Languish.org

The Israelis can't just let them get away with this kind of behavior, but in the end this isn't going to change anything.

So the beat marches on.
http://vimeo.com/50531435

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2014/0630/In-wake-of-teen-deaths-Israel-vows-to-crush-Hamas-video

QuoteIn wake of teen deaths, Israel vows to crush Hamas (+video)

The bodies of the three yeshiva students were recovered near Hebron. Israel's deputy defense minister called for the destruction of Hamas, which threatened retaliation in turn.

By Christa Case Bryant, Staff writer June 30, 2014

Jerusalem — After 18 days of searching and nationwide prayers, the discovery of the bodies of three kidnapped Israeli teens has prompted an outpouring not only of grief but also a desire for revenge against Hamas.

"Alongside deep sorrow, we will remain resolute to punish the atrocious terrorists," said Nobel Peace Laureate Shimon Peres, whose seven-year presidential term ends today. "Our war against terrorism will only intensify and will not waver so that this murderous terrorism won't dare to rear its head."

A full-scale Israeli assault against Hamas, the Islamist movement that has amassed rockets in the Gaza Strip capable of striking Tel Aviv, is almost certain to fuel escalation along the Gaza-Israel border. Hamas vowed retaliation.
Recommended: Israel's military

"If [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu] wages war on the Gaza Strip, the gates of hell will be opened," warned a Hamas spokesman this afternoon.

Given widespread Palestinian bitterness over Israel's detention of its own boys and young men on a regular basis, as well as the deaths of at least five Palestinians during the military search operation, a strong Israeli retaliation now could provoke widespread unrest in the West Bank as well.

But Israelis are ready to risk such consequences, says Gershon Baskin, the founder of the Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information.

"The Israeli public is fed up, it is prepared for a military operation even if they know rockets are going to fly all over this country," he says.
Military raids, arrests

Israeli media confirmed tonight that the bodies of Eyal Yifrah, Gilad Shaar, and Naftali Frenkel were found north of Hebron after a wide-ranging operation that included the arrest of more than 350 Palestinians, sweeps of 1,800 locales, and the raiding of 64 Islamic charities suspected of having links to Hamas. The teens were yeshiva students in the West Bank looking to hitchhike home for the weekend.

The two suspects named by Israel, Marwan Qawasmeh and Amar Abu Aisha, are reportedly members of Hamas but Mr. Qawasmeh comes from a large clan that has a track record of overstepping Hamas policy vis-à-vis Israel.

But even if it is proven that those directly responsible were rogue Hamas elements acting on their own, Hamas as an organization must be held accountable, says Shaul Shay, former deputy head of the Israel National Security Council and now with the Institute of Policy & Strategy at the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya.

"I think if there is hard evidence regarding the responsibility of Hamas, no matter which type, kind, or branch of Hamas ... they have to pay – and a high price," he says. "Because this is the matter of deterrence, which is critical to preventing future abductions."
Trouble for Hamas

While the Hamas leadership has consistently advocated abductions, the latest kidnapping could not have come at a worse time for the organization, which is weaker politically than it has been for years.

"It's a particularly bad time for Hamas to be engaged in an action like this and that's why I didn't think they were responsible for this from the beginning," says Mr. Baskin, who established the backchannel for negotiations that led to the release of Sgt. Gilad Shalit, who was kidnapped by Hamas in 2006 and held for five years.

"Hamas could not have believed that an abduction of Israelis in the West Bank could be handled in the same way as with Gilad Shalit in Gaza," he says, citing Israel's far greater intelligence capabilities and control of the West Bank. "It was very unlikely that there would even be a negotiation.... They would be caught the moment they opened up a phone."

At stake is Hamas's recent reconciliation agreement with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, which is key to easing the deterioration of living conditions in the Gaza Strip. Israel has called on Mr. Abbas to call off the reconciliation agreement, and is likely to increase such pressure.

But the greatest pressure is likely to be on Hamas, which is classified by the US and European Union as a terrorist organization.

"This tragic ending must also be the ending of Hamas! The nation is strong and ready to absorb [attacks] for the sake of a mortal blow against Hamas," said Israeli Deputy Defense Minister Danny Danon, a member of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud party. "[W]e have to destroy the homes of Hamas activists, wipe out their arsenals everywhere, and stop the flow of money that directly or indirectly keeps terror alive... make the entire Palestinian leadership pay a heavy price."

In support, Tim launches 'shock and awe' thread spamming attack.




:P

I guess it shouldn't be any surprise as the Israelis don't take things like this lying down.  Claiming to attempt to break Hamas now. So, add this now to all that's going on in the Mid East lately, as the region was already on fire!

Quote from: KRonn on July 01, 2014, 09:41:24 AM
I guess it shouldn't be any surprise as the Israelis don't take things like this lying down.  Claiming to attempt to break Hamas now. So, add this now to all that's going on in the Mid East lately, as the region was already on fire!

That is setting the bar a bit high. Whatever the result of Israeli action there will still be something calling itself HAMAS existing afterwards and that HAMAS will declare survival = victory.

Quote from: mongers on July 01, 2014, 06:08:42 AM
In support, Tim launches 'shock and awe' thread spamming attack.




:P

QuoteThe Israelis can't just let them get away with this kind of behavior, but in the end this isn't going to change anything.

Profound.

Quote from: Viking on July 01, 2014, 09:48:41 AM

Quote from: KRonn on July 01, 2014, 09:41:24 AM
I guess it shouldn't be any surprise as the Israelis don't take things like this lying down.  Claiming to attempt to break Hamas now. So, add this now to all that's going on in the Mid East lately, as the region was already on fire!

That is setting the bar a bit high. Whatever the result of Israeli action there will still be something calling itself HAMAS existing afterwards and that HAMAS will declare survival = victory.

True that.

Dude, smoke and mirrors.

As long as the reserve doesn't get called up, this is only a little bombing for internal consumption.
Do you really think that dropping a few on Hamas grunts will make a difference?

Quote from: Siege on July 01, 2014, 12:40:50 PM
Dude, smoke and mirrors.

As long as the reserve doesn't get called up, this is only a little bombing for internal consumption.
Do you really think that dropping a few on Hamas grunts will make a difference?

The main Israeli objective seems to be to delegitimize the Hamas-PLA alliance.  That has little do with internal consumption and everything to do with international politics.

Quote"Alongside deep sorrow, we will remain resolute to punish the atrocious terrorists," said Nobel Peace Laureate Shimon Peres, whose seven-year presidential term ends today. "Our war against terrorism will only intensify and will not waver so that this murderous terrorism won't dare to rear its head."

Such a commitment to peace.

Languish really is dead if Israel hammering Gaza isn't able to inspire debate.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/15/us-palestinians-israel-idUSKBN0FI04420140715

QuoteIsrael targets top Hamas leader as cease-fire collapses

By Nidal al-Mughrabi and Jeffrey Heller

GAZA/JERUSALEM Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:59pm EDT

(Reuters) - Israel resumed its air strikes in the Gaza Strip on Wednesday a day after holding its fire in deference to an Egyptian-proposed cease-fire deal that failed to get Hamas militants to halt rocket attacks.

Attacks in the Gaza Strip killed at least three Palestinians in the early hours of Wednesday and destroyed the house of Mahmoud Zahar - who is believed to be in hiding elsewhere - in the first apparent targeting of a top Hamas political leader.

The week-old conflict seemed to be at a turning point on Tuesday, with Hamas defying Arab and Western calls to cease fire and Israel threatening to step up an offensive that could include an invasion of the densely populated enclave of 1.8 million.

Under a blueprint announced by Egypt - Gaza's neighbour and whose military-backed government has been at odds with Islamist Hamas - a mutual "de-escalation" was to have begun at 9 a.m. (0600 GMT), with hostilities ceasing within 12 hours.

Hamas' armed wing, the Izz el-Deen al-Qassam Brigades, rejected the ceasefire deal, a proposal that addressed in only general terms some of its key demands, and said its battle with Israel would "increase in ferocity and intensity".

But Moussa Abu Marzouk, a Hamas political official who was in Cairo, said the movement, which is seeking a deal that would ease the Egyptian and Israeli border restrictions throttling Gaza's economy, had made no final decision on Cairo's proposal.

The Israeli military said that since the cease-fire deal was to have gone into effect, Hamas had fired 123 rockets at Israel, one killing a civilian - the first Israeli fatality in the fighting.

Gaza medical officials say 191 Palestinians, including at least 150 civilians, among them 31 children, have been killed.

Israel's Iron Dome anti-missile system intercepted 20 of the Hamas projectiles, including two over the Tel Aviv area, and the rest caused no damage or casualties.

Hamas and Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the attack against Israel's commercial capital, which has been targeted frequently since the war began, as well as for the rocket that killed the Israeli man along the border.

Israel, citing the persistent salvoes, resumed attacks in Gaza six hours after implementation of the truce was to have begun. The military said it targeted at least 20 of Hamas' hidden rocket launchers, tunnels and weapons storage facilities.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in broadcast remarks late on Tuesday that Israel had no choice but to "expand and intensify" its campaign on Hamas, though he did not specifically mention the possibility of a ground incursion.

The Iron Dome has shot down most projectiles liable to hit Israeli towns and cities, but the rocket salvoes have made a rush to shelters a daily routine for hundreds of thousands of people across the country.

The surge in hostilities over the past week was prompted by the murder last month of three Jewish seminary students in the Israeli-occupied West Bank and the revenge killing on July 2 of a Palestinian youth in Jerusalem. Israel said on Monday three Jews in police custody had confessed to killing the Palestinian.

KERRY CONDEMNS "BRAZEN" HAMAS ROCKET FIRE

Sirens sounded on Tuesday in areas up to 130 km (80 miles) north of the Gaza Strip.

Speaking in Vienna, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry supported Israel: "I cannot condemn strongly enough the actions of Hamas in so brazenly firing rockets, in multiple numbers, in the face of a goodwill effort (to secure) a cease-fire."

Netanyahu, whose security cabinet voted 6-2 earlier on Tuesday to accept the truce, had cautioned that Israel would respond strongly if rockets kept flying.

He said he expected the "full support from the responsible members of the international community" for any intensification of Israeli attacks in response to Hamas spurning a truce.

Earlier, Sami Abu Zuhri, a Hamas spokesman in Gaza, said that demands the movement has made must be met before it lays down its weapons.

Other Palestinian militant groups - Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine - also said they had not yet agreed to the Egyptian offer.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who reached an agreement with Hamas in April that led to the formation of a unity government last month, called for acceptance of the proposal, the official Palestinian news agency WAFA said.

Abbas was expected to arrive in Cairo on Wednesday for talks with President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, the Palestinian leader's spokesman said.

The Arab League, at a meeting on Monday, also welcomed the cease-fire plan.

ISRAELI GROUND ASSAULT POSSIBLE

Israel had mobilised tens of thousands of troops for a threatened Gaza invasion if the rocket volleys persisted.

"We still have the possibility of going in, under cabinet authority, and putting an end to (the rockets)," Amos Gilad, a senior Israeli defence official, said.

Under the proposal announced by Egypt's Foreign Ministry, high-level delegations from Israel and the Palestinian factions would hold separate talks in Cairo within 48 hours to consolidate the cease-fire with "confidence-building measures".

Hamas leaders have said any deal must include an end to Israel's blockade of Gaza and a recommitment to a truce reached in an eight-day war there in 2012.

Hamas also wants Egypt to ease curbs at its Rafah crossing with Gaza, imposed after the military ousted President Mohamed Mursi, an Islamist, a year ago. The Egyptian proposal made no mention of Rafah or when restrictions might be eased. Hamas has faced a cash crisis and Gaza's economic hardship has deepened as a result of Egypt's destruction of cross-border smuggling tunnels. Egyptian authorities also accuse Hamas of assisting anti-government Islamist militants in Egypt's Sinai peninsula, an accusation that the Palestinian group denies. Hamas has said it also wants the release of hundreds of its activists arrested in the West Bank while Israel searched for the three missing teenagers. The proposed truce also made no mention of the detainees.

(Additional reporting by Allyn Fisher-Ilan, Maayan Lubell in Jerusalem, Noah Browning in Gaza and Michael Georgy and Yasmine Saleh in Cairo; Writing by Jeffrey Heller and Dan Williams; Editing by Angus MacSwan and Jan Paschal)

We have mentioned it.

But what really is there to say?  Israel going to Israel and Palestine going to Palestine.

King Timmay demands a post.

Blow it out your ass, your majesty.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 15, 2014, 07:16:04 PM
Languish really is dead if Israel hammering Gaza isn't able to inspire debate.

Debate about what?

Does Israel have a right to intervene in Gaza militarily? Languish Says Yes!
Is HAMAS evil? Languish Says Yes!
Is Israel comporting itself morally with proportionality and demonstrating international best practice in Gaza? Languish Says Yes!
Ultimately will the operation resolve the root cause of the conflict? Languish Says No!

no need to really debate this, is there? Though, a thread with links to news updates and interesting analysis might be worth-while.

Quote from: Viking on July 15, 2014, 10:57:23 PM
Is Israel comporting itself morally with proportionality and demonstrating international best practice in Gaza? Languish Says Yes!

10 years ago, there'd have been a couple Euroweenies willing to dispute this at length. Though come to think of it, Martim was just here...

Quote from: Viking on July 15, 2014, 10:57:23 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 15, 2014, 07:16:04 PM
Languish really is dead if Israel hammering Gaza isn't able to inspire debate.

Debate about what?

Does Israel have a right to intervene in Gaza militarily? LanguishSiege Says Yes!
Is HAMAS evil? Languish Says Yes!
Is Israel comporting itself morally with proportionality and demonstrating international best practice in Gaza? LanguishSiege Says Yes!
Ultimately will the operation resolve the root cause of the conflict? Languish Says No!

no need to really debate this, is there? Though, a thread with links to news updates and interesting analysis might be worth-while.

Slight correction for you. ;)

Israel is being taken over by religious nutters and their inability to even complete the merely moderately douchebaggy Kadima policy of disengagement is shameful.  Palestine is just as shit as ever.  So glad we are so intimately tied to this thing.

Hamas will achieve nothing other than getting a few of its guys and a lot of civilian shields blown up.  It will deplete its few stocks of useful weapons pointlessly and prematurely tip its hand on new tactics.  Then they will declare victory and the "street" will rally to them because stupidity can be both contagious and difficult to cure.

Israel will achieve nothing other than running through a few billion dollars worth a munitions, and receiving a few more angry letters to editor in Aftonbladet or whatever.  The government will declare victory which will only prove yet again it has no clue what to do. 

John Kerry will spend his time dealing with Iranians, having wisely concluded that there are more reasonable people to talk with there.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 16, 2014, 10:12:11 AM
John Kerry will spend his time dealing with Iranians, having wisely concluded that there are more reasonable people to talk with there.

:lol:

Sad but true :(

Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 16, 2014, 10:05:35 AM

Quote from: Viking on July 15, 2014, 10:57:23 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 15, 2014, 07:16:04 PM
Languish really is dead if Israel hammering Gaza isn't able to inspire debate.

Debate about what?

Does Israel have a right to intervene in Gaza militarily? LanguishSiege Says Yes!
Is HAMAS evil? Languish Says Yes!
Is Israel comporting itself morally with proportionality and demonstrating international best practice in Gaza? LanguishSiege Says Yes!
Ultimately will the operation resolve the root cause of the conflict? Languish Says No!

no need to really debate this, is there? Though, a thread with links to news updates and interesting analysis might be worth-while.

Slight correction for you. ;)

Are you suggesting Israel doesn't have the right under Article 51 of the UN Charter to wage war in self defense? Are you suggesting that Israel is NOT comporting itself morally with proportionality and demonstrating International best Practice in Gaza?

Not sure if "international best practice" is well-defined for the case of when the enemy's force protection scheme is deliberately siting tunnels and bunkers under schools and hospitals. 
International lawyers can be imaginative if really pushed but you can't expect them to keep up with the sheer peversity of the likes of Hamas.

Quote from: Viking on July 16, 2014, 11:26:16 AM
Are you suggesting Israel doesn't have the right under Article 51 of the UN Charter to wage war in self defense? Are you suggesting that Israel is NOT comporting itself morally with proportionality and demonstrating International best Practice in Gaza?

Getting carpet-bombing put under the heading of "self defense" is a stretch, at best.

Satisfies war boners?  Sure.  Justifiable as just defending oneself?  Not so much.

Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 16, 2014, 01:32:17 PM
Justifiable as just defending oneself?  Not so much.

I am not sure what 'justifiable' means in this conflict.  How often does either side do anything 'justifiable'?

Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 16, 2014, 01:32:17 PMGetting carpet-bombing put under the heading of "self defense" is a stretch, at best.

Kind of racist, DSB.  Just because they are Arabs, doesn't mean it is carpet bombing.

Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 16, 2014, 01:32:17 PM

Quote from: Viking on July 16, 2014, 11:26:16 AM
Are you suggesting Israel doesn't have the right under Article 51 of the UN Charter to wage war in self defense? Are you suggesting that Israel is NOT comporting itself morally with proportionality and demonstrating International best Practice in Gaza?

Getting carpet-bombing put under the heading of "self defense" is a stretch, at best.

Satisfies war boners?  Sure.  Justifiable as just defending oneself?  Not so much.

If Israel actually "carpet bombed" Gaza, there would be more than a couple of hundred casualties.

Israel certainly is not carpet bombing Gaza.

However, their bombing of Gaza that is ongoing does seem well out of proportion to the threat posed by the rocket attacks.

Their bombing of Gaza is an attempt to strike back at Hamas for the murder of those kids.  To look strong in the face of blah blah.  Proportionality has nothing to do with it.  It is about punishment and deterrence.

I thought their bombing was aimed at rocket launching areas.

Quote from: Berkut on July 16, 2014, 02:53:47 PM
Israel certainly is not carpet bombing Gaza.

However, their bombing of Gaza that is ongoing does seem well out of proportion to the threat posed by the rocket attacks.

Only idiots are "proportional" when waging war.  Israel is going to insane lengths to avoid inflicting civilian casualties, something no other nation would do. Little good it does them.  If they were to carpet bomb gaza and then ethnically cleanse it they would hardly get a more severe hostile response by the international community than they get by being extremely over cautious. No matter what Israel does Israel will always be wrong.

Quote from: Hansmeister on July 16, 2014, 06:57:27 PM

Quote from: Berkut on July 16, 2014, 02:53:47 PM
Israel certainly is not carpet bombing Gaza.

However, their bombing of Gaza that is ongoing does seem well out of proportion to the threat posed by the rocket attacks.

Only idiots are "proportional" when waging war.  Israel is going to insane lengths to avoid inflicting civilian casualties, something no other nation would do. Little good it does them.  If they were to carpet bomb gaza and then ethnically cleanse it they would hardly get a more severe hostile response by the international community than they get by being extremely over cautious. No matter what Israel does Israel will always be wrong.

Pretty much.

Being proportional in self-defense is the stupidest concept ever. It is not a jousting tournament. Your citizens are being attacked by the rulers of another country/city-state/whatever. The answer should be as severe as to make sure it never happens again. Israel is actually not doing that.

Quote from: Hansmeister on July 16, 2014, 06:57:27 PM

Quote from: Berkut on July 16, 2014, 02:53:47 PM
Israel certainly is not carpet bombing Gaza.

However, their bombing of Gaza that is ongoing does seem well out of proportion to the threat posed by the rocket attacks.

