuberComment
-
By allowing the arming of Hamas, and not allowing Israel to do what needed to be done in Rafah to stop it? By having let Arafat get away with arming Hamas years ago? There are all kinds of public policies that contributed to the rise of Hamas' military power.Originally posted by Ramo
No, it isn't. The question is how our public policies contributed to this cluster****.
But as compared with anything we could have gotten since january '06, Im not sure this is that bad. So Fatah men wont be stopping Hamas from firing Qassams? But how much were they doing to stop Hamas, anyway? Basically Hamas has been the dominant force on the ground in Gaza since not long after the second intifada began, if not even before that.
This just pulls the mask away, so to speak. Now Hamas is responsible for Hamas, and Fatah for Fatah."A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin BuberComment
-
Originally posted by Ramo
If you're trying to imply that had we not supported Fatah then Hamas would have idly sit there and enjoyed sharing a democratic rule with a hated political opponent then you're delusional.
Huh? We saw exactly the opposite situation. You're forgetting that a primary trigger for the conflict was that Dahlan refused to fold the PA security forces (a force that nearly everyone concerned has been arming, and we in particular have been pushing to pull off a "hard coup") into the command of a politically neutral Interior Minister.
And what LC wrote...
Hamas never accepted a politically neutral IM, IIUC, there was squabbling over the identify of the IM well past the Mecca agreement. No one other than Dahlan would have used the PA security force to crush terrorists acting in violation of the Oslo accords."A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin BuberComment
-
Yes, Hamas would have run both the West Bank and Gaza. So it would seem that supporting Fatah resulted in a better outcome, despite their losing Gaza.Originally posted by Last Conformist
Share? Hadn't "we" supported Fatah, surely there'd been a pure Hamas gov't?
Edit: That's to say, without outside support for Fatah, I can't see why there should've been a unity government at all."A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin BuberComment
-
The primary trigger for the conflict was that Hamas refused to recognize Israel, renounce (and not just suspend) terror, and accept Oslo. This led to an international boycott of the PA govt, and disaster for the Palestinian people. Fatah tried to save the Pal position though sometimes making errors in judgement.Originally posted by Ramo
If you're trying to imply that had we not supported Fatah then Hamas would have idly sit there and enjoyed sharing a democratic rule with a hated political opponent then you're delusional.
Huh? We saw exactly the opposite situation. You're forgetting that a primary trigger for the conflict was that Dahlan refused to fold the PA security forces (a force that nearly everyone concerned has been arming, and we in particular have been pushing to pull off a "hard coup") into the command of a politically neutral Interior Minister.
And what LC wrote..."A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin BuberComment
-
Scaremongering.Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Internal cohesion is nonsense.
The semi-messianic settler movement dislikes the centrist non-religious peaceniks, and the peaceniks dislike the messianic movement.
The supposed "cohesion" between both sides is a stupid display of a non-existant status quo - non existant, because neither side is content with it (settlers want "greater israel", lefties want to rid of the territories), and because it is not kept (settlers try to expand their lands on the ground, the lefties try to change the national / international political mood).
I figure that every year we let the messianic movement continue to exist, we increase its power and lose control of a growing part of Israeli society.
Essentially - we're creating our own fundamentalist movement Obviously it is incomparable in scale and function to Hamas - but it is similar in essence. We already had a Jewish Undregroud. It could rise again.
If anything, I think that the Gaza pullout strengthened the Israeli democracy by finally proving, after years of inaction, that the law of the state is higher than the law of the religious groups.
First, unlike the West Bank, the settlement in Gaza was almost entirely legal. Dismantling the illegal outposts in the WB can be seen as a victory of the Rule of Law, not so with with the Gazan settlements.
Second, in the Gaza Disengagement the State of Israel used military forces against it's own citizens. That's an abominable action under all but the direst circumstances. That's a failure of democracy, not a victory.
I think that major blocks should stay in Israel's control indefinitely, but the silly outposts are a time waste. Not to mention that the IDF is transforming from being an army to a militia.
Olmert's plan doesn't talk about dismantling illegal outposts, but about completely withdrawing from large parts of the WB and dismantling legal settlements and military bases.
If you're talking only about the outposts, then I agree. But see my reply to DinoDoc. It's not important in the grand scheme of things.
Instead of relying on deterrence and an active and decisive offense, the IDF has began relying on a very poorly coordinated perimeter defense and very lazy half-assed offensive "signals".
Defense against low intensity combat is a b*tch as it is, and requires very high discipline and drills. The same stuff that is the largest weakness in the IDF.
The only way to avoid defending against low intensity attacks is to move Israel to Utah or achieve a final peace agreement. Both are not going to happen anytime soon.
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master" - Commissioner Pravin Lal.Comment
Comment