Another Round Begins in The Middle East

[SlowwHand]

David, I'm so proud of you.

[Patroklos]

Hamas didn't stop Islamic Jihad and smaller groups from firing rockets, but its forces most certainly kept the cease fire.

If Isreal didnt kill teenage girls today, it was by blind luck.

No, its because they always attack government and military targets. Any civilian targets are unintentional (or rather intentional on the part of the Palestinians, as they purposely use there own people as human shields.

Hamas, on the other hand, WANTS to kill civilians. Teenage girls being especially desirable.

Special forces or SWAT teams with close-range weapons and strict rules of engagement is the way to operate.

No it absolutely isn't, for the exact same reason air power isn't. Both special ops and airpower complement regular ground forces, they do not replace them in any way.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by David Floyd
People, this isn't tough. If you tacitly approve of terrorists, don't be surprised when you are treated as a terrorist. That's perfectly fair, no matter what the UN says.

Then when they gain more recruits by this approach and eventually smuggle in a nuke into your cities, partially by the supply of recruits and sympathizers they build up, don't ask how did that happen.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GePap
Hamas didn't stop Islamic Jihad and smaller groups from firing rockets, but its forces most certainly kept the cease fire.

I'm sorry, GePap. Maybe I'm confused because I was under the impression that Hamas wanted to be treated as an actual government in control over real territory rather than a military organization who only controls its own forces. If they want to be a government, they didn't live up to any part of the agreement if they freely allowed other groups to use thier territory to launch attacks from. I fail to see how you can reasonably argue Hamas forces kept the cease fire in that case.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I'm sorry, GePap. Maybe I'm confused because I was under the impression that Hamas wanted to be treated as an actual government in control over real territory rather than a military organization who only controls its own forces. If they want to be a government, they didn't live up to any part of the agreement if they freely allowed other groups to use thier territory to launch attacks from. I fail to see how you can reasonably argue Hamas forces kept the cease fire in that case.

So you were wrong in your impressions about the deal and what Hamas wanted.

And what I wrote was rather simple and clear, no? Hamas itself followed the cease-fire, but it did nothing to force other smaller organizations into line. Therefore, it is completely reasonable to state that Hamas followed the cease-fire.

[GePap]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I still don't understand. What is it about failing to respond to the attacks that people think will provide a good solution to Israel?

Face it - if Israel proves that they will back down if you launch rockets at them, that will simply invite more terrorists to lob rockets at Israeli civilians. That's the whole argument for not paying ransom to kidnappers - it will simply create more kidnappers.

Over its entire history Israel has generally chosen to respond to its neighbors through military force under the mentality you espouse. Has violence directed towards Israel been in a downward decline?

NO. The historical record belies your assumed logic. In 1978 and 1982 Israel used massive amounts of direct military force to crush Palestinian militants carrying out attacks against it from Lebanon. It succeeded in crushing the PLA forces there. Twenty years later, it must now face a far stronger, better armed, more disciplined, and more politically connected force in Hezbullah, a greater threat than the PLA ever was. And Hezbullah was what the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon and the Iranian Revolution together brought about.

Israel responded with an iron fist to the first intifadah. Instaed of moving then to create a deal, it chose to crush the Palestinians. End result? The birth of the Islamist groups, like Hamas, who were able to grow as Israel crushed the socialist inspired Palestinian groups in the territories.

The great advances in Israeli security have come from diplomacy.

Of course history has shown that a military response to terrorism won't stop the terrorism. But you know what? At least it will kill a few terrorists, and it's CERTAINLY better than the alternative.

There are more than two alternatives. Your lack of imagination on the subject is astounding.

And by the way, when you are being faced by an opponent that resorts to suicide bombers and rocket attacks against civilians, then I'm perfectly willing to forgive a few "crimes against humanity", as the UN might define them. For example, if attacks are being launched out of a certain area, then give the civilians x amount of time to clear out. At the end of that time, Israel bulldozes the area, mines the **** out of it, and creates an instant DMZ. "Crime against humanity", the UN might say. "Prudent defense measure" is what I'd call it, especially when the civilians living in that area could avoid it by rising up against the terrorists, by giving them up to Israeli intelligence, and by refusing to let their neighborhoods be used as bases for terror.