Only idiots are "proportional" when waging war.  Israel is going to insane lengths to avoid inflicting civilian casualties, something no other nation would do. Little good it does them.  If they were to carpet bomb gaza and then ethnically cleanse it they would hardly get a more severe hostile response by the international community than they get by being extremely over cautious. No matter what Israel does Israel will always be wrong.

Only dumbasses claim that only idiots are "proportional" when waging war, since in fact every single nation in a position like Israel (including Israel) does in fact strive to be propertional when waging war.

This is trivially proven by nothing that the US did not break out the ICBMs for Gulf War I.

The facts are very simple:

In this latest conflict, the total number of casualties that Hamas rocket attacks have caused in Israel: 0

On the other hand, Israel has inflicted some thousand plus casualties in the Gaza strip, the vast majority of which are civilians. They don't hold the entire blame for that, but they certainly get some of it.

It is, of course, a completely fucked up situation, for which there are no good answers. But there are lots of different bad answers, and bombing the shit out of Gaza resulting in large numbers of civilian casualties in a fashion that is guaranteed to just piss off the people you are occupying while doing exactly nothing to resolve any of fundamental issues (and in fact exacerbate those issues) is just another bad choice.

Quote from: Tamas on July 17, 2014, 04:19:44 AM

Quote from: Hansmeister on July 16, 2014, 06:57:27 PM

Quote from: Berkut on July 16, 2014, 02:53:47 PM
Israel certainly is not carpet bombing Gaza.

However, their bombing of Gaza that is ongoing does seem well out of proportion to the threat posed by the rocket attacks.

Only idiots are "proportional" when waging war.  Israel is going to insane lengths to avoid inflicting civilian casualties, something no other nation would do. Little good it does them.  If they were to carpet bomb gaza and then ethnically cleanse it they would hardly get a more severe hostile response by the international community than they get by being extremely over cautious. No matter what Israel does Israel will always be wrong.

Pretty much.

Being proportional in self-defense is the stupidest concept ever.

Well, no it isn't. Unless you are willing to go full on genocide, being proportional is the only choice, in fact, if what you want to do is actually try to solve a problem.

Quote
It is not a jousting tournament. Your citizens are being attacked by the rulers of another country/city-state/whatever.

IN this case, Israeli citizens are being attacked by terrorists, not the rules of another country, and in fact there is no other country, and Israel is a large part of the reason there *isn't* another country.

This is such a stupid argument, since if you accept it, you are actually arguing for the perfect validity in, say, Palestinian's kidnapping and murdering Israeli teenagers. After all, the leaders of another country (Israel) are not just attacking Palestinians, they are occupying their lands, building more settlements, locking them up in large numbers, etc., etc., etc. So I guess murdering a couple teens is incredibly restrained, from their perspective and given yours' and Hans rules of "Fuck proportionality, anything goes!"

Quote
The answer should be as severe as to make sure it never happens again. Israel Palestineis actually not doing that.

Fixed that for you?

Oh wait - do these rules only apply to Israel?

 :huh:

The reality is that proportionailty is in fact demanded in military response to both state and non-state provocation.

I support Israel almost completely, but the idea that if Hamas tosses a rocket into Israel which is almost certainly going to miss, and if it doesn't miss is almost certainly going to be shot down, then Israel has the reasonable right to respond in any conceivable fashion is just idiotic.

Proportionality doesn't mean that Israel cannot respond, or that their response can only match the provocation. It does mean that the response should be tailored to the threat, and Israel has a responsibility as a rational, reasonable actor to tailor their response to the threat and the reality of the probability of collateral damage given the set of options available to them to respond to the threat.

It is trivial to walk back the trail of "Well, A should not X, then B would not have to do Y". But it doesn't get you anywhere. It might make you feel better about supporting the "right" side I suppose.


Finally, there is the fact that it simply does not work. Israel has responded in this fashion to this provocation before, and it solves nothing. It won't stop anything, because the people they are trying to stop do not care - in fact, the people they are trying to stop *want* Israel to respond in this fashion. It is counter-productive.

Quote from: Berkut on July 16, 2014, 02:53:47 PM
Israel certainly is not carpet bombing Gaza.

However, their bombing of Gaza that is ongoing does seem well out of proportion to the threat posed by the rocket attacks.

They are targeting rocket launching sites.

Part of the reason why Hamas rocketeers are so dismally inaccurate is alleged to be the fact that they have to keep moving their launching pads, to avoid Israeli counter-battery fire. Cease the counter-fire, and Hamas will score more hits - or so it is alleged. I'm no rocket expert, so I don't know if this is true, but it makes a certain intuitive sense to me that it would be.

Israel allegedly takes all sorts of precautions, such as informing the civilian inhabitants to leave just prior to attacks. Hamas, of course, deliberately locates its launch sites so as to maximize civilian casualties.

Assuming the above is true, I cannot conclude that the Israeli response is "disproportinate". Hamas has launched over a thousand rockets at Israel. The fact they have 'scored' only a single death and a bunch of injuries can be put down, in part, to Israeli counter-measures. It strikes me as taking "proportionality" too far to demand that Israel suffer significant deaths before they can respond.

Whether the Israeli response is a "solution" to the political problem is of course a totally different story. IMO it is not, and they seem all out of ideas. But I disagree strongly that their response to date is "disproportionate". 

The central point in morals and ethics in war is to not refer to proportionality in terms of retribution but rather in terms of relating the force used to the objective desired.

Pointing to the relative casualties and complaining that it isn't proportional is both wrong and immoral. If HAMAS rockets had actually hit something would that give Israel license to kill more civilians? Do you really think that a situation where a HAMAS hit on kinder garten suddenly turns an IDF strike on a rocket lager in a residential neighborhood proportional?

No, each action is moral and proportional in and of itself. A proportional response is one where the collateral damage expected is proportional to the military gain expected.

Hansy is right that no sane government is going to wage war based on the relative casualties on both sides. Berkuts trivial response quip about ICBMs is wrong since he is comparing apples to oranges.

Quote from: Viking on July 17, 2014, 09:02:44 AM
The central point in morals and ethics in war is to not refer to proportionality in terms of retribution but rather in terms of relating the force used to the objective desired.

Pointing to the relative casualties and complaining that it isn't proportional is both wrong and immoral. If HAMAS rockets had actually hit something would that give Israel license to kill more civilians? Do you really think that a situation where a HAMAS hit on kinder garten suddenly turns an IDF strike on a rocket lager in a residential neighborhood proportional?

No, each action is moral and proportional in and of itself. A proportional response is one where the collateral damage expected is proportional to the military gain expected.

Hansy is right that no sane government is going to wage war based on the relative casualties on both sides. Berkuts trivial response quip about ICBMs is wrong since he is comparing apples to oranges.

I think Berkut is saying that the political goals are not being met by Israeli actions, therefore they are not "proportional". Or at least, that would be a reasonable point.

The counter-argument is that Israel is not using counter-battery fire for a political purpose, but to ensure that Hamas rockets in fact do little damage, by killing off rocket crews and by making the rest keep moving launching sites. In short, for purely military self-defence purposes.

Quote from: Malthus on July 17, 2014, 09:06:29 AM

Quote from: Viking on July 17, 2014, 09:02:44 AM
The central point in morals and ethics in war is to not refer to proportionality in terms of retribution but rather in terms of relating the force used to the objective desired.

Pointing to the relative casualties and complaining that it isn't proportional is both wrong and immoral. If HAMAS rockets had actually hit something would that give Israel license to kill more civilians? Do you really think that a situation where a HAMAS hit on kinder garten suddenly turns an IDF strike on a rocket lager in a residential neighborhood proportional?

No, each action is moral and proportional in and of itself. A proportional response is one where the collateral damage expected is proportional to the military gain expected.

Hansy is right that no sane government is going to wage war based on the relative casualties on both sides. Berkuts trivial response quip about ICBMs is wrong since he is comparing apples to oranges.

I think Berkut is saying that the political goals are not being met by Israeli actions, therefore they are not "proportional". Or at least, that would be a reasonable point.

The counter-argument is that Israel is not using counter-battery fire for a political purpose, but to ensure that Hamas rockets in fact do little damage, by killing off rocket crews and by making the rest keep moving launching sites. In short, for purely military self-defence purposes.

I'm saying Berkut's point isn't really a point since no lesser level of military action has shown itself capable of changing HAMAS political and military objectives and ending the rocket fire.

Quote from: Malthus on July 17, 2014, 09:06:29 AM

Quote from: Viking on July 17, 2014, 09:02:44 AM
The central point in morals and ethics in war is to not refer to proportionality in terms of retribution but rather in terms of relating the force used to the objective desired.

Pointing to the relative casualties and complaining that it isn't proportional is both wrong and immoral. If HAMAS rockets had actually hit something would that give Israel license to kill more civilians? Do you really think that a situation where a HAMAS hit on kinder garten suddenly turns an IDF strike on a rocket lager in a residential neighborhood proportional?

No, each action is moral and proportional in and of itself. A proportional response is one where the collateral damage expected is proportional to the military gain expected.

Hansy is right that no sane government is going to wage war based on the relative casualties on both sides. Berkuts trivial response quip about ICBMs is wrong since he is comparing apples to oranges.

I think Berkut is saying that the political goals are not being met by Israeli actions, therefore they are not "proportional". Or at least, that would be a reasonable point.

I am saying that, plus the fact that the threat from the rockets is clearly relatively minor, given their clear inability to do any damage at all.

They are simply ineffective, and hence a proportioned response to that threat should not be resulting in hundreds, if not thousands, of civilian casualties.

Quote

The counter-argument is that Israel is not using counter-battery fire for a political purpose, but to ensure that Hamas rockets in fact do little damage, by killing off rocket crews and by making the rest keep moving launching sites. In short, for purely military self-defence purposes.

That sounds like bullshit to me - it's not like the rockets were killing anyone, or hitting anything, up until Israel started bombing Gaza.

They've fired something like 1000+ rockets, and done basically nothing. Nothing. That means they have a less than 0.1% success rate. Hamas would have better luck hurting Israelis by throwing rocks at the nearest one.

The rockets are there to kill or hurt Israelis - they are there to incite Israel to react in precisely the manner that Israel is reacting. Which is just stupid.

It certainly isn't proportional.  Three Israelis get kidnapped and murdered, and the Israelis respond by beating up an American.

Quote from: Viking on July 17, 2014, 09:34:22 AM

Quote from: Malthus on July 17, 2014, 09:06:29 AM

Quote from: Viking on July 17, 2014, 09:02:44 AM
The central point in morals and ethics in war is to not refer to proportionality in terms of retribution but rather in terms of relating the force used to the objective desired.

Pointing to the relative casualties and complaining that it isn't proportional is both wrong and immoral. If HAMAS rockets had actually hit something would that give Israel license to kill more civilians? Do you really think that a situation where a HAMAS hit on kinder garten suddenly turns an IDF strike on a rocket lager in a residential neighborhood proportional?

No, each action is moral and proportional in and of itself. A proportional response is one where the collateral damage expected is proportional to the military gain expected.

Hansy is right that no sane government is going to wage war based on the relative casualties on both sides. Berkuts trivial response quip about ICBMs is wrong since he is comparing apples to oranges.

I think Berkut is saying that the political goals are not being met by Israeli actions, therefore they are not "proportional". Or at least, that would be a reasonable point.

The counter-argument is that Israel is not using counter-battery fire for a political purpose, but to ensure that Hamas rockets in fact do little damage, by killing off rocket crews and by making the rest keep moving launching sites. In short, for purely military self-defence purposes.

I'm saying Berkut's point isn't really a point since no lesser level of military action has shown itself capable of changing HAMAS political and military objectives and ending the rocket fire.

*This* level of military action has shown itself incapable of changing HAMAS political and military objectives! In fact, it completely server their political and military objectives.

Israel is running *exactly* the script Hamas wrote for them.

Quote from: Viking on July 17, 2014, 09:02:44 AM
The central point in morals and ethics in war is to not refer to proportionality in terms of retribution but rather in terms of relating the force used to the objective desired.

Exactly correct - that is what I mean by proportional in fact.

Of course, the objective itself is part of that - it needs to be reasonable given the threat posed.

Quote

Pointing to the relative casualties and complaining that it isn't proportional is both wrong and immoral.

Not at all - pointing out that the threat posed by Hamas rocket attacks is largely trivial and symbolic is both relevant and important. Exagerating the threat in order to justify using force in a manner that will result in massive civilian casualties is wrong and immoral.

Quote
If HAMAS rockets had actually hit something would that give Israel license to kill more civilians?

If Hamas rockets were a greater threat to Israelis civilians, then absolutely Israel would have greater operational bounds on their response. I would not say they have a greater license to kill more civilians, since killing civilians is never "licensed", but certainly if the threat to Israel were greater, they would have every right to take actions that would have, as the inevitable result, a greater number of civilians casualties.

Quote
Do you really think that a situation where a HAMAS hit on kinder garten suddenly turns an IDF strike on a rocket lager in a residential neighborhood proportional?

I think a situation where Hamas has the ability to hit anything at all would result in a greater justification for the IDF to take actions that will result in greater civilian casualties.

That seems kind of obvious to me.

Quote
No, each action is moral and proportional in and of itself. A proportional response is one where the collateral damage expected is proportional to the military gain expected.

And in this case, the military gain expected is zero. The effectiveness of Hamas rocket attacks is effectively zero.

Quote

Hansy is right that no sane government is going to wage war based on the relative casualties on both sides. Berkuts trivial response quip about ICBMs is wrong since he is comparing apples to oranges.

Not at all - Hansy claimed that no government waging war ever worries about proportionality. I was trivially pointing out that he is, as usual, completely full of shit, and of course governments ALWAYS concern themselves with proportionality.

Quote from: Berkut on July 17, 2014, 09:41:08 AM

That sounds like bullshit to me - it's not like the rockets were killing anyone, or hitting anything, up until Israel started bombing Gaza.

They've fired something like 1000+ rockets, and done basically nothing. Nothing. That means they have a less than 0.1% success rate. Hamas would have better luck hurting Israelis by throwing rocks at the nearest one.

The rockets are there to kill or hurt Israelis - they are there to incite Israel to react in precisely the manner that Israel is reacting. Which is just stupid.

This isn't exactly the first go-around for Hamas rockets vs. Israeli counter-battery fire. Hamas knows that Israel will shoot at their rocket launching positions as soon as they fire. Thus, if they want to live, Hamas "rocketeers" (? sounds like a 1950s children's show  :D) have no choice but to fire a couple off and immediately dismantle their position and move elsewhere.

Are you telling us that you know, for a certainty, that being shot at like that has nothing to do with Hamas' lack of effectiveness? Would you, personally, be willing to bet your family's life on that, if they lived in Israel? Because that is, in effect, what you are asking the Israelis to do - cease firing back at Hamas in the knowledge that Hamas can't hit the side of a barn door from inside the barn anyway, and could not do so even if they had the leasure to maintain proper launching sites, observe the fall of their rockets, adjust their aim, etc. Rather than hurredly firing them off and scuttling away.

Maybe a bold politician will say one day 'know what? Fuck it. Let them fire, will will do nothing'. Problem is that, whaile this will no doubt play well to the foreign press (hell, even the Euros would probably like it), if people in Israel start dying from more accurate rocket-fire, what then? What if that experiment fails?   

I can't find much fault with Berkut's analysis.  But Malthus is right, it is a political impossibility.  If Mexico started launching drone attacks at the US, it is inconceivable the President would do nothing militarily to respond, even if we were able to intercept all the drones quite easily.

Also while Berkut is correct to say that Hamas is deliberately provoking a response to rally support, it does not necessarily follow that Hamas is really benefiting.  The conflict is having the usual effect of rallying domestic opinion in Gaza in the short run, but the long run gain impact is more murky, and this particular episode is really highlighting Hamas stark isolation internationally in a way that must be uncomfortable for them.

Quote from: Malthus on July 17, 2014, 09:57:05 AM

Quote from: Berkut on July 17, 2014, 09:41:08 AM

That sounds like bullshit to me - it's not like the rockets were killing anyone, or hitting anything, up until Israel started bombing Gaza.

They've fired something like 1000+ rockets, and done basically nothing. Nothing. That means they have a less than 0.1% success rate. Hamas would have better luck hurting Israelis by throwing rocks at the nearest one.

The rockets are there to kill or hurt Israelis - they are there to incite Israel to react in precisely the manner that Israel is reacting. Which is just stupid.

This isn't exactly the first go-around for Hamas rockets vs. Israeli counter-battery fire. Hamas knows that Israel will shoot at their rocket launching positions as soon as they fire. Thus, if they want to live, Hamas "rocketeers" (? sounds like a 1950s children's show  :D) have no choice but to fire a couple off and immediately dismantle their position and move elsewhere.

Indeed, given that they want to shoot rockets at Israel (and believe me, I think THAT is a stupid way of getting anything done in regards to a long term solution as well), shooting them from urban areas then moving is the only possible way to do so.

Quote
Are you telling us that you know, for a certainty, that being shot at like that has nothing to do with Hamas' lack of effectiveness?

*Nothing* to do with it? That seems unlikely, but given their total lack of success, it seems likely that the difference is material, certainly not material enough to justify 1100 civilians casualties on the chance that it *might* make a difference.

And I think the onus is on the Israeli military to make reasonable judgements about how to respond in an effective manner. They are the responsible actor here, or at least they should be.

Quote
Would you, personally, be willing to bet your family's life on that, if they lived in Israel?

That is an emotional response, not an analystical one. If we want emotional responses, I am going to with "Fuck them, lets drive them all into Egypt and shoot any that try to come back". But that isn't the standard that ought to be applied.

We certainly do not tolerate that standard when applied to the Palestinians, right? We don't say "Hey, kidnapping and murdering some teens is fine, because Israel is doing X, Y, and Z that very understandbly results in a very unhappy group of people, hence emotional and violent responses are to be expected and even lauded".

Quote
Because that is, in effect, what you are asking the Israelis to do - cease firing back at Hamas in the knowledge that Hamas can't hit the side of a barn door from inside the barn anyway, and could not do so even if they had the leasure to maintain proper launching sites, observe the fall of their rockets, adjust their aim, etc. Rather than hurredly firing them off and scuttling away.

It isn't binary though - there are options here other than bombing heavily populated areas which doesn't actually stop the rocket fire anyway.

These are rockets, not artillery. There is no "observing the fall of the shot" or "adjusting their aim".

Quote
Maybe a bold politician will say one day 'know what? Fuck it. Let them fire, will will do nothing'. Problem is that, whaile this will no doubt play well to the foreign press (hell, even the Euros would probably like it), if people in Israel start dying from more accurate rocket-fire, what then? What if that experiment fails?   

Then try something else. Then ramp up your response.

I think what is happening right now is that both sides are playing to their audiences. Israel is bombing Gaza not because this is the best way to handle the problem, but because that is what the Israeli people want their leadership to do, and that is what Netanyahu wants to do, not because they are sitting around saying "Man, this really sucks, but it is really the only valid military response to these attacks".

Hamas is firing rockets not because they think that is the best way to harm Israel, as it clearly is not, but because it is the best way to incite the response they have gotten from Israel, which is what they want.

And the civilians in Gaza pay from both sides.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 17, 2014, 10:10:27 AM
I can't find much fault with Berkut's analysis.  But Malthus is right, it is a political impossibility.

