Israeli atrocities in Gaza

[The Brain]

The Israeli government "should"? Neil, are you Ryo?

[Neil]

Mexican drug lords are kidnapping American citizens and taking them back to Mexico for slavery.  You know that, right?

Real Americans, or assorted spics and addicts?

[grumbler]

Mexican drug lords are kidnapping American citizens and taking them back to Mexico for slavery.  You know that, right?

Real Americans, or assorted spics and addicts?

Lets leave katmai and Fireblade out of this, m'kay?

[Neil]

The Israeli government "should"? Neil, are you Ryo?

No, but I am the supreme moral arbiter, as well as the determinant of the natural law.

[Malthus]

Mexican drug lords are kidnapping American citizens and taking them back to Mexico for slavery.  You know that, right?

Yet, the US government is strong enough to resist calls for the invasion of Mexico and the killing of the drug cartels (at huge cost in civilian casualties) because the cost of acting is greater than the cost of not acting.

So, what I am asking is only unthinkable if one's thinking is not very robust.  It is unquestionably difficult (even though only about 2 israelis a year die from rocket attacks) and military action would be tough for a strong government to resist.  My point is that israel does not (and cannot have, under curent political realities) a strong government, and so we see the Israeli government forced to act contrary to Israeli national interests for purely domestic political considerations.  Very frustrating, as I said.

As analogies go, this one sucks. 

That is, in fact, happening (not rocket attacks, but attacks across the border on civilians) right now.  Read the news.

No, it isn't.  When was the last time the Mexican government deliberately attacked US civilians?

[grumbler]

As analogies go, this one sucks. 

Ah, the old "let's dismiss this because we cannot respond to it" ploy.  As ploys go, that one sucks. 

No, it isn't.  When was the last time the Mexican government deliberately attacked US civilians?

Yes, it is.  Cross-border violence is cross-border violence.  US policy is best served by not responding militarily (as would Istaeli policy).  The difference is that the US government is strong enough to refrain, but the Istaeli government is not.

I would note that for all your  -equipped nitpicks, you have carefully avoided responding to my actual argument.  Your silence, of course, speaks volumes.

[Iormlund]

Every time the IDF attacks Hamas, they will destroy civilian lives and properties. And hence it will increase the popularity of Hamas at the population. That is what we have seen the last decades in the Middle-East, but also in other regions of the world.

Another solution to destroy Hamas could be "doing nothing". Let the economic blockade do its job, so the people at Gaza get tired from their Hamas-masters. That seemed to have worked with organisations like the IRA and ETA. People got tired from the swollen rethoric from those organisations and the economical problems of their resistance. They just want peace and prosperity.

However the problem of that tactics is, that Israel has to endure the stream of rockets, fired from Gaza. It is clear that they don't want that.

It took at lot more than that to shrink ETA. The alliance with France deprived them of a secure base of operations. Leadership has been wiped out countless times in the last quarter century.
Israel can't operate as freely as Spain and France do. They must settle for lobbing a missile at a car or a safehouse, instead of capturing terrorists alive, and obtaining valuable documents and hard drives.

[dps]

As analogies go, this one sucks. 

Ah, the old "let's dismiss this because we cannot respond to it" ploy.  As ploys go, that one sucks. 

No, it isn't.  When was the last time the Mexican government deliberately attacked US civilians?

Yes, it is.  Cross-border violence is cross-border violence.  US policy is best served by not responding militarily (as would Istaeli policy).  The difference is that the US government is strong enough to refrain, but the Istaeli government is not.

I would note that for all your  -equipped nitpicks, you have carefully avoided responding to my actual argument.  Your silence, of course, speaks volumes.

I'll bet that if clear, credible evidence were to emerge that the Mexican government is backing the activities of the drug lords, there would be strong pressure on our government to respond militarily.  And a military responce would be the right thing to do if diplomatic efforts to get the Mexican government to change its policy didn't produce results rather quickly.

[Jos Theelen]

It took at lot more than that to shrink ETA. The alliance with France deprived them of a secure base of operations. Leadership has been wiped out countless times in the last quarter century.
Israel can't operate as freely as Spain and France do. They must settle for lobbing a missile at a car or a safehouse, instead of capturing terrorists alive, and obtaining valuable documents and hard drives.

True. But the main reason was that people in Spain got (after Franco) peace and prosperity. So the ETA little by little lost the support of the people they thought to represent. They got less money from the population, so they had to blackmail people to get enough money. They got less hiding places. Their organisation got smaller and smaller, because not many young people supported their idea's. People informed the police better about the ETA. Political parties supporting the ETA lost more and more votes, etc.

[Fate]

No, it isn't.  When was the last time the Mexican government deliberately attacked US civilians?