We all know that you have a warped moral compass in the best of days DF.

People, this isn't tough. If you tacitly approve of terrorists, don't be surprised when you are treated as a terrorist. That's perfectly fair, no matter what the UN says.

No, its isn't, because life is never fair. You live by the sword, you die by the sword. It is an old saying. Hamas choses violence, so it will have to face violence against it. That is simple, and clear. The problem is, Israel ls choses violence as well. That old saying is as true for the leaders of Israel as it is for those of Hamas. The sheer imbalance of power means that the leaders in Israel have far more choices, and are likely to face less retirbution, but in the end, retribution is what they will face in some form.

[Patroklos]

Then, as soon as the frustration leads to desperate responses by a few extremists, they use airstrikes instead of pinpoint operations

Airstrikes are pinpoint. Isreal did not carpet bomb yesterday,

However, the SWAT team you talk about requires absolute control of the territory, and a clear upper hand in intelligence, free movement and many other things we don't have in Gaza because of its autonomous state since 1994.

Exactly, which is exactly why all this "use special forces" wank is stupid. There are very few situations where just special forces are useful. Most of the time, including pacifying entire countries and millions of people, their usefullness comes from tackling particularly difficult operations inside much larger conventional operations.

And what I wrote was rather simple and clear, no? Hamas itself followed the cease-fire, but it did nothing to force other smaller organizations into line. Therefore, it is completely reasonable to state that Hamas followed the cease-fire.

God, you can't make this stuff up.Gepap

Please tell us how you know none of the rockets are not being fired with the support of Hamas if not being fired by Hamas itself?

Over its entire history Israel has generally chosen to respond to its neighbors through military force under the mentality you espouse. Has violence directed towards Israel been in a downward decline?

Yes, and spectacularly so. When was the last state warfare involving Isreal? How is the rate of suicide bombings after the sweeps and barrier building?

Face it, every attempt at diplomatic resolution has failed. Several military initiatives have worked spectacularly.

[quote]

Twenty years later, it must now face a far stronger, better armed, more disciplined, and more politically connected force in Hezbullah,

I highlighted the only relevant portion of that sentance. The fact that you have to ignore multiple decades worth of time to pretend you have a point is, while classic Gepap, retarded.

No, its isn't, because life is never fair. You live by the sword, you die by the sword. It is an old saying. Hamas choses violence, so it will have to face violence against it. That is simple, and clear. The problem is, Israel ls choses violence as well. That old saying is as true for the leaders of Israel as it is for those of Hamas. The sheer imbalance of power means that the leaders in Israel have far more choices, and are likely to face less retirbution, but in the end, retribution is what they will face in some form.

Despite the fact that the first half of your comment makes absolutely no sense, it does show your bias nicely.

FACT: Isreal has engaged the Palestinians in sincere negotiations dozens of times. Every time it is not Isreal who randomely resorts to violence because it can't have its cake and eat it to.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GePap
Therefore, it is completely reasonable to state that Hamas followed the cease-fire.

I'm still not getting how it is reasonable to say that a government followed a cease fire it agreed to when they allow thier territory to openly be used as a base of attacks against the party the government agreed to stop attacking. Maybe you could explain this in greater detail.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I'm still not getting how it is reasonable to say that a government followed a cease fire it agreed to when they allow thier territory to openly be used as a base of attacks against the party the government agreed to stop attacking. Maybe you could explain this in greater detail.

Hamas isn't a government.

The group itself does not claim de jure control over Gaza even if it has clearly sought de facto control, as ideologically it still proclaims the fiction of Palestinian unity.

Israel, Western states, and arab friends also deny the possibility of Hamas as a government because they define Hamas as a terrorist organization, and thus by definition, it can't be a government.

Hamas negotiated the truce as what it claims to be, a Palestinian FACTION. That there is an obvious problem between what Hamas calls itself and what Hamas has done, in taking de facto control over Gaza, but the two related, are still disctinc issues.

[GePap]

Ah Patty, still the same sad sack.