I don't know if that is true - I wonder if in fact someone with some balls could actually make a lot of headway by having the courage to lead instead of follow public opinion. Public opinion in these kinds of situations is almost always lowest common denominator.

Quote
If Mexico started launching drone attacks at the US, it is inconceivable the President would do nothing militarily to respond, even if we were able to intercept all the drones quite easily.

But that doesn't mean that we would respond in a fashion that resulted in thousands of Mexican civlians casualties. And if we did, we would (rightly, IMO) be blasted for that, just like there are serious questions being raised about our response to the Taliban in Pakistan, for example. Are our drone strikes proportional? We kill plenty of civilians, and there is very reasonable questions raised about whether that is a reasonable response given the threat.

Quote
Also while Berkut is correct to say that Hamas is deliberately provoking a response to rally support, it does not necessarily follow that Hamas is really benefiting.  The conflict is having the usual effect of rallying domestic opinion in Gaza in the short run, but the long run gain impact is more murky, and this particular episode is really highlighting Hamas stark isolation internationally in a way that must be uncomfortable for them.

I don't think Hamas is benefiting, but neither do I think Israel is either, as long as we define "benefit" as "getting either side closer to an actual workable peace". But I suspect neither side, at this point, really wants that anyway.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 17, 2014, 10:10:27 AM
If Mexico started launching drone attacks at the US, it is inconceivable the President would do nothing militarily to respond, even if we were able to intercept all the drones quite easily.

LOL Pancho Villa drones.

Quote from: Berkut on July 17, 2014, 10:33:47 AM
*Nothing* to do with it? That seems unlikely, but given their total lack of success, it seems likely that the difference is material, certainly not material enough to justify 1100 civilians casualties on the chance that it *might* make a difference.

Based on what, exactly? The only data point we have is lack of success. How, exactly, are we to determine if this lack of success is, or is not, partly based on Israeli response?

I suppose the Israelis could do an experiment, and guarantee Hamas they they will do nothing to disrupt Hamas firing at Israel, and see.

Your problem, it seems to me, is one of facts and logic: you are arguing from the lack of success that Israel needs take no action, when you cannot demonstrate that the lack of success is not due to Israeli actions.

QuoteAnd I think the onus is on the Israeli military to make reasonable judgements about how to respond in an effective manner. They are the responsible actor here, or at least they should be.

Agreed. However, I cannot see that counter-battery fire at someone shooting at your civilians is "unreasonable", and you have no proof is is "ineffective".

Quote

That is an emotional response, not an analystical one. If we want emotional responses, I am going to with "Fuck them, lets drive them all into Egypt and shoot any that try to come back". But that isn't the standard that ought to be applied.

We certainly do not tolerate that standard when applied to the Palestinians, right? We don't say "Hey, kidnapping and murdering some teens is fine, because Israel is doing X, Y, and Z that very understandbly results in a very unhappy group of people, hence emotional and violent responses are to be expected and even lauded".

No, it is a political argument. I am pointing out it is politically difficult if not impossible to do nothing.

QuoteIt isn't binary though - there are options here other than bombing heavily populated areas which doesn't actually stop the rocket fire anyway.

Really? What would you suggest?

QuoteThese are rockets, not artillery. There is no "observing the fall of the shot" or "adjusting their aim".

First, you are factually wrong in concluding it is all rockets - the only Israeli killed so far was killed by a mortar round, not a rocket. You most certainly do observe the fall of shot and adjust aim for mortars.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/hamas-mortar-kills-1st-israeli-in-renewed-gaza-conflict-1.2707102

Second, I have been informed, but do not know for sure, that adusting aim and observing accuracy is in fact important for accurate rocket fire - as adjustments must be made for tyhe peculiarities of the guidance system and launch setup.

Quote from: Malthus on July 17, 2014, 10:57:56 AM

Quote from: Berkut on July 17, 2014, 10:33:47 AM
*Nothing* to do with it? That seems unlikely, but given their total lack of success, it seems likely that the difference is material, certainly not material enough to justify 1100 civilians casualties on the chance that it *might* make a difference.

Based on what, exactly? The only data point we have is lack of success. How, exactly, are we to determine if this lack of success is, or is not, partly based on Israeli response?

This could be used to justify any and all responses of course. Israel could carpet bomb, note that the rocket attacks still miss 100% of the time, and conclude the exact same thing. Hey, you can't PROVE that it wasn't the carpet bombing that made the difference! Oh wait? What difference is that you say, since when Israel was not bombing Gaza, Hamas could hit anything with their rockets, and once they started bombing Hamas still couldn't hit anything?

Of course, it is reasonable to infer that absent Israeli bombing, Hamas never hit anything with the first rockets they fired, hence the leap here is to assume that the critical component to a completely and totally ineffective weapon system is the importance of taking action that results in the inevitable deaths of hundreds of civilians.

Quote
I suppose the Israelis could do an experiment, and guarantee Hamas they they will do nothing to disrupt Hamas firing at Israel, and see.

Are we to the part where we start creating ridiculous strawmen like Israel making guarantees to Hamas? That is the only possible options to what they are doing?

Quote
Your problem, it seems to me, is one of facts and logic: you are arguing from the lack of success that Israel needs take no action, when you cannot demonstrate that the lack of success is not due to Israeli actions.

Your problem, it seems to me, is one of facts and logic: you are arguing that since Hamas rocket attacks are totally ineffective, anything Israel is doing ought to be assumed to be the reason they are totally ineffective, and therefore any collateral damage as a result of anything Israel does, is justified because Hamas is completely ineffective.


And I never at any time said the alternative was to do nothing, so stop trotting that out. Israel does a LOT other than bombing Gaza.

Quote

QuoteAnd I think the onus is on the Israeli military to make reasonable judgements about how to respond in an effective manner. They are the responsible actor here, or at least they should be.

Agreed. However, I cannot see that counter-battery fire at someone shooting at your civilians is "unreasonable", and you have no proof is is "ineffective".

That is a non-responsive response. You agree, but place no restrictions on that "counter-battery fire" which means you really do not agree. You have no proof it IS effective, and I would argue that nation state military taking military action that most certainly is killing and maiming large numbers of civilians bear the responsibility of proving that their response is proportional and effective.

What we know for certain is that the response in question has killed several hundred and wounded over a thousand people, and the vast majority of those people killed (75% is the number I think I saw) are not combatants. The burden of proof here is on the responsible actor, not on everyone else to "prove" a negative.

Quote

Quote

That is an emotional response, not an analystical one. If we want emotional responses, I am going to with "Fuck them, lets drive them all into Egypt and shoot any that try to come back". But that isn't the standard that ought to be applied.

We certainly do not tolerate that standard when applied to the Palestinians, right? We don't say "Hey, kidnapping and murdering some teens is fine, because Israel is doing X, Y, and Z that very understandbly results in a very unhappy group of people, hence emotional and violent responses are to be expected and even lauded".

No, it is a political argument. I am pointing out it is politically difficult if not impossible to do nothing.

Doing nothing is a strawman. Israel does a LOT short of bombing people.

And there is a lot they do not do - like dismantling settlements, and stopping new settlements.

The idea that Israel is completely blameless, and has no choice but to react in this particular fashion is as false as the idea that it is ok for Hamas to shoot rockets from behind schools, because the alternative is to shoot rockets from somewhere where they will get killed.

Quote

QuoteIt isn't binary though - there are options here other than bombing heavily populated areas which doesn't actually stop the rocket fire anyway.

Really? What would you suggest?

Don't bomb Gaza. Stop building settlements. Take the high road. Use the most sophisticated air defense system ever created to protect you from these feeble attacks, and laugh at how ridiculous pathetic the attempts are. Continue to interdict weapons coming into the occupied territories. Use greater restraint when it is necessary to respond militarily.

This entire excuse that nobody has options except the shittiest options they choose is why this mess is still ongoing after 40 years. Hamas claims that they have no option except to fire rockets from schools. Israel claims they have no options but to blow up those schools.

I am NOT trying to draw equivalences here - there is a right side and a wrong side, IMO, and the right side is Israel, and the wrong side is Hamas. But that doesn't give Israel some kind of blank check to respond in any fashion desired, and given that the US supports Israel with vast amounts of funds, technology, and political capital, we should and ought to happily use the influence that should give us to force Israel to act in a more restrained manner, when it is clear that their responses are only serving a strictly internal and domestic political purpose.

Quote

QuoteThese are rockets, not artillery. There is no "observing the fall of the shot" or "adjusting their aim".

First, you are factually wrong in concluding it is all rockets - the only Israeli killed so far was killed by a mortar round, not a rocket. You most certainly do observe the fall of shot and adjust aim for mortars.

I didn't make any such conclusion - we were talking about rockets in particular, so I was speaking about rockets in particular.


I think we are both quite aware that there is more going on than just a bunch of shitty rockets being fired.

Quote

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/hamas-mortar-kills-1st-israeli-in-renewed-gaza-conflict-1.2707102 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/hamas-mortar-kills-1st-israeli-in-renewed-gaza-conflict-1.2707102)

Second, I have been informed, but do not know for sure, that adusting aim and observing accuracy is in fact important for accurate rocket fire - as adjustments must be made for tyhe peculiarities of the guidance system and launch setup.

But they have no ability to see where it lands, these rockets are not line of site, hence even if Israel didn't bomb them, it would not help.


But none of that is relevant - you are just imagining that these rockets would be effecive, or more effective, because that is the only way to justify killing hundreds of women and children because someday a rocket *might* actually hit something.


And someday one will - the odds are in favor at some point that if you blindly launch a thousand rockets, someone will eventually be unlucky enough to be there where it comes down.


But that won't change the fact that the rocket attacks are a totally ineffective weapon, and hence the response to those attacks must still be in proportion to the actual threat they pose, which is basically zero, or even if we grant your unsupported theory, very, very close to zero.

Quote from: Malthus on July 17, 2014, 08:58:22 AM
Whether the Israeli response is a "solution" to the political problem is of course a totally different story. IMO it is not, and they seem all out of ideas. But I disagree strongly that their response to date is "disproportionate". 

They could, you know, end the occupation a la Kadima.  Sure Elohim struck down Ariel Sharon for it but otherwise that could have worked.

Of course I guess that provides no solution to what happens if the Pals form a state and they elect Hamas and keep shooting rockets at them.

Quote from: Malthus on July 17, 2014, 10:57:56 AM
Really? What would you suggest?

Stop colonization, start negotiating with Palestinans without doing everything you can to provoke them, don't answer to Hamas provocations while the peace process starts.  Eventually, agree to dismantle most settlements, in exchange for no right of return to proper Israeli territory.

Quote from: Valmy on July 17, 2014, 12:01:27 PM

Quote from: Malthus on July 17, 2014, 08:58:22 AM
Whether the Israeli response is a "solution" to the political problem is of course a totally different story. IMO it is not, and they seem all out of ideas. But I disagree strongly that their response to date is "disproportionate". 

They could, you know, end the occupation a la Kadima.  Sure Elohim struck down Ariel Sharon for it but otherwise that could have worked.

Of course I guess that provides no solution to what happens if the Pals form a state and they elect Hamas and keep shooting rockets at them.

They *did* end the occupation of Gaza, under Sharon. The result: Hamas took over Gaza.

Quote from: viper37 on July 17, 2014, 12:33:25 PM

Quote from: Malthus on July 17, 2014, 10:57:56 AM
Really? What would you suggest?

Stop colonization, start negotiating with Palestinans without doing everything you can to provoke them, don't answer to Hamas provocations while the peace process starts.  Eventually, agree to dismantle most settlements, in exchange for no right of return to proper Israeli territory.

Negotiating with the Pals while ignoring the party they elected to represent them?  Seems like a strange plan.  Hamas is the only group representing the Pals with any legitimacy and that says it all.  Negotiating with the Pals is a proven failure, Sharon had the right plan.

Quote from: Malthus on July 17, 2014, 12:34:27 PM
They *did* end the occupation of Gaza, under Sharon. The result: Hamas took over Gaza.

Still think we needed to send in support to build Gaza before holding that election.  Ah well won't get that pitch to hit again.

Quote from: Berkut on July 17, 2014, 11:25:19 AM

This could be used to justify any and all responses of course. Israel could carpet bomb, note that the rocket attacks still miss 100% of the time, and conclude the exact same thing. Hey, you can't PROVE that it wasn't the carpet bombing that made the difference! Oh wait? What difference is that you say, since when Israel was not bombing Gaza, Hamas could hit anything with their rockets, and once they started bombing Hamas still couldn't hit anything?

This *could* be all sorts of things. Only, it isn't. I will go on record: carpet-bombing of Gaza in response to rocket fire would not be "proportional" and would not be justified. 

Really, is that the best response you can make?

QuoteAre we to the part where we start creating ridiculous strawmen like Israel making guarantees to Hamas? That is the only possible options to what they are doing?

I think the "rediculous strawman" award goes to your argument that mine would justify "carpet bombing".

QuoteYour problem, it seems to me, is one of facts and logic: you are arguing that since Hamas rocket attacks are totally ineffective, anything Israel is doing ought to be assumed to be the reason they are totally ineffective, and therefore any collateral damage as a result of anything Israel does, is justified because Hamas is completely ineffective.

No, I am arguing no such thing. Try again.

QuoteThat is a non-responsive response. You agree, but place no restrictions on that "counter-battery fire" which means you really do not agree. You have no proof it IS effective, and I would argue that nation state military taking military action that most certainly is killing and maiming large numbers of civilians bear the responsibility of proving that their response is proportional and effective.

You want restrictions? Okay, how about "taking all reasonable means to limit civilian casualties commensurate with the legitmate military goal of destroying weapons actively being fired at your country"?

Your position is the absurd one of claiming that a nation ACTIVELY BEING ATTACKED has to "prove" somehow that its self-defence measures are "effective" BEFORE it can take them. How, exactly, is it supposed to do that to your satisfaction?

How about taking measures that, on their face, are reasonable, without demanding "proof" that is impossible to obtain?

QuoteAnd there is a lot they do not do - like dismantling settlements, and stopping new settlements.

The idea that Israel is completely blameless, and has no choice but to react in this particular fashion is as false as the idea that it is ok for Hamas to shoot rockets from behind schools, because the alternative is to shoot rockets from somewhere where they will get killed.

More bullshit. Who, exactly, is claiming Israel is "completely blameless"?

Your response to someone attacking your nation is to redress all the gievances that person may have, BEFIRE you are allowed to defend yourself? Nonsense. 

QuoteBut they have no ability to see where it lands, these rockets are not line of site, hence even if Israel didn't bomb them, it would not help.

I love how you "know" that adjusting the aim of rockets does not help. Remember that they are aiming at cities, not individual targets.

Yet, somehow, it "helped" defeat the German rocket attack on London in WW2 - a very analogous bombing campaign.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flying_bomb#Deception

QuoteA certain number of the V-1s fired had been fitted with radio transmitters, which had clearly demonstrated a tendency for the V-1 to fall short. Oberst Max Wachtel, commander of Flak Regiment 155(W), which was responsible for the V-1 offensive, compared the data gathered by the transmitters with the reports obtained through the double agents. He concluded, when faced with the discrepancy between the two sets of data, that there must be a fault with the radio transmitters, as he had been assured that the agents were completely reliable. It was later calculated that if Wachtel had disregarded the agents' reports and relied on the radio data, he would have made the correct adjustments to the V-1's guidance, and casualties might have increased by 50% or more.[37][38]

The policy of diverting V-1 impacts away from central London was initially controversial. The War Cabinet refused to authorise a measure which would increase casualties in any area, even if it reduced casualties elsewhere by greater amounts. It was thought that Churchill would reverse this decision later (he was then away at a conference); but the delay in starting the reports to Germans might be fatal to the deception. So Sir Findlater Stewart of Home Defence Executive took responsibility for starting the deception programme immediately. His action was approved by Churchill when he returned.[39]

QuoteBut that won't change the fact that the rocket attacks are a totally ineffective weapon, and hence the response to those attacks must still be in proportion to the actual threat they pose, which is basically zero, or even if we grant your unsupported theory, very, very close to zero.

You started this argument with no way of knowing that, and by god, you will stick to your total lack of evidence if it kills you.

And you are sticking to your total lack of evidence that it is necessary to kill and maim hundreds of civilians in order to make sure that the the totally ineffective rocket attacks are still totally ineffective.

Shrug. You are the reason Israel responds in this manner - you care more about OMG WE HAVE TO BE SEEN TO DO SOMETHING even if that something has no effect, and kills lots of people. And that isn't even starting on the political costs.

But hey, lots of the OTHERS are dieing, so kudos on that.


And yeah, I am sure Hamas rocket attacks on Israel in 2014 are very similar to German rocket attacks on London in 1944, and the same techincal limitations apply.


Your article states that casualties would have increased by 50% - why, that would bump the Israeli death toll from 0 killed in rocket attacks all the way up to...0 killed in rocket attacks.

There has been one Israeli death, I believe.  Heard something about it on NPR this morning.

Quote from: derspiess on July 17, 2014, 01:08:44 PM
There has been one Israeli death, I believe.  Heard something about it on NPR this morning.

But Malthus assures us that wasn't a rocket, it was a mortar.

Like I said, if killing Israeli's was the goal, throwing rocks at the nearest one would work a lot better.

Of course, Israel won't bomb you for that, so Hamas isn't doing that.

Oh yeah, they did mention it was a mortar.  Forgot that part.  Kind of a distinction without a difference though IMO.

Probably also helps that that Iron Dome system they've got up and running has been shooting a bunch of rockets down.  I'm not really sure why they should have to sit there and eat rockets all day though just because shitloads of them haven't been dying.

Quote from: derspiess on July 17, 2014, 01:13:34 PM
Oh yeah, they did mention it was a mortar.  Forgot that part.  Kind of a distinction without a difference though IMO.

True - and the difference between 1 death per 1200 attacks and zero deaths per 1200 attacks is pretty immaterial as well.

Either way, the chosen method is grossly ineffective, and you would be better off kidnapping Israeli teenagers and murdering them.

Which, of course, is the entire point of all of this. This is not about killing or hurting Israelis - if that is what they want to do, there are probably a hundred better ways than rocket and mortar attacks.

It is about getting people like Malthus to support an over-reaction so as to drive anger and hatred, and the way to do that is with spectacular, even if totally meaningless, attacks like rockets and such.

Why didn't Israel use air strikes to hit potential kidnappers all over Gaza? It would have, if anything, a *greater* chance of actually killing someone who might have been responsible for harming or killing an Israeli. Granted, it would be obviously a gross and ridiculous reaction, but in a practical sense it would be more justifiable (being almost completely useless, instead of actually completely useless).

Quote from: Berkut on July 17, 2014, 01:02:26 PM
And you are sticking to your total lack of evidence that it is necessary to kill and maim hundreds of civilians in order to make sure that the the totally ineffective rocket attacks are still totally ineffective.

Shrug. You are the reason Israel responds in this manner - you care more about OMG WE HAVE TO BE SEEN TO DO SOMETHING even if that something has no effect, and kills lots of people. And that isn't even starting on the political costs.

But hey, lots of the OTHERS are dieing, so kudos on that.


And yeah, I am sure Hamas rocket attacks on Israel in 2014 are very similar to German rocket attacks on London in 1944, and the same techincal limitations apply.


Your article states that casualties would have increased by 50% - why, that would bump the Israeli death toll from 0 killed in rocket attacks all the way up to...0 killed in rocket attacks.