Drug cartels are the legitimate government of Northern Mexico. They collect taxes and have a monopoly of force.

[Martinus]

People are dying in this rocket attacks. You know that, right?
A govertment first priority is to protect its citizen.

Incorrect.  A government's first priority is to protect its citizenry.

If allowing some settlers to die at the hands of the Palestinians would increase the survivability of the whole Israeli people, then that is what Israel's government should do.

Besides, does the government even have an obligation to protect its citizens, even if they get themselves into a mess by doing something horribly silly? Apparently, the majority of the Hamas targets are settlers in the occupied territories - people who should not be there in the first place, if you ask me. While some Israeli governments are complicit in these, as they allowed (or even encouraged) such an irresponsible behaviour, I do not see how they may have even a moral obligation to defend these people.

[Neil]

Apparently, the majority of the Hamas targets are settlers in the occupied territories - people who should not be there in the first place, if you ask me.

The Israelis didn't ask you, nor should they have.  Europe has no guidance to offer the Israelis, since anything they say is said with the underlying clause that really, everything would be a lot better if all those Jews just died.

[Malthus]

People are dying in this rocket attacks. You know that, right?
A govertment first priority is to protect its citizen.

Incorrect.  A government's first priority is to protect its citizenry.

If allowing some settlers to die at the hands of the Palestinians would increase the survivability of the whole Israeli people, then that is what Israel's government should do.

Besides, does the government even have an obligation to protect its citizens, even if they get themselves into a mess by doing something horribly silly? Apparently, the majority of the Hamas targets are settlers in the occupied territories - people who should not be there in the first place, if you ask me. While some Israeli governments are complicit in these, as they allowed (or even encouraged) such an irresponsible behaviour, I do not see how they may have even a moral obligation to defend these people.

Actually, what is causing the outrage in Israel is random attacks via rockets on "Israel proper" (that is, non-settlements) from Gaza. The "settlements" are all in another part of the country, the West Bank.

There used to be settlements in Gaza, but Israel pulled them all out (by force), in order to enable the peace process. What they got was Hamas, firing rockets at them.

This has somewhat dampened Israeli enthusiasm for further pull-packs to "enable" the peace process. 

[Iormlund]

It took at lot more than that to shrink ETA. The alliance with France deprived them of a secure base of operations. Leadership has been wiped out countless times in the last quarter century.
Israel can't operate as freely as Spain and France do. They must settle for lobbing a missile at a car or a safehouse, instead of capturing terrorists alive, and obtaining valuable documents and hard drives.

True. But the main reason was that people in Spain got (after Franco) peace and prosperity. So the ETA little by little lost the support of the people they thought to represent. They got less money from the population, so they had to blackmail people to get enough money. They got less hiding places. Their organisation got smaller and smaller, because not many young people supported their idea's. People informed the police better about the ETA. Political parties supporting the ETA lost more and more votes, etc.

While the shift from dictatorship brought a number of changes in that vein, ETA's number of victims was highest under democracy, during the 80s.
The political wing of ETA has been banned for a while, so there's no way of telling how much support if any they've lost that way. But inferring from some data, ETA's core of supporters (around 100k) is as loyal as ever.
However, the organization has great trouble obtaining funds, training and operating "abroad", both because of international cooperation (in no small amount after 9-11 opened some eyes), infiltration by Spanish police and espionage agencies and the loss of their vets, who have long been imprisoned and thus cannot share their knowledge with the young recruits, leading to mediocre performance.

[Malthus]

As analogies go, this one sucks. 

Ah, the old "let's dismiss this because we cannot respond to it" ploy.  As ploys go, that one sucks. 

No, it isn't.  When was the last time the Mexican government deliberately attacked US civilians?

Yes, it is.  Cross-border violence is cross-border violence.  US policy is best served by not responding militarily (as would Istaeli policy).  The difference is that the US government is strong enough to refrain, but the Istaeli government is not.

I would note that for all your  -equipped nitpicks, you have carefully avoided responding to my actual argument.  Your silence, of course, speaks volumes.

Your "actual argument" was based on a crapola analogy. Lawlessness does not equal state-sponsered terrorism, and saying it does doesn't make it so.

I don't disagree with the notion that responding with military force isn't always the best policy; I do disagree with your expressed theory that somehow the setup of the Israeli government makes it uniquely vulnerable to this - my point is that the US public wouldn't tolerate terrorist attacks for a minute without a violent government response, no matter what party was in charge with what majority. "The US government is strong enough to refrain"? You *must* be shitting me.  The minute a state so much as threatened an attack on a US city, the Marines would be sent - they were sent for a lot less than that in Iraq.