1. The single biggest change in Israel's overall security outlook was the Camp David Peace Accords. It was this act of diplomacy that ended the probability of another general Arab-Israeli war by removing Egypt from the list of Israeli enemies. So yes, in terms of general wars, Israel is more secure today, but that was an achievement of diplomacy, NOT war.

2. As for the current decline in suicide bombings, yes, Israeli tactics have allowed it to temporarily crush the Palestinian insurgency in the West Bank. Whether in five or ten years this will be the case is unclear right now. Of course, Israel also crushed the first Intifadah back in the early 90's.

3. The Israeli government itself acknowledges that during the cease-fire the rocket fire was from organizations other than Hamas. Have you any evidence they lack?

[Ming]

Originally posted by GePap
Ah Patty, still the same sad sack.

What part of my warning was not clear enough for you?

[Patroklos]

1. The single biggest change in Israel's overall security outlook was the Camp David Peace Accords. It was this act of diplomacy that ended the probability of another general Arab-Israeli war by removing Egypt from the list of Israeli enemies.

Yeah, because horrifying multiple defeats at the hands of Israel surely had nothing to do with it. The Camp David accords were only possible because Israel proved, conclusively, that Egypt had no military option.

So yes, in terms of general wars, Israel is more secure today, but that was an achievement of diplomacy, NOT war.

Wars usually end in treaty. Israel doesn't have to worry about Syria/Jordan/Egypt/SA today because they beat them to a bloody pulp, that’s the true foundation of state to state peace in that region. The fact that they added a shiny veneer of handshakes and signatures doesn't change that.

So yes, in terms of general wars, Israel is more secure today, but that was an achievement of diplomacy, NOT war.

Military solutions have yielded long stretches of peace.

Diplomatic solutions have yielded increased violence.

Notice a pattern?

3. The Israeli government itself acknowledges that during the cease-fire the rocket fire was from organizations other than Hamas. Have you any evidence they lack?

Gaza strip = Hamas. If they didn't want responsibility they shouldn't have gotten themselves elected. Is there any end to your apologism?

I now expect you to open a thread on how the US government has no responsibility for what Black Water does. Thanks.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GePap
Hamas isn't a government.

Events on the ground seem to argue against your conclusion. Regardless of you contention otherwise, Hamas participated and won a majority of seats in the legistlative elections of 2006 and later that same year following the resignation of Palestinian PM Ahmed Qurei formed a full government on March 20, 2006. Finally after a brief civil war in 07, Hamas expelled Fatah and assumed full control over the Gaza strip. That sounds like a government to me even if they would like to be in control over the West Bank as well.

Israel, Western states, and arab friends also deny the possibility of Hamas as a government because they define Hamas as a terrorist organization,

Objectively irrelevent.

[Naked Gents Rut]

Over its entire history Israel has generally chosen to respond to its neighbors through military force under the mentality you espouse. Has violence directed towards Israel been in a downward decline?

Yes. When's the last time all Israel's neighbors got together to try and wipe it off the map?

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by GePap
Never figured you as so dense.

That you have an excuse for your actions doesn't remove the inherent responsibility for them.

Israel could have chosen to open up full relations with Hamas - it didn't. It chose to confront Hamas militarily. You can argue why one path is better than the other, but denying that Israel chose its path is moral cowardice.

Well you're down to a pathetic excuse for an argument, aren't you?

We were having an adult discussion discussion about the factors leading up to this war, and the role of different players in creating the situation leading to hostilities.

Then all of a sudden, after I pwned you by showing that even Egypt lays the blame for escalation squarely on Hamas, you start arguing the asinine point that the Israeli response can't really be Hamas' fault, technically, because Israel carried it out, so technically, anything Israel did is Israel's fault. When I called you out, on your grade school level argument, your retort was accusing me of denying that Israel has free will.

WTF??!
Maybe next you'll accuse me of denying Israeli involvement in the war or something stupid of that sort.

When you're through arguing kindergarten philosophy, you're welcome to re-join the argument.

When did you become the whole Jewish people?

Since when did you began addressing the entire Jewish people when clearly answering me?

Even if I accept your change of spirit, the burden of proof is on you regarding the support of fundamentalist fanatics in the entire Jewish people.