No, I am not saying that the rocket science of Germany in the 1940s is the same as rocket science of Hamas (really, Iran) in the 2010s.

What I AM doing, is nailing the notion that - as far as I know - you simply pulled out of your ass, that adjusting the aim of rockets makes no difference.

Clearly, it made a lot of difference in the 1940s - when fooling the Germans as to where the rockets were falling made a considerable difference.

So, the available evidence suggests that, in cases in the past where cities have been under rocket attack, screwing with the "aim" of the attacker HAS BEEN a viable strategy, and thus tactics to do so are "reasonable" as part of the analysis as to whether casualties sufffered as a result of such tactics are "proportunate".

Of course, you are free to point out how guidance and electronics of Iran in 2014 is so much *worse* that that in 1944, that such tactics are NOW worthless. Assuming such evidence exists.

See how that works? Using actual evidence, rather than supposition?

Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on July 17, 2014, 01:15:41 PM
Probably also helps that that Iron Dome system they've got up and running has been shooting a bunch of rockets down.  I'm not really sure why they should have to sit there and eat rockets all day though just because shitloads of them haven't been dying.

I am not saying they have to sit there and do nothing.

That is not the only alternative to killing hundreds of civilians.

And the point isn't whether or not they should do nothing, the point is whether what they ARE DOING has any relevance to the threat. The threat is at or near zero, because the rockets suck, the people using them are mostly incompetent, the threat of airstrikes makes effective use problematic, and the Israelis have an incredibly effective and sophisticated defense system.

I agree that the basic issue here is that they (and by they I mean both sides) are so far down the road of violence that they've constrained their available options to a small set of bad choices.

You can say "Well, Israel cannot be expected to just sit there and take it without response" and that is true.

You can also say "Well, Palestinians cannot be expected to live in abject poverty and misery without a response" and that is true as well.

So Palestinians and Hamas feel completely justified in kidnapping and murdering civilians, and Israel feels completely justified in killing hundreds of civilians under the guise of "protecting themselves" from completely ineffective rocket attacks. And life goes on, and everyone feels perfectly justified in continuing a conflict that has been going on for nearly half a century.

Quote from: Malthus on July 17, 2014, 01:21:16 PM

Quote from: Berkut on July 17, 2014, 01:02:26 PM
And you are sticking to your total lack of evidence that it is necessary to kill and maim hundreds of civilians in order to make sure that the the totally ineffective rocket attacks are still totally ineffective.

Shrug. You are the reason Israel responds in this manner - you care more about OMG WE HAVE TO BE SEEN TO DO SOMETHING even if that something has no effect, and kills lots of people. And that isn't even starting on the political costs.

But hey, lots of the OTHERS are dieing, so kudos on that.


And yeah, I am sure Hamas rocket attacks on Israel in 2014 are very similar to German rocket attacks on London in 1944, and the same techincal limitations apply.


Your article states that casualties would have increased by 50% - why, that would bump the Israeli death toll from 0 killed in rocket attacks all the way up to...0 killed in rocket attacks.

No, I am not saying that the rocket science of Germany in the 1940s is the same as rocket science of Hamas (really, Iran) in the 2010s.

What I AM doing, is nailing the notion that - as far as I know - you simply pulled out of your ass, that adjusting the aim of rockets makes no difference.

Never said that, I said that the rocket attacks are completely ineffective, and I have no reason to believe (and you have provided no evidence) that absent this response that has resulted in over a thousand casualties has saved anyone lives on the other side of the balance, much less enough lives to justify the collateral damage done.

Again, it is the Israelis who we are 100% certain have kileld several hundred and wounded over a thousand civilians. Against that you put up some imagined dead without that response, but even in your most fevered imagination, you cannot come up with a scenario that is going to increase effectiveness by some orders of magnitude necessary to justify the cost of stopping it. You haven't even tried, and instead insist that I prove (which of course is completely impossible) a negative.

Like I said, you claim that what they are doing is justified by the fact that it is preventing Israeli casualties, but have no evidence that absent these actions there would be any significnatly greater casualties.

I have ample evidence to the contrary - Hamas has been firing rockets at Israel for years, and the death toll from those attacks is miniscule.

Quote
Clearly, it made a lot of difference in the 1940s - when fooling the Germans as to where the rockets were falling made a considerable difference.

So, the available evidence suggests that, in cases in the past where cities have been under rocket attack, screwing with the "aim" of the attacker HAS BEEN a viable strategy, and thus tactics to do so are "reasonable" as part of the analysis as to whether casualties sufffered as a result of such tactics are "proportunate".

The avialable evidence suggests that Hamas has never managed to effectively attack an Israeli city with a rocket, despite literally thousands of attempts. Why you choose to ignore that in favor of a 70 year old comparison, I cannot imagine.

Oh wait - of course I can. Because comparing Hamas rocket attacks TODAY to Hamas rocket attacks in the last decade would suggest that they are in fact totally ineffective at doing what you claim it is necessary to kill hundreds of civilians to stop doing.

Quote

Of course, you are free to point out how guidance and electronics of Iran in 2014 is so much *worse* that that in 1944, that such tactics are NOW worthless. Assuming such evidence exists.

See how that works? Using actual evidence, rather than supposition?

I am using actual evidence. Thousands and thousands of Hamas rocket attacks, completely trivial Israeli casualties.

Weighed against the response that has killed hundreds and maimed over a thousand.

We don't need to go back to WW2 to evaluate how well Hamas rockets work at harming Israelis, or how good Israelis are at killing Palestinians while "preventing" Israeli deaths. The attacks on Pastinian cities has driven the Israeli death toll all the way from none down to none.

Quote from: Berkut on July 17, 2014, 01:35:21 PM
]

Never said that, I said that the rocket attacks are completely ineffective, and I have no reason to believe (and you have provided no evidence) that absent this response that has resulted in over a thousand casualties has saved anyone lives on the other side of the balance, much less enough lives to justify the collateral damage done.

Again, it is the Israelis who we are 100% certain have kileld several hundred and wounded over a thousand civilians. Against that you put up some imagined dead without that response, but even in your most fevered imagination, you cannot come up with a scenario that is going to increase effectiveness by some orders of magnitude necessary to justify the cost of stopping it. You haven't even tried, and instead insist that I prove (which of course is completely impossible) a negative.

Like I said, you claim that what they are doing is justified by the fact that it is preventing Israeli casualties, but have no evidence that absent these actions there would be any significnatly greater casualties.

I have ample evidence to the contrary - Hamas has been firing rockets at Israel for years, and the death toll from those attacks is miniscule.

Again you are demanding "proof" that Israeli actions have in fact prevented Israeli casualties.

My point is rather a simple one: such a demand is unreasonable. The burden is not that Israelis "prove" that their efforts have been effective - which is, by the way, impossible even assuming the *were* effective (how, pray tell, is such "proof" to be obtained?).

Rather, the burden is that the Israeli actions be *reasonable* under the circumstances. THAT burden, they meet in spades. 

Quote
The avialable evidence suggests that Hamas has never managed to effectively attack an Israeli city with a rocket, despite literally thousands of attempts. Why you choose to ignore that in favor of a 70 year old comparison, I cannot imagine.

Is your contenion that missile guidance has grown *worse* over the last 70 years? It may have, I dunno. Otherwise, what is thge relevance of the age of the example to your argument?

You are committing a basic logical fallacy here (repeatedly) - insisting, over and over again, that a lack of effectiveness in the face if Israeli countermeansures "proves" that the countermeasures are ... unnecessary!

The fallacy is, of course, that we have no examples of what Hamas could do if it wasn't under the threat of attack. If Israel took the 'high road', and Hamas knew about it, would they do better? You say no, based on ... well, you say no.

Other examples of this fallacious argument below:

QuoteOh wait - of course I can. Because comparing Hamas rocket attacks TODAY to Hamas rocket attacks in the last decade would suggest that they are in fact totally ineffective at doing what you claim it is necessary to kill hundreds of civilians to stop doing.

And

QuoteI am using actual evidence. Thousands and thousands of Hamas rocket attacks, completely trivial Israeli casualties.

Weighed against the response that has killed hundreds and maimed over a thousand.

We don't need to go back to WW2 to evaluate how well Hamas rockets work at harming Israelis, or how good Israelis are at killing Palestinians while "preventing" Israeli deaths. The attacks on Pastinian cities has driven the Israeli death toll all the way from none down to none.

Earlier in this thread, I defended you against the attack that you are demanding some sort of equality of body-count. Was I wrong to do so?

Hell, in your response to other posters you CONCEDE my argument! WTF?

QuoteAnd the point isn't whether or not they should do nothing, the point is whether what they ARE DOING has any relevance to the threat. The threat is at or near zero, because the rockets suck, the people using them are mostly incompetent, the threat of airstrikes makes effective use problematic, and the Israelis have an incredibly effective and sophisticated defense system.

Quote from: Malthus on July 17, 2014, 01:47:25 PM

Quote from: Berkut on July 17, 2014, 01:35:21 PM
]

Never said that, I said that the rocket attacks are completely ineffective, and I have no reason to believe (and you have provided no evidence) that absent this response that has resulted in over a thousand casualties has saved anyone lives on the other side of the balance, much less enough lives to justify the collateral damage done.

Again, it is the Israelis who we are 100% certain have kileld several hundred and wounded over a thousand civilians. Against that you put up some imagined dead without that response, but even in your most fevered imagination, you cannot come up with a scenario that is going to increase effectiveness by some orders of magnitude necessary to justify the cost of stopping it. You haven't even tried, and instead insist that I prove (which of course is completely impossible) a negative.

Like I said, you claim that what they are doing is justified by the fact that it is preventing Israeli casualties, but have no evidence that absent these actions there would be any significnatly greater casualties.

I have ample evidence to the contrary - Hamas has been firing rockets at Israel for years, and the death toll from those attacks is miniscule.

Again you are demanding "proof" that Israeli actions have in fact prevented Israeli casualties.

No, I am demanding some evidence that there actions are reasonable responses to the threat they are intended to respond to.

And you have provided none.

Quote

My point is rather a simple one: such a demand is unreasonable. The burden is not that Israelis "prove" that their efforts have been effective - which is, by the way, impossible even assuming the *were* effective (how, pray tell, is such "proof" to be obtained?).

Yes, it is difficult to show evidence that killing a lot of people to stop something that evidence has shown to be completely ineffective is hard to do.

Quote
Rather, the burden is that the Israeli actions be *reasonable* under the circumstances. THAT burden, they meet in spades. 

Only if you consider it reasonble to kill and maim a couple thousand people to stop the deaths of nobody.

Using your reason, any action they take is reasonable, since you cannot drive the death toll below zero, as long as Hamas continues to fail to kill anyone, any response can be assumed to be the reason.

Quote

Quote
The avialable evidence suggests that Hamas has never managed to effectively attack an Israeli city with a rocket, despite literally thousands of attempts. Why you choose to ignore that in favor of a 70 year old comparison, I cannot imagine.

Is your contenion that missile guidance has grown *worse* over the last 70 years? It may have, I dunno. Otherwise, what is thge relevance of the age of the example to your argument?

My contention is that the two circumstances are totally and completely incomparable due to radical differences in distances involved, relative capability of the actors, technological changes, etc., etc. You might as well argue that Hamas is about to take over Israel because the Nazi's Panther tanks were so much better than Soviet T-34s. It has no relevance.

And comparing Germany against the Western Allies to Hamas against Israel 70 years later rather than comparing the exact same actors using the exact same weapons in the exact same geography today is almost astoundingly obtuse. It is Hansmeister levels of willfullly ignoring the facts.

The fact is that Hamas has fired thousands of rockets at Israel, and those thousands of rockets have done almost zero damage. That is not speculation, or conjecture.

We don't have to go back to WW2 to evaluate how effective Hamas rocket attacks are - we can just look at how effective Hamas rocket attacks are - the answer is rather obvious. They are completely and totally ineffective.

Quote
You are committing a basic logical fallacy here (repeatedly) - insisting, over and over again, that a lack of effectiveness in the face if Israeli countermeansures "proves" that the countermeasures are ... unnecessary!

But those counter-measures ahve not been applied consistently, and even absent those counter-measures the rocket attacks have never been effective. Israel takes huge numbers of counter-measures, like a incredibly sophisticared anti-rocket system, targetting of militants via other means, interdiction of supplies, occupation of large amounts of territory, direct ground incursions at time, covert assasination of Hamas targets, etc., etc., etc.

All these things together, including at some times bombing potential targets, have resulted in the rocket attacks being totally ineffective.

You are demanding that one particular measure, used very intermittently, is the key, and that absent that measure, rocket attacks would in fact be vastly more effective. Yet in cases where the Israelis were not bombing Gaza, the rockets still missed almost 100% of the time, or were shot down, and no Israelis were killed.

You have no evidence to justify the need to kill hundreds and maims thousands to prevent what exactly?

Quote from: Malthus on July 17, 2014, 01:50:17 PM
Hell, in your response to other posters you CONCEDE my argument! WTF?

QuoteAnd the point isn't whether or not they should do nothing, the point is whether what they ARE DOING has any relevance to the threat. The threat is at or near zero, because the rockets suck, the people using them are mostly incompetent, the threat of airstrikes makes effective use problematic, and the Israelis have an incredibly effective and sophisticated defense system.

Yes, listing several things that Israel has done to prevent attacks from succeeding surely concedes your argument that killing hundreds of civilians is necessary.

And note that it is the threat of attack that works to keep Hamas from hanging out in one location - not actual attacks, now numbering over 1000 Israel attacks.

Israel could get that same effect from 1/10th the number of attacks. But of course, the point of the attacks is not to actually stop rockets from killing Israelis, since that is clearly happening anyway, but to make sure everyone knows they ARE DOING SOMETHING!


This is very simply Malthus.


Absent bombing, you claim that those rockets would be effective, even though they have never, EVER been effective, not even a tiny bit effective.


Their effectiveness right now is literally zero.


So in order to justify Israel killing hundreds and wounding thousands, how effective are you claiming the rockets would be if Israel kept doing everything they have been doing, except for the part where they create 1200 dead and wounded civilians?


Note that even when Israel is NOT actively killing or wounding about a thousand civilians per week, the effectiveness of rocket attacks were stilll...zero percent.

Quote from: Berkut on July 17, 2014, 02:10:40 PM
No, I am demanding some evidence that there actions are reasonable responses to the threat they are intended to respond to.

Really, you aren't demanding "proof"?

Yet you keep using that word!

Example:

QuoteYou have no proof it IS effective, and I would argue that nation state military taking military action that most certainly is killing and maiming large numbers of civilians bear the responsibility of proving that their response is proportional and effective.

QuoteAnd you have provided none.

Right. How, exactly, is one to demonstrate that a particular measure *has* proved effective?

QuoteOnly if you consider it reasonble to kill and maim a couple thousand people to stop the deaths of nobody.

You keep repeating that fallacy. Maybe, the hundreth time, it will be convincing.

Quote
My contention is that the two circumstances are totally and completely incomparable due to radical differences in distances involved, relative capability of the actors, technological changes, etc., etc. You might as well argue that Hamas is about to take over Israel because the Nazi's Panther tanks were so much better than Soviet T-34s. It has no relevance.

And comparing Germany against the Western Allies to Hamas against Israel 70 years later rather than comparing the exact same actors using the exact same weapons in the exact same geography today is almost astoundingly obtuse. It is Hansmeister levels of willfullly ignoring the facts.

There is no doubt that the two examples are very different in many ways.

What is *not* different, is that the example demonstrates that rockets do, in fact, require aim correction - and if this is not available, they are rendered highly inaccurate.

QuoteThe fact is that Hamas has fired thousands of rockets at Israel, and those thousands of rockets have done almost zero damage. That is not speculation, or conjecture.

We don't have to go back to WW2 to evaluate how effective Hamas rocket attacks are - we can just look at how effective Hamas rocket attacks are - the answer is rather obvious. They are completely and totally ineffective.

101, 102 ...

QuoteBut those counter-measures ahve not been applied consistently, and even absent those counter-measures the rocket attacks have never been effective.

Considerig the counter measure is "Hamas fear that the Israelis will kill them for firing rockets", when exactly has this NOT been true?

You are just making shit up here.

Quote
Israel takes huge numbers of counter-measures, like a incredibly sophisticared anti-rocket system, targetting of militants via other means, interdiction of supplies, occupation of large amounts of territory, direct ground incursions at time, covert assasination of Hamas targets, etc., etc., etc.

All these things together, including at some times bombing potential targets, have resulted in the rocket attacks being totally ineffective.

Agreed ...

QuoteYou are demanding that one particular measure, used very intermittently, is the key, and that absent that measure, rocket attacks would in fact be vastly more effective. Yet in cases where the Israelis were not bombing Gaza, the rockets still missed almost 100% of the time, or were shot down, and no Israelis were killed.

No, you mistake my point. It is reasonable fear on the part of Hamas that they will be killed if caught firing rickets that is a *large part* of the effective Israeli program you have outlined.

Your argument, I take it, would equally apply to *all* of the Israeli actions. Are they justified in ANY of "... targetting of militants via other means, interdiction of supplies, occupation of large amounts of territory, direct ground incursions at time, covert assasination of Hamas targets, etc., etc., etc.", if, AS YOU CLAIM, the rockets are totally "ineffective"? Why, those are all war crimes, if they are to no military purpose.

Quote from: Berkut on July 17, 2014, 02:13:05 PM

Quote from: Malthus on July 17, 2014, 01:50:17 PM
Hell, in your response to other posters you CONCEDE my argument! WTF?

QuoteAnd the point isn't whether or not they should do nothing, the point is whether what they ARE DOING has any relevance to the threat. The threat is at or near zero, because the rockets suck, the people using them are mostly incompetent, the threat of airstrikes makes effective use problematic, and the Israelis have an incredibly effective and sophisticated defense system.

Yes, listing several things that Israel has done to prevent attacks from succeeding surely concedes your argument that killing hundreds of civilians is necessary.

And note that it is the threat of attack that works to keep Hamas from hanging out in one location - not actual attacks, now numbering over 1000 Israel attacks.

Israel could get that same effect from 1/10th the number of attacks. But of course, the point of the attacks is not to actually stop rockets from killing Israelis, since that is clearly happening anyway, but to make sure everyone knows they ARE DOING SOMETHING!


This is very simply Malthus.


Absent bombing, you claim that those rockets would be effective, even though they have never, EVER been effective, not even a tiny bit effective.


Their effectiveness right now is literally zero.


So in order to justify Israel killing hundreds and wounding thousands, how effective are you claiming the rockets would be if Israel kept doing everything they have been doing, except for the part where they create 1200 dead and wounded civilians?


Note that even when Israel is NOT actively killing or wounding about a thousand civilians per week, the effectiveness of rocket attacks were stilll...zero percent.

I guess Israel can just *pretend* to attack Hamas, and that will prove equally effective as *actually* attacking Hamas.

Quote from: Malthus on July 17, 2014, 02:27:03 PM

Quote from: Berkut on July 17, 2014, 02:10:40 PM
No, I am demanding some evidence that there actions are reasonable responses to the threat they are intended to respond to.

Really, you aren't demanding "proof"?

Yet you keep using that word!

Example:

QuoteYou have no proof it IS effective, and I would argue that nation state military taking military action that most certainly is killing and maiming large numbers of civilians bear the responsibility of proving that their response is proportional and effective.

QuoteAnd you have provided none.

Right. How, exactly, is one to demonstrate that a particular measure *has* proved effective?

It is hard to prove that killing a chicken is NOT effetive at stopping rocket attacks that never, ever work as well, as long as you categorically refuse to stop killing chickens to see.

But again, the way to show it is effective is to note that when you don't do it, the attacks work, and when you do it, they don't work.

History has shown that the rocket attacks don't work, even when Israel is not killing a few hundred civiians per week.

And evaluating the military effect of the rocket attacks, and WHY they don't work (they miss, and those that don't miss are shot down) make it pretty clear that a strategy of killing the people before they fire isn't really the key.

Hamas still manages to launch rockets, and they still all do nothing, despite lots of dead Palestinians, and even some dead rocketeers.

How can you conclude anything other than that the rockets simply don't work regardless off the bombing?

Quote

QuoteOnly if you consider it reasonble to kill and maim a couple thousand people to stop the deaths of nobody.

You keep repeating that fallacy. Maybe, the hundreth time, it will be convincing.

It isn't a fallacy, and you convincing yourself that killing civilians in droves is completely necessary in order to prevent the deaths of no Israelis at all is rather revolting.

I am amazed at how little empathy you have for the "others", just because they don't share your tribe. They are still just people, and they are still just as dead, just as maimed, just as torn into little shreds, and for no discernible purpose.

Quote

Quote
My contention is that the two circumstances are totally and completely incomparable due to radical differences in distances involved, relative capability of the actors, technological changes, etc., etc. You might as well argue that Hamas is about to take over Israel because the Nazi's Panther tanks were so much better than Soviet T-34s. It has no relevance.

And comparing Germany against the Western Allies to Hamas against Israel 70 years later rather than comparing the exact same actors using the exact same weapons in the exact same geography today is almost astoundingly obtuse. It is Hansmeister levels of willfullly ignoring the facts.

There is no doubt that the two examples are very different in many ways.

You don't think?

Quote

What is *not* different, is that the example demonstrates that rockets do, in fact, require aim correction - and if this is not available, they are rendered highly inaccurate.

No, it doesn't demonstrate that at all. It certainly doesn't demonstrate that the key to Hamas rockets going from zero effectiveness to some effectivenss jsutify killing hundreds of civilians is this theorized "aim correction" that we've already determined they could not do anyway, since they have no way of seeing where the rockets fall, and no way of stopping Iron Dome from shooting them down anyway.

Quote

QuoteThe fact is that Hamas has fired thousands of rockets at Israel, and those thousands of rockets have done almost zero damage. That is not speculation, or conjecture.

We don't have to go back to WW2 to evaluate how effective Hamas rocket attacks are - we can just look at how effective Hamas rocket attacks are - the answer is rather obvious. They are completely and totally ineffective.

101, 102 ...

I will keep repeating the obvious no matter how much you insist on pretending it isn't right in front of you.

No Israeli casualties to speak of from rocket attacks.

Well over one thousand Palestian civilian casualties from reprisal attacks.

Bury your head in the sand all you like, the facts speak for themselves.

Quote

QuoteBut those counter-measures ahve not been applied consistently, and even absent those counter-measures the rocket attacks have never been effective.

Considerig the counter measure is "Hamas fear that the Israelis will kill them for firing rockets", when exactly has this NOT been true?

That was true before Israel killed several hundred civilians last week, and yet Hamas still fired the rockets, and they still missed. Now you are claiming it is fear that makes the rockets miss? They are so afraid they cannot fire them accurately, but not so afraid that they are simply not deterred from firing them at all?

I think we are at least getting at the root of the response - it is reprisals. If you try to kill us, we WILL kill a bunch of you - well, not YOU, but people in your tribe anyway.

And you won't care about that of course, because terrorists never do, but WE will feel better at least.

Quote

You are just making shit up here.

Quote
Israel takes huge numbers of counter-measures, like a incredibly sophisticared anti-rocket system, targetting of militants via other means, interdiction of supplies, occupation of large amounts of territory, direct ground incursions at time, covert assasination of Hamas targets, etc., etc., etc.

All these things together, including at some times bombing potential targets, have resulted in the rocket attacks being totally ineffective.

Agreed ...

QuoteYou are demanding that one particular measure, used very intermittently, is the key, and that absent that measure, rocket attacks would in fact be vastly more effective. Yet in cases where the Israelis were not bombing Gaza, the rockets still missed almost 100% of the time, or were shot down, and no Israelis were killed.

No, you mistake my point. It is reasonable fear on the part of Hamas that they will be killed if caught firing rickets that is a *large part* of the effective Israeli program you have outlined.

Your argument, I take it, would equally apply to *all* of the Israeli actions. Are they justified in ANY of "... targetting of militants via other means, interdiction of supplies, occupation of large amounts of territory, direct ground incursions at time, covert assasination of Hamas targets, etc., etc., etc.", if, AS YOU CLAIM, the rockets are totally "ineffective"? Why, those are all war crimes, if they are to no military purpose.

What a spectacular strawman.

I have, by an large, been a staunch supporter of Israeli actions, and believe strongly that they have a right to protect themselves in a reasonable and measured way against threats.

That by necessity implies value judgements about particular responses. Launcing an air strike into Gaza might or might not be justified, based on the particulars of the situation, the threat the strike is intended to neutralize, the danger of collateral damage, and the likelihood of the strike suceeding.

In this case, we have a largely non-existent military threat, a almost certainty that the strike will fail to prevent additional rocket launches, and a guarantee that the civilians harmed by the strike will outnumber the people you are trying to kill by about 4-1.

I do not believe, and I mean this completely honestly, that the 1000+ Israeli bombing attacks on the Gaza strip have prevented a single Israeli casualty. Hamas ability to harm Israel via rocket attacks is almost completely symbolic. They might (probably will in fact) kill some people eventually, but only because no matter how bad your weapon is, if you fire it enough times, you will eventually get lucky - the Iron Dome interceptor will fail, and it will happen to land somewhere with people.

But that is going to happen whether Israel bombs Gaza or not - in fact, it is MORE likely to happen because Hamas tends to fire more rockets during these little flare ups, since their goal is to incite more Israeli attacks.

Hamas might as well be throwin spitballs at Israel. The disparity in ability in this realm is that great. This is classic asymmetrical warfare, and Israel is responding in the classically wrong way.

Quote from: Malthus on July 17, 2014, 02:28:58 PM

Quote from: Berkut on July 17, 2014, 02:13:05 PM

Quote from: Malthus on July 17, 2014, 01:50:17 PM
Hell, in your response to other posters you CONCEDE my argument! WTF?

QuoteAnd the point isn't whether or not they should do nothing, the point is whether what they ARE DOING has any relevance to the threat. The threat is at or near zero, because the rockets suck, the people using them are mostly incompetent, the threat of airstrikes makes effective use problematic, and the Israelis have an incredibly effective and sophisticated defense system.

Yes, listing several things that Israel has done to prevent attacks from succeeding surely concedes your argument that killing hundreds of civilians is necessary.

And note that it is the threat of attack that works to keep Hamas from hanging out in one location - not actual attacks, now numbering over 1000 Israel attacks.

Israel could get that same effect from 1/10th the number of attacks. But of course, the point of the attacks is not to actually stop rockets from killing Israelis, since that is clearly happening anyway, but to make sure everyone knows they ARE DOING SOMETHING!


This is very simply Malthus.


Absent bombing, you claim that those rockets would be effective, even though they have never, EVER been effective, not even a tiny bit effective.


Their effectiveness right now is literally zero.


So in order to justify Israel killing hundreds and wounding thousands, how effective are you claiming the rockets would be if Israel kept doing everything they have been doing, except for the part where they create 1200 dead and wounded civilians?


Note that even when Israel is NOT actively killing or wounding about a thousand civilians per week, the effectiveness of rocket attacks were stilll...zero percent.

I guess Israel can just *pretend* to attack Hamas, and that will prove equally effective as *actually* attacking Hamas.

They could try not attacking Palestinian civilians, and that is rather likely to work exactly as well as killing hundreds of them - at least insofar as it prevents Hamas rockets from killing Israelis.

It won't work nearly as well to convince people like you that they are DOING SOMETHING, of course.

And here we go with the ground invasion.

http://www.jpost.com/Operation-Protective-Edge/IDF-intensifies-Gaza-attacks-with-artillery-fire-air-strikes-363289

Quote from: Berkut on July 17, 2014, 02:51:48 PM

It isn't a fallacy, and you convincing yourself that killing civilians in droves is completely necessary in order to prevent the deaths of no Israelis at all is rather revolting.

I am amazed at how little empathy you have for the "others", just because they don't share your tribe. They are still just people, and they are still just as dead, just as maimed, just as torn into little shreds, and for no discernible purpose.

All along, I have agreed with you that attacks have to be proportinate to legitimate military objectives. This is true whether thet are by Israel, Hamas, the US, or Russia - whether by "my tribe" (nice dig, BTW) or by anyone else. Never have I for one second had one wit less "empathy" than you. I have merely disagreed as to the effect of the Israeli campaign. 

Why, why cannot you debate a point without being a total asshole about it?

I wonder if Israel could just have done nothing and let Iron Dome do its work. A bit like ignoring an internet troll. Once Iron Dome gets 100% instead of the current 90% that might become viable.

Quote from: Malthus on July 17, 2014, 03:01:48 PM

Quote from: Berkut on July 17, 2014, 02:51:48 PM

It isn't a fallacy, and you convincing yourself that killing civilians in droves is completely necessary in order to prevent the deaths of no Israelis at all is rather revolting.

I am amazed at how little empathy you have for the "others", just because they don't share your tribe. They are still just people, and they are still just as dead, just as maimed, just as torn into little shreds, and for no discernible purpose.

All along, I have agreed with you that attacks have to be proportinate to legitimate military objectives. This is true whether thet are by Israel, Hamas, the US, or Russia - whether by "my tribe" (nice dig, BTW)

What is that supposed to mean?

Are you asking me to believe that if the situation was reversed, and Hamas was killing hundreds of Israeli civilians at a 4-1 pace of civilian to military casualties, all to achieve a supposedly military objective that is demonstrably bullshit because the "threat" has not managed to hurt anyone, you would be arguing that that was a "reasonable" response?

I don't buy it.

Quote

or by anyone else. Never have I for one second had one wit less "empathy" than you.

That is impossible to believe - you cannot argue that Israel is perfectly justified in killing 3 times as many civilians as they do militants in response to a completely hypthetical threat that has been shown to be less effective than throwing rocks, while claiming that you have ANY empathy for those killed.

Quote
I have merely disagreed as to the effect of the Israeli campaign. 

You are arguing that we should ignore the actual results of the Hamas campaign to kill Israelis civilians in favor of speculating about V-1 rockets attacks on London.

You ahve a right to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

That fact is that Hamas rocket attacks are completely ineffective. You claim that a critical part of that ineffectiveness is the need to kill hundreds of civilians in order to scare them so they don't shoot straight, and at the same time demand that I believe that you have equal empathy for Palestinian civilians who are being injured at a rate literally 1000 times or more than Israelis the actions is supposedly stopping.

Those are the facts.

Israeli casualties from rocket attacks: Zero, or so close as to make no difference
Palestinian civilian casualties from Israeli attacks designed to stop rockets from killing civilians: ~1200 in the last week, some 200-300 dead.

Those are the facts.

If that is a proportional and reasonable response to the threat, then there is no such thing as a proportioned and reasonable response.

Quote

Why, why cannot you debate a point without being a total asshole about it?

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you - why can you not see that killing hundreds of people to prevent the deaths of nobody is not ok, even when it is your side doing it.

Quote from: Zanza on July 17, 2014, 03:12:56 PM
I wonder if Israel could just have done nothing and let Iron Dome do its work. A bit like ignoring an internet troll. Once Iron Dome gets 100% instead of the current 90% that might become viable.

That would be intolerable.

Even the *chance* of an Israeli being harmed is justification for killing hundreds of Palestinians. Well, at least when it comes to rockets.

That is the definition of "empathy".

Damn, Berkut went full Euroweenie on us.

Quote from: Berkut on July 17, 2014, 03:52:42 PM

Quote from: Malthus on July 17, 2014, 03:01:48 PM

Quote from: Berkut on July 17, 2014, 02:51:48 PM

It isn't a fallacy, and you convincing yourself that killing civilians in droves is completely necessary in order to prevent the deaths of no Israelis at all is rather revolting.

I am amazed at how little empathy you have for the "others", just because they don't share your tribe. They are still just people, and they are still just as dead, just as maimed, just as torn into little shreds, and for no discernible purpose.

All along, I have agreed with you that attacks have to be proportinate to legitimate military objectives. This is true whether thet are by Israel, Hamas, the US, or Russia - whether by "my tribe" (nice dig, BTW)

What is that supposed to mean?

Are you asking me to believe that if the situation was reversed, and Hamas was killing hundreds of Israeli civilians at a 4-1 pace of civilian to military casualties, all to achieve a supposedly military objective that is demonstrably bullshit because the "threat" has not managed to hurt anyone, you would be arguing that that was a "reasonable" response?

I don't buy it.

Quote

or by anyone else. Never have I for one second had one wit less "empathy" than you.

That is impossible to believe - you cannot argue that Israel is perfectly justified in killing 3 times as many civilians as they do militants in response to a completely hypthetical threat that has been shown to be less effective than throwing rocks, while claiming that you have ANY empathy for those killed.

Quote
I have merely disagreed as to the effect of the Israeli campaign. 

You are arguing that we should ignore the actual results of the Hamas campaign to kill Israelis civilians in favor of speculating about V-1 rockets attacks on London.

You ahve a right to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

That fact is that Hamas rocket attacks are completely ineffective. You claim that a critical part of that ineffectiveness is the need to kill hundreds of civilians in order to scare them so they don't shoot straight, and at the same time demand that I believe that you have equal empathy for Palestinian civilians who are being injured at a rate literally 1000 times or more than Israelis the actions is supposedly stopping.

Those are the facts.

Israeli casualties from rocket attacks: Zero, or so close as to make no difference
Palestinian civilian casualties from Israeli attacks designed to stop rockets from killing civilians: ~1200 in the last week, some 200-300 dead.

Those are the facts.

If that is a proportional and reasonable response to the threat, then there is no such thing as a proportioned and reasonable response.

Quote

Why, why cannot you debate a point without being a total asshole about it?

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you - why can you not see that killing hundreds of people to prevent the deaths of nobody is not ok, even when it is your side doing it.

In short, to disagree with Berkut as to the effectiveness of a military campaign means you are an empathy-less monster.

I'm done arguing with you about this. You are not being at all reasonable, and are just slinging insults.

So glad I missed this thread, until now.

Just can't help adding a couple points to Berkut's argument that the rockets are largely ineffective (although that's not really true, since at least one person has died and there have been plenty wounded).

True though that their missiles and launchers are not as effective as the israelis, but if a soldier armed with an M-16 faces a soldier armed with a spear, will the soldier not use his M-16 to kill the guy with the spear? Or should he lay down his M-16?

You can't count casualties and say "see the Israelis are being unfair in all of this" it's too lopsided. First of all whenever rockets are launched towards Israel, the Iron Dome is taking out 80 per cent or so of them but that stil leaves other ones and though they are largely ineffective as you say partly that's because the Israelis actually take to shelter when the sirens go off. Also, imagine living in a world where daily you got to take cover and have your kids afraid to walk to school. Imagine driving to work and having some kids on a bridge flinging rocks at your car. They ain't gonna kill you, but surely it becomes a pain in the ass.

The high casualty rate on the Palestinian side, is purely the fault of Hamas anyway. The Israelis routinely warn the Palestinians about imminent attacks and precisely what's being targeted. Hamas tells its population to stay put and do not heed Zionist warnings to leave the buildings. Because for Hamas every dead Palestinian is a point on its scorecard. They would love nothing more than hundreds of dead Palestinains daily to feed its publicity machine.

In short...look I'm pretty left wing on most things, and I'm against much of Israeli policy vis-a-vis the occupied territories. But a nation's first role is to protect its citizens and the Israeli goal up until now is to stop Hamas from firing their annoying missiles. They even accepted an Egyptian brokered cease fire. Hamas responded by launching 10 missiiles at Tel Aviv.

Quote from: Josephus on July 17, 2014, 06:33:17 PM
So glad I missed this thread, until now.

Just can't help adding a couple points to Berkut's argument that the rockets are largely ineffective (although that's not really true, since at least one person has died and there have been plenty wounded).

True though that their missiles and launchers are not as effective as the israelis, but if a soldier armed with an M-16 faces a soldier armed with a spear, will the soldier not use his M-16 to kill the guy with the spear? Or should he lay down his M-16?

If the guy with the spear is dumb enough to attack him, the soldier can certainly shoot him.

He probably should not shoot three other unarmed people who happen to be walking by, then claim that he he was just defending himself from the guy with the spear, and killing those other people was necessary to save himself from the spear guy.

Quote

You can't count casualties and say "see the Israelis are being unfair in all of this" it's too lopsided.

Good thing I am not doing that.

I am noting that the rockets are not doing ANYTHING, and concluding that there is no compelling military need to kill hundreds of people to stop them.

You might as well argue that the IDF needs to bomb Gaza in order to protect Israeli citizens from the rabid dangers of Hamas attack dogs.

After all, it works, since there have not been any deaths from rabid Hamas attack dog packs.

Quote
First of all whenever rockets are launched towards Israel, the Iron Dome is taking out 80 per cent or so of them but that stil leaves other ones and though they are largely ineffective as you say partly that's because the Israelis actually take to shelter when the sirens go off. Also, imagine living in a world where daily you got to take cover and have your kids afraid to walk to school. Imagine driving to work and having some kids on a bridge flinging rocks at your car. They ain't gonna kill you, but surely it becomes a pain in the ass.

Sure, and while it is a pain in the ass, and certainly a war crime, a "pain in the ass" is not a reasonable cause to kill hundreds of civilians, especially when it is clear that killing all those civilians doesn't stop the rocket attacks anyway. The pain is still in their ass, the only difference is their ass feels better because they blew away a few hundred Palestinians.

Quote
The high casualty rate on the Palestinian side, is purely the fault of Hamas anyway. The Israelis routinely warn the Palestinians about imminent attacks and precisely what's being targeted. Hamas tells its population to stay put and do not heed Zionist warnings to leave the buildings. Because for Hamas every dead Palestinian is a point on its scorecard. They would love nothing more than hundreds of dead Palestinains daily to feed its publicity machine.

Of course. But just because the bad guys are bad guys doesn't mean the good guys get to act with impunity.

Quote
In short...look I'm pretty left wing on most things, and I'm against much of Israeli policy vis-a-vis the occupied territories. But a nation's first role is to protect its citizens and the Israeli goal up until now is to stop Hamas from firing their annoying missiles. They even accepted an Egyptian brokered cease fire. Hamas responded by launching 10 missiiles at Tel Aviv.

Yes, Hamas certainly does suck.

Quote from: Malthus on July 17, 2014, 04:01:44 PM
In short, to disagree with Berkut as to the effectiveness of a military campaign means you are an empathy-less monster.

I'm done arguing with you about this. You are not being at all reasonable, and are just slinging insults.

In short, you cannot respond to the facts, so are going to declare me "unreasonable" and storm away. OK.

If being "unreasonable" means I don't think killing a few hundred women and children and injuring a thousand more is a "reasonable" way to respond to being attacked by totally ineffective weapons, then I can live with "unreasonable".

And you can live with lacking empathy, I am sure, because you think killing three times as many civilians as combatants is fine - and you would totally feel the same way if it was Israelis being killed in the hundreds. Of course. Because you are so empathetic.

Quote from: derspiess on July 17, 2014, 03:59:30 PM
Damn, Berkut went full Euroweenie on us.

Is there anything in between "ZOMG ISRAEL 1111111111 THEY CAN DO NO WRONG!!!!!!" and full Euroweenie anti-semite?

This is like Republicans calling a Obama a Jew hater because he only gave them $400 billions dollars in aid and suggested they might consider showing some restraint.

Israel should just reoccupy Gaza and push the more intolerable hotheads into Egypt.

Quote from: Berkut on July 17, 2014, 07:53:47 PM

Quote from: derspiess on July 17, 2014, 03:59:30 PM
Damn, Berkut went full Euroweenie on us.

Is there anything in between "ZOMG ISRAEL 1111111111 THEY CAN DO NO WRONG!!!!!!" and full Euroweenie anti-semite?

This is like Republicans calling a Obama a Jew hater because he only gave them $400 billions dollars in aid and suggested they might consider showing some restraint.

I think Israel does plenty wrong. Their response to the current situation is justified though.

I posted this to the PDS forums. It's important to point out, that among the so called civilian casualties given the number of female deaths for every adult male death you would expect given an even distribution you get 8.8, that's not counting the actual declared 20% non-civilian casualties. We don't know how many of the adult males are combatants but they do make up 75% of the names on the list given by Al-Jazeera.

Quote from: Fire_Unionist;17739346It's 80%...50% is the most conservative estimate possible. 80% has been verified by the UN. If your civilian casualty rate is between 50-80% you'll get no sympathy from me unless you're fighting a war to the death with Nazi Germany. In fact that's the problem; I think partly due to their history the Israelis think this is life or death for them when they don't realise that they aren't an oppressed minority any more.

That 80% is from the HAMAS run health department in Gaza. However regarding the casualties. Al Jazeera (http://"http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/07/gaza-under-seige-naming-dead-2014710105846549528.html") has a list of the names of the dead. CAMERA (http://"http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=2762") - The Commitee for Accuracy in Mid East Reporting in America (pro-israel news watchdog) has analyzed the data.

QuoteReporting of Casualties in Gaza


Shown below is a chart of male fatalities in Gaza resulting from hostilities between Hamas and Israel between July 7 and July 14, derived from a list published by Al Jazeera on July 14. Information provided by Qatar-owned Al Jazeera should not be accepted at face value, as the emirate has close ties to the Hamas-led Gazan government, but nevertheless, the information provided in the list shows that as in past hostilities, the fatalities are disproportionately [compared to the overall population] among young males, which corresponds with the characteristics of combatants. Males over 40 years old are also disproportionately represented. Some of the fatalities in those over 40 years of age likely represent senior members of terrorist organization. Media coverage often parrots the line fed by Gazan authorities that "most of the casualties are civilians" despite the well-established propensity of Gazan authorities to exaggerate the proportion of civilian casualties.

CAMERA will update with information on the topic of combatant versus civilian fatalities as further investigation uncovers membership in terrorist groups of casualties labeled as civilian.

The x axis shows the age from 1 to 65 and the y axis shows the number of fatalities associated with each age. The total number of male fatalities is 150, but the ages are only available for 131, and 3 over age 65 are not shown due to space limitations. So 128 are shown on the chart. There were also 20 female fatalities over the same time frame.

Of the 150 male fatalities, 83 are between the ages of 16-39, 28 are over 40 years old and 20 are under 16 years old. For 19 not shown, the age was unspecified, although one of these was listed as a member of Islamic Jihad.

Notably, only about 12 percent of the total fatalities are female, though females make up half the population. Also, the median age of Gazans is reported to be around 15. Males under 15 make up just 13 percent of the total fatalities even though they represent half of all males in the Gaza Strip.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.camera.org%2Fimages_user%2Fgaza%2520fatalities%2520july%252014%2520version%25202.jpg&hash=f4f48c96bc773849ca18375efec526c8c530c975)

With 75% of death being in males of military and/administrative age this does seem not only that Israel takes care but also succeeds.

Remember half of all people in Gaza are female and half are children. With women being 12% and boys being 13% and assuming that adult men are as likely to be civilian fatalities as boys we are talking about a total civilian casualty rate of 12+13+13=38% - unless for some reason the remaining 42% of the random civilian casualties are all adult men suggesting (assuming the baseline of 13% based on boys) means that civilian adult men are somehow 420% over-represented compared to boys and 880% over-represented compared to all women.

Similar numbers were presented by the HAMAS controlled health department in the last war and those numbers had a similar massive over-representation of adult males in the civilian numbers and finally it turned out that the final numbers were over 50% non-civilian deaths, since the over-representation of civilian adult males was actually due to HAMAS men not identifying themselves as combatants in contradiction to the laws and customs of war.

That is interesting - it would certainly be good news to find out that the Israeli bombing is not so indiscriminate as I had thought. I have to admit the numbers I've seen have just been what I've seen reported in the general media - and I also have to admit I hadn't considered that they might be bullshit.

Like I said, the particulars matter in these kinds of cases, when it comes to evaluating whether a military response is proportional to the risk weighed against the chances of causing collateral damage. So the questions of what percentage of casualties is actually civilian is critical.

Quote from: Berkut on July 17, 2014, 10:06:18 PM
That is interesting - it would certainly be good news to find out that the Israeli bombing is not so indiscriminate as I had thought. I have to admit the numbers I've seen have just been what I've seen reported in the general media - and I also have to admit I hadn't considered that they might be bullshit.

Like I said, the particulars matter in these kinds of cases, when it comes to evaluating whether a military response is proportional to the risk weighed against the chances of causing collateral damage. So the questions of what percentage of casualties is actually civilian is critical.

Why didn't you consider them bullshit? They were bullshit last time.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/hamas-admits-600-700-of-its-men-were-killed-in-cast-lead-1.323776

QuoteHamas admits 600-700 of its men were killed in Cast Lead
The military group had previously claimed only 49 militants died during Gaza war, though Israel put the figure at 709.

Hamas admitted last week that between 600 and 700 of its militants were killed during Operation Cast Lead – a figure consistent with that reported by the Israel Defense Forces.

The figure is several times higher than the previous number of fatalities that Hamas claimed it sustained during the operation.

Hamas' military wing had previously claimed that only 49 of its militants were killed during the three-week operation that the IDF launched in December 2008. Israel had put the figure at 709.

In an interview with the London-based Al-Hayat daily last Monday, however, Hamas Interior Minister Fathi Hamad detailed the heavy price his group had paid during the war.

"They say that it was the people who were harmed in the last war," said Hamad. "Are we not part of the people nation? On the first day of the war, Israel attacked the police command and killed 250 martyrs, from Hamas and other factions."

"This was in addition to the 200-300 members of the Al-Qassam Brigade [Hamas' military wing] and 150 security personnel," Hamad added. "The rest of the fatalities were from among the civilian population."

Hamad also accused Israel of concealing the precise number of IDF troops killed during the operation.

Previously HAMAS had claimed the difference between  49 and "600-700" were all civilians.

Because I was not under the impression that the reported casualties were coming from Hamas sources.

Nothing Hamas says is worth the electrons used to form the words of course.

Quote from: Berkut on July 17, 2014, 08:38:35 AM

Quote from: Hansmeister on July 16, 2014, 06:57:27 PM

Quote from: Berkut on July 16, 2014, 02:53:47 PM
Israel certainly is not carpet bombing Gaza.

However, their bombing of Gaza that is ongoing does seem well out of proportion to the threat posed by the rocket attacks.

Only idiots are "proportional" when waging war.  Israel is going to insane lengths to avoid inflicting civilian casualties, something no other nation would do. Little good it does them.  If they were to carpet bomb gaza and then ethnically cleanse it they would hardly get a more severe hostile response by the international community than they get by being extremely over cautious. No matter what Israel does Israel will always be wrong.

Only dumbasses claim that only idiots are "proportional" when waging war, since in fact every single nation in a position like Israel (including Israel) does in fact strive to be propertional when waging war.

This is trivially proven by nothing that the US did not break out the ICBMs for Gulf War I.

The facts are very simple:

In this latest conflict, the total number of casualties that Hamas rocket attacks have caused in Israel: 0

On the other hand, Israel has inflicted some thousand plus casualties in the Gaza strip, the vast majority of which are civilians. They don't hold the entire blame for that, but they certainly get some of it.

It is, of course, a completely fucked up situation, for which there are no good answers. But there are lots of different bad answers, and bombing the shit out of Gaza resulting in large numbers of civilian casualties in a fashion that is guaranteed to just piss off the people you are occupying while doing exactly nothing to resolve any of fundamental issues (and in fact exacerbate those issues) is just another bad choice.

The US is never proportional in its response since it is a moronic position to have.  Israel has been proportional and it has gotten them exactly nowhere since it is simply factored into the Palestinian calculations.

When you're attacked you fight back until the other side surrenders or you will be stuck like Israel in an endless cycle. That worked pretty well for us in WWII.  The Israelis should bomb the shit out of the Palestinians until they either give up or they are all dead, whichever comes first. That's how you end wars.

Should Reagan have bombed a Lybian disco for the sake of proportionality?

The most striking thing so far seems to be the growing radicalisation of both sides. Bibi's fighting his right-wing and I can even see the day when I'll see him as a relative moderate. Meanwhile I think Israel are very aware that Hamas could be outflanked by Islamic Jihad or any of the other more extreme groups popping up (who I suspect were behind the murder of the teenagers. Better Fatah than Hamas, but better Hamas than a mini-Syria.

Turkish and Palestinian organizations plan a protest march with up to 10,000 participants against Israeli aggression in Vienna this Sunday. Main organizers will be the "Union of European Turkish Democrats" who also organized Erdogan's visit to Vienna recently.

Quote from: viper37 on July 17, 2014, 12:33:25 PM

Quote from: Malthus on July 17, 2014, 10:57:56 AM
Really? What would you suggest?

Stop colonization, start negotiating with Palestinans without doing everything you can to provoke them, don't answer to Hamas provocations while the peace process starts.  Eventually, agree to dismantle most settlements, in exchange for no right of return to proper Israeli territory.

Colonisation is an asshole move but pretending that Hamas or most other Palestinian organisation would on the long term honour a deal where they revoke their claim on Israel is ridiculous. That means they lose their power. That's why they keep firing ineffective rockets and have their counterparts in Israel kill their civilians for them: they are a terror organisation they need this chaos and permanent war to stay in power. There will be no peace and stability while a force like Hamas has power, or has the chance to grab power. It is directly against their interest. Same goes for the hardliners in Israel: as soon as peaceful coexistence becomes possible the reason for them having any power disappears, so they will jump on any excuse of a provocation to destabilise things.

This thing, if ever, will unfortunately end in a bloodbath reminiscent of European WW2 ethnic cleansings. Total attrition is what will end it, nothing else. :(

Quote from: Syt on July 18, 2014, 03:49:44 AM
Turkish and Palestinian organizations plan a protest march with up to 10,000 participants against Israeli aggression in Vienna this Sunday.

Jobbik also protested with Palestinians in Budapest.

Pathetic. They are perfectly fine with Assad massacring Palestinian refugees and their own people (in fact, they support Assad). Not to mention other conflicts. Fucking anti-Semites, the lot of them.

Quote from: Hansmeister on July 17, 2014, 11:15:01 PM
When you're attacked you fight back until the other side surrenders or you will be stuck like Israel in an endless cycle. That worked pretty well for us in WWII.  The Israelis should bomb the shit out of the Palestinians until they either give up or they are all dead, whichever comes first. That's how you end wars.

Didn't they try that when they occupied the Gaza Strip and the Westbank for decades after the Six Day War? They won a total victory and were able to suppress the Palestinians for a while until the first Intifada. But unlike the US after WW2, they weren't able to pacify the occupied territories and eventually withdrew.

Quote from: Berkut on July 17, 2014, 11:01:03 PM
Because I was not under the impression that the reported casualties were coming from Hamas sources.

Nothing Hamas says is worth the electrons used to form the words of course.

Well the "UN" giving the numbers gets them from the Health Department which is run/intimidated by HAMAS, for future reference.

Quote from: Zanza on July 18, 2014, 03:58:16 AM

Quote from: Hansmeister on July 17, 2014, 11:15:01 PM
When you're attacked you fight back until the other side surrenders or you will be stuck like Israel in an endless cycle. That worked pretty well for us in WWII.  The Israelis should bomb the shit out of the Palestinians until they either give up or they are all dead, whichever comes first. That's how you end wars.

Didn't they try that when they occupied the Gaza Strip and the Westbank for decades after the Six Day War? They won a total victory and were able to suppress the Palestinians for a while until the first Intifada. But unlike the US after WW2, they weren't able to pacify the occupied territories and eventually withdrew.

And how did withdrawal work out for them?  The situation is certainly far more violent now. Until the Israelis break the Palestinians will to fight this will go on.

Quote from: Berkut on July 17, 2014, 07:53:47 PM

Quote from: derspiess on July 17, 2014, 03:59:30 PM
Damn, Berkut went full Euroweenie on us.

Is there anything in between "ZOMG ISRAEL 1111111111 THEY CAN DO NO WRONG!!!!!!" and full Euroweenie anti-semite?

I never said anti-semite.  You did :yeahright:

Anyway, I'm just saying your rhetoric in this thread seems very close to what we've heard from the Euroweenie contingent (though not necessarily on Languish) for years.  And you keep trotting out that the Israelis are killing Palestinians as if they are targeting civilians.  They definitely are not, and are making efforts to avoid civilian casualties.  It's Hamas who are actually responsible for that, yet you seem to be letting them off the hook.

QuoteThis is like Republicans calling a Obama a Jew hater because he only gave them $400 billions dollars in aid and suggested they might consider showing some restraint.

Man, you're developing an Obama fixation now.

Quote from: derspiess on July 18, 2014, 08:24:39 AM

I never said anti-semite.  You did :yeahright:

Anyway, I'm just saying your rhetoric in this thread seems very close to what we've heard from the Euroweenie contingent (though not necessarily on Languish) for years.  And you keep trotting out that the Israelis are killing Palestinians as if they are targeting civilians.  They definitely are not, and are making efforts to avoid civilian casualties.  It's Hamas who are actually responsible for that, yet you seem to be letting them off the hook.

Actually, give Berkut credit here. I showed him how one of his main assumptions was wrong and he conceded the point.

Quote from: Berkut on July 17, 2014, 10:06:18 PM
That is interesting - it would certainly be good news to find out that the Israeli bombing is not so indiscriminate as I had thought. I have to admit the numbers I've seen have just been what I've seen reported in the general media - and I also have to admit I hadn't considered that they might be bullshit.

Like I said, the particulars matter in these kinds of cases, when it comes to evaluating whether a military response is proportional to the risk weighed against the chances of causing collateral damage. So the questions of what percentage of casualties is actually civilian is critical.

Quote from: Tamas on July 18, 2014, 03:50:11 AM
This thing, if ever, will unfortunately end in a bloodbath reminiscent of European WW2 ethnic cleansings. Total attrition is what will end it, nothing else. :(

Maybe.  I do not see how either side will have the opportunity.

Quote from: Syt on July 18, 2014, 03:49:44 AM
Turkish and Palestinian organizations plan a protest march with up to 10,000 participants against Israeli aggression in Vienna this Sunday. Main organizers will be the "Union of European Turkish Democrats" who also organized Erdogan's visit to Vienna recently.

I like how Erdogan and his ilk are against Israeli colonisation and call for Israeli withdrawal when they are still doing the same in Cyprus.

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on July 18, 2014, 08:41:14 AM
I like how Erdogan and his ilk are against Israeli colonisation and call for Israeli withdrawal when they are still doing the same in Cyprus.

Things I will not mention when I go to the annual Turk Ramadan dinner next Sunday.

Quote from: Valmy on July 18, 2014, 08:56:58 AM

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on July 18, 2014, 08:41:14 AM
I like how Erdogan and his ilk are against Israeli colonisation and call for Israeli withdrawal when they are still doing the same in Cyprus.

Things I will not mention when I go to the annual Turk Ramadan dinner next Sunday.

I'm gonna get so smashed at this year's Eid al-Fitr :cheers: :punk:

Quote from: Tamas on July 18, 2014, 03:50:11 AM

Quote from: viper37 on July 17, 2014, 12:33:25 PM

Quote from: Malthus on July 17, 2014, 10:57:56 AM
Really? What would you suggest?

Stop colonization, start negotiating with Palestinans without doing everything you can to provoke them, don't answer to Hamas provocations while the peace process starts.  Eventually, agree to dismantle most settlements, in exchange for no right of return to proper Israeli territory.

Colonisation is an asshole move but pretending that Hamas or most other Palestinian organisation would on the long term honour a deal where they revoke their claim on Israel is ridiculous.

The same thing was said of Jordan.  And Egypt.  So far, the peace holds.

Israel would have nothing to lose really.  If a newly independant and contiguous palestine starts doing shit at the isreali border, they simply bomb&invade like they do now, push the people out, annex the territory.

An independant Palestine would find it in its best interest to control Hamas& other terrorists to avoid them using the territory to attack Israel.  Just like Syria is very careful not to allow Hezbloah to strike from its country, despite very obvious support.

Quote from: Berkut on July 17, 2014, 07:37:50 PM

Quote from: Malthus on July 17, 2014, 04:01:44 PM
In short, to disagree with Berkut as to the effectiveness of a military campaign means you are an empathy-less monster.

I'm done arguing with you about this. You are not being at all reasonable, and are just slinging insults.

In short, you cannot respond to the facts, so are going to declare me "unreasonable" and storm away. OK.

If being "unreasonable" means I don't think killing a few hundred women and children and injuring a thousand more is a "reasonable" way to respond to being attacked by totally ineffective weapons, then I can live with "unreasonable".

And you can live with lacking empathy, I am sure, because you think killing three times as many civilians as combatants is fine - and you would totally feel the same way if it was Israelis being killed in the hundreds. Of course. Because you are so empathetic.

In short, unable to refute my facts, you resort to name-calling - "lacking empathy". Even when I was arguing with actual euroweenies on Paradox, none actually resorted to such nonsense.

I suppose the discerning reader will note I am *not* calling you a "Hamas apologist" or "useful Hamas idiot", because saying that would be dumb. I know full well you do not support Hamas. You are arguing because you believe your point to be right.

It is just sad that you cannot extend to others the same courtesy, of not dumbing down.

Quote from: Tamas on July 18, 2014, 03:50:11 AM

Quote from: viper37 on July 17, 2014, 12:33:25 PM

Quote from: Malthus on July 17, 2014, 10:57:56 AM
Really? What would you suggest?

Stop colonization, start negotiating with Palestinans without doing everything you can to provoke them, don't answer to Hamas provocations while the peace process starts.  Eventually, agree to dismantle most settlements, in exchange for no right of return to proper Israeli territory.

Colonisation is an asshole move but pretending that Hamas or most other Palestinian organisation would on the long term honour a deal where they revoke their claim on Israel is ridiculous. That means they lose their power. That's why they keep firing ineffective rockets and have their counterparts in Israel kill their civilians for them: they are a terror organisation they need this chaos and permanent war to stay in power. There will be no peace and stability while a force like Hamas has power, or has the chance to grab power. It is directly against their interest. Same goes for the hardliners in Israel: as soon as peaceful coexistence becomes possible the reason for them having any power disappears, so they will jump on any excuse of a provocation to destabilise things.

This thing, if ever, will unfortunately end in a bloodbath reminiscent of European WW2 ethnic cleansings. Total attrition is what will end it, nothing else. :(

Of course it has been the Palestinians who have always refused to enter any deal so this is a purely academic question.  And Israel hasn't added any new colonies since the Clinton administrations (all new housing has been within already established settlements, mainly within the greater Jerusalem area). Israel should annex a few square miles after each Palestinian attack, maybe then they'll learn.

Quote from: viper37 on July 18, 2014, 09:17:52 AM

Quote from: Tamas on July 18, 2014, 03:50:11 AM

Quote from: viper37 on July 17, 2014, 12:33:25 PM

Quote from: Malthus on July 17, 2014, 10:57:56 AM
Really? What would you suggest?

Stop colonization, start negotiating with Palestinans without doing everything you can to provoke them, don't answer to Hamas provocations while the peace process starts.  Eventually, agree to dismantle most settlements, in exchange for no right of return to proper Israeli territory.

Colonisation is an asshole move but pretending that Hamas or most other Palestinian organisation would on the long term honour a deal where they revoke their claim on Israel is ridiculous.

The same thing was said of Jordan.  And Egypt.  So far, the peace holds.

Israel would have nothing to lose really.  If a newly independant and contiguous palestine starts doing shit at the isreali border, they simply bomb&invade like they do now, push the people out, annex the territory.

An independant Palestine would find it in its best interest to control Hamas& other terrorists to avoid them using the territory to attack Israel.  Just like Syria is very careful not to allow Hezbloah to strike from its country, despite very obvious support.

1. Egypt and Jordan renounced their claims on Gaza and the West Bank respectively in their peace agreements.

2. Israel did precisely that with Gaza, it up and left. No blocade no bombardment no occupation just a security check when passing through the border. It obviously didn't work. This was the test case for unilateral withdrawal, the Palestinians failed this test monumentally. Gaza was in teh hands of Mohammed Dahlan and the PA security forces when Israel left. When HAMAS decided to take over Dahlan fled and the PA security forces got thrown off the roof of the Gaza Police HQ.

3. The reason Syria is very very very careful not to let anybody use Syria to attack israel is because Syria only has one army and this is it's last army. It can't afford to replace it's tanks and airplanes... again. The reson Assad is careful is not due to war with Israel but due to the Ikhwanul Muslimin - The Muslim Brothers, which revolted in Hama in 1982 and were 20 thousand (at least) were butchered when Assad carpet bombed the city with heavy artillery (a clear contrast to what the israelis are doing). Unlike the PA Syria is a well ordered (or was until recently) police state, the PA is a chaotic Police State where Abbas is riding the tiger, not leading it.

The Gaza Strip (360 km²) is smaller than Vienna (414 km²), and less than half the size of Berlin (891 km²).

Quote from: Syt on July 18, 2014, 09:37:20 AM
The Gaza Strip (360 km²) is smaller than Vienna (414 km²), and less than half the size of Berlin (891 km²).

Too small for a republic and too large for an insane asylum.

Quote from: Syt on July 18, 2014, 09:37:20 AM
The Gaza Strip (360 km²) is smaller than Vienna (414 km²), and less than half the size of Berlin (891 km²).

And?

The UN Relief and Works Agency, which is about far from being a pro-Israel shill as it is possible to be, disclosed that it had found 20 rockets stashed by Hamas in a school the Agency runs in Gaza (obviously without its knowledge).

Of course we all understand here without saying what a despicable organization Hamas is, but sometimes it is worth reminding ourselves with the details.  These are people that not only refuse to accept any convention normally binding on civilized people.  They actually revel in the deployment of their own children as meat shields.

I tend to side with the Berkut side of the debate in the sense that the Israeli offensive really is pointless and why heap even more suffering on this population for no end.  But really there is no good policy here.  Hamas' strategy revolves around  getting the people they are supposed to protect killed in the most media-attracting gruesome way possible, and one way or another they are going to get that job done.

Quote from: Malthus on July 18, 2014, 09:26:27 AM

Quote from: Berkut on July 17, 2014, 07:37:50 PM

Quote from: Malthus on July 17, 2014, 04:01:44 PM
In short, to disagree with Berkut as to the effectiveness of a military campaign means you are an empathy-less monster.

I'm done arguing with you about this. You are not being at all reasonable, and are just slinging insults.

In short, you cannot respond to the facts, so are going to declare me "unreasonable" and storm away. OK.

If being "unreasonable" means I don't think killing a few hundred women and children and injuring a thousand more is a "reasonable" way to respond to being attacked by totally ineffective weapons, then I can live with "unreasonable".

And you can live with lacking empathy, I am sure, because you think killing three times as many civilians as combatants is fine - and you would totally feel the same way if it was Israelis being killed in the hundreds. Of course. Because you are so empathetic.

In short, unable to refute my facts, you resort to name-calling - "lacking empathy". Even when I was arguing with actual euroweenies on Paradox, none actually resorted to such nonsense.

I suppose the discerning reader will note I am *not* calling you a "Hamas apologist" or "useful Hamas idiot", because saying that would be dumb. I know full well you do not support Hamas. You are arguing because you believe your point to be right.

It is just sad that you cannot extend to others the same courtesy, of not dumbing down.

Saying you lack empathy is name calling?

You are arguing that Israel is perfectly justified if they kill 3 or 4 times as many civilians as they do combatants in order to stop even the remotest possibility of any Israeli being injured or killed - that you feel that causing thousands of Palestinian *civilian* casualties is justified because it *might* possibly save some tiny number of Israeli casualties, and the data we were arguing about was literally ZERO Israeli casualties compared to over 1200 Palestinians, mostly civilians.

Saying you "lack empathy" is about as mild a characterization as I can imagine for that position.

It seems unfortunate that not enough people are calling them on this.  It was my understanding that if one party militarizes a civilian structure (by say putting a rockets in a school), and civilians die because of it, the culpability falls on the side that militarized it first.

Quote from: Viking on July 18, 2014, 09:34:32 AM

Quote from: viper37 on July 18, 2014, 09:17:52 AM

Quote from: Tamas on July 18, 2014, 03:50:11 AM

Quote from: viper37 on July 17, 2014, 12:33:25 PM

Quote from: Malthus on July 17, 2014, 10:57:56 AM
Really? What would you suggest?

Stop colonization, start negotiating with Palestinans without doing everything you can to provoke them, don't answer to Hamas provocations while the peace process starts.  Eventually, agree to dismantle most settlements, in exchange for no right of return to proper Israeli territory.

Colonisation is an asshole move but pretending that Hamas or most other Palestinian organisation would on the long term honour a deal where they revoke their claim on Israel is ridiculous.

The same thing was said of Jordan.  And Egypt.  So far, the peace holds.

Israel would have nothing to lose really.  If a newly independant and contiguous palestine starts doing shit at the isreali border, they simply bomb&invade like they do now, push the people out, annex the territory.

An independant Palestine would find it in its best interest to control Hamas& other terrorists to avoid them using the territory to attack Israel.  Just like Syria is very careful not to allow Hezbloah to strike from its country, despite very obvious support.

1. Egypt and Jordan renounced their claims on Gaza and the West Bank respectively in their peace agreements.

2. Israel did precisely that with Gaza, it up and left. No blocade no bombardment no occupation just a security check when passing through the border. It obviously didn't work. This was the test case for unilateral withdrawal, the Palestinians failed this test monumentally. Gaza was in teh hands of Mohammed Dahlan and the PA security forces when Israel left. When HAMAS decided to take over Dahlan fled and the PA security forces got thrown off the roof of the Gaza Police HQ.

3. The reason Syria is very very very careful not to let anybody use Syria to attack israel is because Syria only has one army and this is it's last army. It can't afford to replace it's tanks and airplanes... again. The reson Assad is careful is not due to war with Israel but due to the Ikhwanul Muslimin - The Muslim Brothers, which revolted in Hama in 1982 and were 20 thousand (at least) were butchered when Assad carpet bombed the city with heavy artillery (a clear contrast to what the israelis are doing). Unlike the PA Syria is a well ordered (or was until recently) police state, the PA is a chaotic Police State where Abbas is riding the tiger, not leading it.

That is an excellent characterization.

However, it does miss out on the fact that Israel NOW is doing plenty to exacerbate the situation - I agree that to a great extent this is due to the fact that the attempt at conciliation failed badly last time, hence the current will of the people seems to be "Fine, fuck them" and they have the leaders that share that view.

I understand how they got to where they are, it is perfectly understandable, and to some extent predictable - maybe even perversely reasonable.

The problem is that it isn't somewhere that can lead to peace.

Reconciliation may have failed last time, but it is going to have to be tried again. And again.

The only other alternative is the Hansmeister option - genocide.

Quote from: Razgovory on July 18, 2014, 09:55:04 AM
It seems unfortunate that not enough people are calling them on this.  It was my understanding that if one party militarizes a civilian structure (by say putting a rockets in a school), and civilians die because of it, the culpability falls on the side that militarized it first.

Yep, that is straight out of the Geneva Conventions.

Quote from: Viking on July 18, 2014, 09:46:48 AM

Quote from: Syt on July 18, 2014, 09:37:20 AM
The Gaza Strip (360 km²) is smaller than Vienna (414 km²), and less than half the size of Berlin (891 km²).

And?

I like to remind myself of the scale of places sometimes, because they seem "larger" in the news if that makes any sense.

Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2014, 09:54:56 AM

Saying you lack empathy is name calling?

You are arguing that Israel is perfectly justified if they kill 3 or 4 times as many civilians as they do combatants in order to stop even the remotest possibility of any Israeli being injured or killed - that you feel that causing thousands of Palestinian *civilian* casualties is justified because it *might* possibly save some tiny number of Israeli casualties, and the data we were arguing about was literally ZERO Israeli casualties compared to over 1200 Palestinians, mostly civilians.

Saying you "lack empathy" is about as mild a characterization as I can imagine for that position.

You construct a straw-man characature of my position, based on facts you have now admitted to be questionable, in order to double down on a personal insult. Nice.

Yes, Berkut, if I thought your argument on this point was correct, and persisted in supporting Israel's campaign nonetheless, I would "lack empathy" or whatever worse characterization you wish to make.

The fine, sublte point you appear quite unable to grasp is that I happen to disagree with your argument.

Now, I know this is somewhat astoinishing to you - after all, we have only been arguing it ad nauseum - but try to imagine, see if you can stretch your brain this far: reasonable people can disagree on stuff. Of course, the fact that the actual facts indicated I was more in the right in the first place should offer you a clue as to why reasonable people can disagree over stuff - because our actual knowledge of the facts isn't perfect.

Now, I know I am wasting my electrons here. If you wish to go on thinking I "lack empathy" or whatever, feel free. 

Quote from: Syt on July 18, 2014, 10:01:27 AM

Quote from: Viking on July 18, 2014, 09:46:48 AM

Quote from: Syt on July 18, 2014, 09:37:20 AM
The Gaza Strip (360 km²) is smaller than Vienna (414 km²), and less than half the size of Berlin (891 km²).

And?

I like to remind myself of the scale of places sometimes, because they seem "larger" in the news if that makes any sense.

Looking at the place on Google Maps/World helps drive that point home.  It's such a tiny strip of land, yet so troublesome. 

Quote from: derspiess on July 18, 2014, 10:18:38 AM

Quote from: Syt on July 18, 2014, 10:01:27 AM

Quote from: Viking on July 18, 2014, 09:46:48 AM

Quote from: Syt on July 18, 2014, 09:37:20 AM
The Gaza Strip (360 km²) is smaller than Vienna (414 km²), and less than half the size of Berlin (891 km²).

And?

I like to remind myself of the scale of places sometimes, because they seem "larger" in the news if that makes any sense.

Looking at the place on Google Maps/World helps drive that point home.  It's such a tiny strip of land, yet so troublesome.

Fuel Air Explosives would solve the problem.

Quote from: Malthus on July 18, 2014, 10:05:03 AM

Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2014, 09:54:56 AM

Saying you lack empathy is name calling?

You are arguing that Israel is perfectly justified if they kill 3 or 4 times as many civilians as they do combatants in order to stop even the remotest possibility of any Israeli being injured or killed - that you feel that causing thousands of Palestinian *civilian* casualties is justified because it *might* possibly save some tiny number of Israeli casualties, and the data we were arguing about was literally ZERO Israeli casualties compared to over 1200 Palestinians, mostly civilians.

Saying you "lack empathy" is about as mild a characterization as I can imagine for that position.

You construct a straw-man characature of my position, based on facts you have now admitted to be questionable, in order to double down on a personal insult. Nice.

Yes, Berkut, if I thought your argument on this point was correct, and persisted in supporting Israel's campaign nonetheless, I would "lack empathy" or whatever worse characterization you wish to make.

The fine, sublte point you appear quite unable to grasp is that I happen to disagree with your argument.

Now, I know this is somewhat astoinishing to you - after all, we have only been arguing it ad nauseum - but try to imagine, see if you can stretch your brain this far: reasonable people can disagree on stuff. Of course, the fact that the actual facts indicated I was more in the right in the first place should offer you a clue as to why reasonable people can disagree over stuff - because our actual knowledge of the facts isn't perfect.

Now, I know I am wasting my electrons here. If you wish to go on thinking I "lack empathy" or whatever, feel free. 

You never at any point disputed the facts, you never at any time said "Yeah, that would be a good point Berkut, but I don't think those numbers are right, therefore..." Ironically, the fact that the numbers may have been wrong pretty much proves my point - there apparently aren't any numbers that would make you call for restraint - even possibly grossly inflated numbers and you are still "Yeah, sucks to be them, but too fucking bad..." You know, because you have so much empathy for their situation.

No, your argument was that Israel was justified and "reasonable" in taking actions that resulted in over a thousand civilians casualties, and that was ok, even though what they were supposedly trying to stop had almost no effect at all.

That is not a strawman or caricature, that is your position.

And of course reasonable people can disagree on stuff. But that doesn't mean that everyone who disagrees on stuff is being reasonable - and arguing that it is "reasonable" to kill hundreds of people in order to stop something that isn't actually happening is not reasonable.

You can retreat to a sense of faux indignation if you like, but that isn't reasonable either.

Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2014, 10:30:08 AM
You never at any point disputed the facts, you never at any time said "Yeah, that would be a good point Berkut, but I don't think those numbers are right, therefore..." Ironically, the fact that the numbers may have been wrong pretty much proves my point - there apparently aren't any numbers that would make you call for restraint - even possibly grossly inflated numbers and you are still "Yeah, sucks to be them, but too fucking bad..." You know, because you have so much empathy for their situation.

No, your argument was that Israel was justified and "reasonable" in taking actions that resulted in over a thousand civilians casualties, and that was ok, even though what they were supposedly trying to stop had almost no effect at all.

That is not a strawman or caricature, that is your position.

And of course reasonable people can disagree on stuff. But that doesn't mean that everyone who disagrees on stuff is being reasonable - and arguing that it is "reasonable" to kill hundreds of people in order to stop something that isn't actually happening is not reasonable.

You can retreat to a sense of faux indignation if you like, but that isn't reasonable either.

Dude. You know very well that what I was vigorously disputing was your absolutist conviction that the Israeli attacks were "disproportionate" because, according to you, they have had no effect on the accuracy of said rockets, and hence on Israeli casualties.

Now, proportinality has two parts - you measure civilian casualties against military objectives. You claimed that Israel was inflicting thousands of indiscriminate causualties and that the campaign was ineffective. I was saying that it is reasonable to assume that the campaign was effective - and in any event, the "burden" isn't proving the matter, but whether such effectiveness was a reasonable position.

You now admit you were wrong on the first part, but are clinging like grim death to the second - EVEN THOUGH to another poster, you actually conceded my point!

Yeah, Berkut, if you are right and the campaign was ineffective at saving Israeli lives and if I really believed you were right and supported the campaign anyway then supporting it would be evil. But, as has been amply demonstrated in this very thread, facts you thought were absolutely true have turned out to be questionable. How about this amazing notion - I happen to still think I was right? 

I can onlyu conclude that your pride will not allow you to back off of an insult once made.

Quote from: derspiess on July 18, 2014, 10:18:38 AM

Quote from: Syt on July 18, 2014, 10:01:27 AM

Quote from: Viking on July 18, 2014, 09:46:48 AM

Quote from: Syt on July 18, 2014, 09:37:20 AM
The Gaza Strip (360 km²) is smaller than Vienna (414 km²), and less than half the size of Berlin (891 km²).

And?

I like to remind myself of the scale of places sometimes, because they seem "larger" in the news if that makes any sense.

Looking at the place on Google Maps/World helps drive that point home.  It's such a tiny strip of land, yet so troublesome.

It wouldn't even make the news if it wasn't the Jews on one side of the shooting.

Quote from: Malthus on July 18, 2014, 10:45:28 AM

Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2014, 10:30:08 AM
You never at any point disputed the facts, you never at any time said "Yeah, that would be a good point Berkut, but I don't think those numbers are right, therefore..." Ironically, the fact that the numbers may have been wrong pretty much proves my point - there apparently aren't any numbers that would make you call for restraint - even possibly grossly inflated numbers and you are still "Yeah, sucks to be them, but too fucking bad..." You know, because you have so much empathy for their situation.

No, your argument was that Israel was justified and "reasonable" in taking actions that resulted in over a thousand civilians casualties, and that was ok, even though what they were supposedly trying to stop had almost no effect at all.

That is not a strawman or caricature, that is your position.

And of course reasonable people can disagree on stuff. But that doesn't mean that everyone who disagrees on stuff is being reasonable - and arguing that it is "reasonable" to kill hundreds of people in order to stop something that isn't actually happening is not reasonable.

You can retreat to a sense of faux indignation if you like, but that isn't reasonable either.

Dude. You know very well that what I was vigorously disputing was your absolutist conviction that the Israeli attacks were "disproportionate" because, according to you, they have had no effect on the accuracy of said rockets, and hence on Israeli casualties.

Now, proportinality has two parts - you measure civilian casualties against military objectives. You claimed that Israel was inflicting thousands of indiscriminate causualties and that the campaign was ineffective. I was saying that it is reasonable to assume that the campaign was effective - and in any event, the "burden" isn't proving the matter, but whether such effectiveness was a reasonable position.

You now admit you were wrong on the first part, but are clinging like grim death to the second - EVEN THOUGH to another poster, you actually conceded my point!

Yeah, Berkut, if you are right and the campaign was ineffective at saving Israeli lives and if I really believed you were right and supported the campaign anyway then supporting it would be evil. But, as has been amply demonstrated in this very thread, facts you thought were absolutely true have turned out to be questionable. How about this amazing notion - I happen to still think I was right? 

I can onlyu conclude that your pride will not allow you to back off of an insult once made.

There is no insult, hence nothing to back off from - but keep trying to make this even more personal, more about me and not about your empathy for killing civilians.

You've invented it to replace your argument that it is perfectly empathetic to think that killing hundreds of people is reasonable in order to stop something that isn't happening.

And I have no pride here - I have no investment in being right, and my loyalty, if I have any, is more naturally towards Israel, and always has been, so the extent that I am acting out of bias, it is *against* my natural bias. But that strikes me as perfectly reasonable - my bias does not overcome despair at the killing of civilians. Your own personal position is a bit more, let us say, "strongly held", and doesn't allow for actaul numbers of dead people to influence. Let's call it conviction, rather than lack of empathy...is that better?


I am perfectly content admitting when I am wrong, as I've already done. You are perfectly content insisting that the numbers don't matter - a thousand dead Palestinians to stop no Israeli deaths (or at worst very, very, VERY few if we grant your entirely unsupported claim that it is only through killing civilians that rockets are stopped from killing the ones that matter) is a acceptable price to pay.

Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2014, 11:07:30 AM

There is no insult, hence nothing to back off from - but keep trying to make this even more personal, more about me and not about your empathy for killing civilians.

:yeahright:

You aren't "making this personal"?

QuoteYou've invented it to replace your argument that it is perfectly empathetic to think that killing hundreds of people is reasonable in order to stop something that isn't happening.

And I have no pride here - I have no investment in being right, and my loyalty, if I have any, is more naturally towards Israel, and always has been, so the extent that I am acting out of bias, it is *against* my natural bias. But that strikes me as perfectly reasonable - my bias does not overcome despair at the killing of civilians. Your own personal position is a bit more, let us say, "strongly held", and doesn't allow for actaul numbers of dead people to influence. Let's call it conviction, rather than lack of empathy...is that better?


I am perfectly content admitting when I am wrong, as I've already done. You are perfectly content insisting that the numbers don't matter - a thousand dead Palestinians to stop no Israeli deaths (or at worst very, very, VERY few if we grant your entirely unsupported claim that it is only through killing civilians that rockets are stopped from killing the ones that matter) is a acceptable price to pay.

Where, exactly, did I ever say that "numbers don't matter"? Or that I would support "a thousand dead Palestinans to stop "... no Israeli deaths ... at worst very, very, VERY few "?  You are just pulling that from your ass.

That is the entire crux of your argument - that is was ok for the IDF to engage in bombing that killed hundreds (I mispoke, should have said a thousand injured, several hundred dead) of people, because it was designed to stop rocket attacks, or rather, designed to make them less effective.

But there is still zero evidence that absent that bombing, those rockets would have any significant effect. They have never had any significant effect, whether Israel was bombing or not.

And you say now that number do matter? But apparently whatever numbers might matter, it certainly does not matter at a 3:1 civilians to combatant casualty rate, nor does it matter at a overall 1000:0 Palestinian:Israeli casualty rate.

So what would it take for you to say "Hey, that is a bit of an over-reaction! Maybe the IDF needs to back off a bit!". Five thousand casualties? Ten thousand casualties? Fifty thousand?

I am just amazed that against ZERO ISRAELI CASUALTIES you are all gung-ho, hell yeah, drop some bombs on those guys, even if it means that for every "militant" we kill, we will take out 3 or 4 civilians.

Now it looks like the numbers are probably more in the realm if 50% civilians casualties, rather than 75%. That is a pretty huge improvement, IMO, and even enough to make me rather begrudgingly accept that perhaps the IDF is showing some reasonable restraint. I am just amazed that apparently you are ok with the previous numbers, and all outraged that I might find your position "lacking empathy"

I am quite certain that if the numbers were reversed, you wouldn't be arguing that Hamas was showing reasonable restraint.

Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2014, 09:58:39 AM

The only other alternative is the Hansmeister option - genocide.

Sadly this is the case. Israel exists and will continue to exist. Palestine will only exist once it's population and leadership concede to Israel the right to exist.

Any solution other than negotiating a two state solution is a one state solution where that one state is Israel. Israel is unwilling both to include the Palestinians in their democracy and the Israelis are unwilling to expel them by force. So what will happen is that Israel will build it's one state with the borders it wants and with the security arrangements that it wants. They won't take the final step or acknowledge the consequences of Palestinian revenchism to avoid the ugly consequences.

The problem is that this is the point where civilized states went and got on with the butchery and enslavement and ethnic cleansing the laws and rules of war eventually banned. One forgets that the quid pro quo in that was that the losing side actually surrendered when all means of resistance were exhausted.

Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2014, 11:23:16 AM
That is the entire crux of your argument - that is was ok for the IDF to engage in bombing that killed hundreds (I mispoke, should have said a thousand injured, several hundred dead) of people, because it was designed to stop rocket attacks, or rather, designed to make them less effective.

But there is still zero evidence that absent that bombing, those rockets would have any significant effect. They have never had any significant effect, whether Israel was bombing or not.

And you say now that number do matter? But apparently whatever numbers might matter, it certainly does not matter at a 3:1 civilians to combatant casualty rate, nor does it matter at a overall 1000:0 Palestinian:Israeli casualty rate.

So what would it take for you to say "Hey, that is a bit of an over-reaction! Maybe the IDF needs to back off a bit!". Five thousand casualties? Ten thousand casualties? Fifty thousand?

I am just amazed that against ZERO ISRAELI CASUALTIES you are all gung-ho, hell yeah, drop some bombs on those guys, even if it means that for every "militant" we kill, we will take out 3 or 4 civilians.

Now it looks like the numbers are probably more in the realm if 50% civilians casualties, rather than 75%. That is a pretty huge improvement, IMO, and even enough to make me rather begrudgingly accept that perhaps the IDF is showing some reasonable restraint. I am just amazed that apparently you are ok with the previous numbers, and all outraged that I might find your position "lacking empathy"

I am quite certain that if the numbers were reversed, you wouldn't be arguing that Hamas was showing reasonable restraint.

And I am quite certain that you are full of shit. If Hamas was aiming its rockets at Israeli weapons used to randomly bombard Palestinians, rather than Israeli civilians, I would use the exact same analysis.

How many times do I have to repeat that we don't know if the Israeli campaign MATERIALLY CONTRIBUTED to the relative lack of Israeli casualties - and if so, then it may well be "proportinate"? And that the FACT that the Hamas campaign has proved ineffective IN THE FACE of Israeli counter-measures isn't evidence that the Israeli counter-measures were not necessary?

Yes, Berkut, I agree that IF YOUR POSITION WAS CORRECT and the Israeli counter-battery fire campaign DID NOT contribute to the lack of Israeli casualties, it would NOT be "proportionate".

As for numbers, I haven't a fucking clue. Why not ask yourself that? If Mexican drug cartels were firing weapons into Mexico hiding behind civilians, and you knew attacking them would MATERIALLY CONTRIBUTE to saving American lives, how many civilian Mexican casualties would YOU be willing to risk to save each American life - assuming that the Mexican government was non-existent or could not do squat? It's a reasonable debate, and quite honestly, I don't know myself what the answer should be.

But then, unlike you, I don't claim to have the answers.

I don't claim to have any answers, but if the US started bombing Mexican drug cartels and killed several hundred civilians and injured a thousand or more, I would vehemently oppose that as a response to Mexican drug cartels ineffectively firing rockets into random patches of the Arizona desert having no effect whatsoever.

Even if the US Air Force insisted that the reason they had no effect was the bombing - I would want to actually see them do ANYTHING at all remotely effective before I conclude that killing hundreds of innocent people is a reasonable and necessary response to their threat.

Yes - that is right - I actually would in fact want to see some Americans hurt or killed *before* I decide it is a-ok awesomesauce to kill several hundred innocent Mexicans.

Hell, this is actually a good analogy, because PART of my analysis would be accepting that the very reason the violence is happening is due in some part to American behavior that we bear *some* responsibility for - it is the US consumption of drugs that makes the violence actually happen to begin with, so I would be even less ok with the US killing a bunch of Mexican civilians.

Sorry, going to have to come up with something better to catch me than that.

Quote from: Malthus on July 18, 2014, 11:41:53 AM

As for numbers, I haven't a fucking clue.

Oh, but you DO in fact have a clue. We don't know what the number is, but we certainly do know what it isn't.

We know for certain that several hundred dead and a thousand injured, with a 3:1 civilian to combatant ratio is acceptable against zero Israeli casualties.

You may not know what the number that would make you actually say "Wow, that seems kind of out of whack..." is, but at least we know it isn't 1300:0.

Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2014, 11:50:02 AM
I don't claim to have any answers, but if the US started bombing Mexican drug cartels and killed several hundred civilians and injured a thousand or more, I would vehemently oppose that as a response to Mexican drug cartels ineffectively firing rockets into random patches of the Arizona desert having no effect whatsoever.

Even if the US Air Force insisted that the reason they had no effect was the bombing - I would want to actually see them do ANYTHING at all remotely effective before I conclude that killing hundreds of innocent people is a reasonable and necessary response to their threat.

Yes - that is right - I actually would in fact want to see some Americans hurt or killed *before* I decide it is a-ok awesomesauce to kill several hundred innocent Mexicans.

Hell, this is actually a good analogy, because PART of my analysis would be accepting that the very reason the violence is happening is due in some part to American behavior that we bear *some* responsibility for - it is the US consumption of drugs that makes the violence actually happen to begin with, so I would be even less ok with the US killing a bunch of Mexican civilians.

Sorry, going to have to come up with something better to catch me than that.

I note you haven't in fact answered the question. And it wasn't intended as a "catch".

IDK Berkut - if your home was in the area targeted by random rocket attacks, however ineffective they are, would you be content with your government saying "well, statistically, one rocket hitting a home and killing a family is next to zero. So we will just let them poke away as much as they want"?

That's one angle neither of you mention: there is actually a government of a nation is involved in this, whose primary function is to protect its citizens from violence within or across the borders.

Quote from: Malthus on July 18, 2014, 11:53:08 AM

Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2014, 11:50:02 AM
I don't claim to have any answers, but if the US started bombing Mexican drug cartels and killed several hundred civilians and injured a thousand or more, I would vehemently oppose that as a response to Mexican drug cartels ineffectively firing rockets into random patches of the Arizona desert having no effect whatsoever.

Even if the US Air Force insisted that the reason they had no effect was the bombing - I would want to actually see them do ANYTHING at all remotely effective before I conclude that killing hundreds of innocent people is a reasonable and necessary response to their threat.

Yes - that is right - I actually would in fact want to see some Americans hurt or killed *before* I decide it is a-ok awesomesauce to kill several hundred innocent Mexicans.

Hell, this is actually a good analogy, because PART of my analysis would be accepting that the very reason the violence is happening is due in some part to American behavior that we bear *some* responsibility for - it is the US consumption of drugs that makes the violence actually happen to begin with, so I would be even less ok with the US killing a bunch of Mexican civilians.

Sorry, going to have to come up with something better to catch me than that.

I note you haven't in fact answered the question. And it wasn't intended as a "catch".

I didn't answer the question, because it isn't the question under debate.

The question under debate is whether *your* answer is reasonable, the one YOU have answered, which is that you are ok with several hundred dead and injured Palestinians in order to save some number of Israeli injuries or deaths between zero and some very, very small number.

I agree that the upper bound is hard to know, and depends on a lot of different variables.

But to the extent that I have NOT answered, I think I have at least provided a bound - IMO, it is certainly LESS THAN 1000:0.

I guess "reasonable" people can disagree on that. You are ok with 1200:0, I am not. You insist that that is reasonable, I insist that is no where even near to reasonable.

Quote from: Tamas on July 18, 2014, 11:55:22 AM
IDK Berkut - if your home was in the area targeted by random rocket attacks, however ineffective they are, would you be content with your government saying "well, statistically, one rocket hitting a home and killing a family is next to zero. So we will just let them poke away as much as they want"?

False analogy - Israel is not "letting them poke away...". Israel does a LOT of things to fight against Hamas and their rockets that do not involve bombing Gaza. Or they could bomb Gaza less, or with more restraint (assuming the apparently incorrect previous numbers of some several hundred dead and a thousand or more wounded).

This keeps coming up - like the two options here are:

1. Do nothing, send Hamas a nice note asking them to fire more rockets so we can REALLY test out Iron Dome, and suck it up, or
2. BOmb the fuck out of Gaza, and who cares how many Palestinians we kill.

Quote

That's one angle neither of you mention: there is actually a government of a nation is involved in this, whose primary function is to protect its citizens from violence within or across the borders.

Indeed, and I did mention it earlier. I don't fault Israel for defending itself, nor do I expect them to value Palestinian lives the same way they value Israeli - they should not, that isn't their function.

Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2014, 11:52:00 AM

Quote from: Malthus on July 18, 2014, 11:41:53 AM

As for numbers, I haven't a fucking clue.

Oh, but you DO in fact have a clue. We don't know what the number is, but we certainly do know what it isn't.

We know for certain that several hundred dead and a thousand injured, with a 3:1 civilian to combatant ratio is acceptable against zero Israeli casualties.

You may not know what the number that would make you actually say "Wow, that seems kind of out of whack..." is, but at least we know it isn't 1300:0.

Your answer demonstrates why you just. Don't. Get. It.

The number we need to know - for this question - is not the ratio of civilians to combatants, it is the ratio of Israeli casualties *prevented* by Israeli military actions to the number of Palestinian civilians killed by the Israeli actions.

The military objective of the Israeli campaign is not to kill Hamas members - that is just a means to an end. The objective is to protect Israeli civilians.

You position has been all along that the Israeli campaign doesn't do that, it is unnecessary. You *claim* to know this number - that it is zero or near enough to zero. In short, you are claiming to know the significant fact, and I am not. Your position is based on a fact you have simply invented - that the Israeli counter-battery campaign has no effect on saving Israeli civilian lives.

Mine is that we haven't a clue how many Israeli lives were saved, but that if the campaign materially contributed to saving Israeli lives in significant number, it would be reasonable - as long as steps were taken by the Israeli military to minimize civilian casualties in support of this legitimate military goal.

Exactly how many is "significant"? I dunno, and apparently, insofar as you have refused to engage in my Mexican scenario, neither do you.

Well, disproportionate answer worked very well in the American Civil War - it needed Sherman to show just how fucked up an idea continued resistance is. Same thing with allied terror-bombing in WW2.

This is why I place all responsibility in the hands of Hamas.

Quote from: Malthus on July 18, 2014, 12:04:19 PM

Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2014, 11:52:00 AM

Quote from: Malthus on July 18, 2014, 11:41:53 AM

As for numbers, I haven't a fucking clue.

Oh, but you DO in fact have a clue. We don't know what the number is, but we certainly do know what it isn't.

We know for certain that several hundred dead and a thousand injured, with a 3:1 civilian to combatant ratio is acceptable against zero Israeli casualties.

You may not know what the number that would make you actually say "Wow, that seems kind of out of whack..." is, but at least we know it isn't 1300:0.

Your answer demonstrates why you just. Don't. Get. It.

The number we need to know - for this question - is not the ratio of civilians to combatants, it is the ratio of Israeli casualties *prevented* by Israeli military actions to the number of Palestinian civilians killed by the Israeli actions.

The military objective of the Israeli campaign is not to kill Hamas members - that is just a means to an end. The objective is to protect Israeli civilians.

You position has been all along that the Israeli campaign doesn't do that, it is unnecessary. You *claim* to know this number - that it is zero or near enough to zero. In short, you are claiming to know the significant fact, and I am not. Your position is based on a fact you have simply invented - that the Israeli counter-battery campaign has no effect on saving Israeli civilian lives.

Mine is that we haven't a clue how many Israeli lives were saved, but that if the campaign materially contributed to saving Israeli lives in significant number, it would be reasonable - as long as steps were taken by the Israeli military to minimize civilian casualties in support of this legitimate military goal.

Exactly how many is "significant"? I dunno, and apparently, insofar as you have refused to engage in my Mexican scenario, neither do you.

But that is a complete cop-out. You claim you don't know how many lives were saved, and hence you simply imagine that enough are saved to justify thousands of casualties.

I addressed this precise point in the scenario you asked - I said that I would want to see some reason to believe that the threat actually existed before I accepted that hundreds of innocent lives were a reasonable price to pay to prevent it.

And there is plenty of evidence that Hamas rocket attacks don't work, even absent Israeli bombing. The complete lack of any effect at all, EVER, is in fact pretty good evidence that they are not effective. You simply continue to pretend like this FACT does not exist.

You insist that it is completely unnecessary, and even if we can just *imagine* that absent bombing some Israelis might be hurt, that is good enough to justify at least several hundred innocent deaths.

Quote from: Tamas on July 18, 2014, 12:05:47 PM
Well, disproportionate answer worked very well in the American Civil War - it needed Sherman to show just how fucked up an idea continued resistance is.

I would argue that Shermans campaign was a perfectly proportionate response.

Quote

Same thing with allied terror-bombing in WW2.

This is much more debatable, and at least one can argue that the proponents of terror bombing simply did not know if it would work. Turns out it didn't, at all.

And hence if WW2 happened again, I would not be in favor of carpet bombing population centers of totalitarian states in an attempt to get the people to overthrow their dictator.

Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2014, 11:50:02 AM
I don't claim to have any answers, but if the US started bombing Mexican drug cartels and killed several hundred civilians and injured a thousand or more, I would vehemently oppose that as a response to Mexican drug cartels ineffectively firing rockets into random patches of the Arizona desert having no effect whatsoever.

Even if the US Air Force insisted that the reason they had no effect was the bombing - I would want to actually see them do ANYTHING at all remotely effective before I conclude that killing hundreds of innocent people is a reasonable and necessary response to their threat.

Yes - that is right - I actually would in fact want to see some Americans hurt or killed *before* I decide it is a-ok awesomesauce to kill several hundred innocent Mexicans.

Hell, this is actually a good analogy, because PART of my analysis would be accepting that the very reason the violence is happening is due in some part to American behavior that we bear *some* responsibility for - it is the US consumption of drugs that makes the violence actually happen to begin with, so I would be even less ok with the US killing a bunch of Mexican civilians.

Sorry, going to have to come up with something better to catch me than that.

Still getting the vibe that you think the objective is to kill civilians.

Quote from: derspiess on July 18, 2014, 12:19:33 PM

Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2014, 11:50:02 AM
I don't claim to have any answers, but if the US started bombing Mexican drug cartels and killed several hundred civilians and injured a thousand or more, I would vehemently oppose that as a response to Mexican drug cartels ineffectively firing rockets into random patches of the Arizona desert having no effect whatsoever.

Even if the US Air Force insisted that the reason they had no effect was the bombing - I would want to actually see them do ANYTHING at all remotely effective before I conclude that killing hundreds of innocent people is a reasonable and necessary response to their threat.

Yes - that is right - I actually would in fact want to see some Americans hurt or killed *before* I decide it is a-ok awesomesauce to kill several hundred innocent Mexicans.

Hell, this is actually a good analogy, because PART of my analysis would be accepting that the very reason the violence is happening is due in some part to American behavior that we bear *some* responsibility for - it is the US consumption of drugs that makes the violence actually happen to begin with, so I would be even less ok with the US killing a bunch of Mexican civilians.

Sorry, going to have to come up with something better to catch me than that.

Still getting the vibe that you think the objective is to kill civilians.

Nope.

Well, it would help if you made mention of the actual objective rather than focusing on collateral damage.

Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2014, 12:19:01 PM

Quote from: Tamas on July 18, 2014, 12:05:47 PM
Well, disproportionate answer worked very well in the American Civil War - it needed Sherman to show just how fucked up an idea continued resistance is.

I would argue that Shermans campaign was a perfectly proportionate response.

Quote

Same thing with allied terror-bombing in WW2.

This is much more debatable, and at least one can argue that the proponents of terror bombing simply did not know if it would work. Turns out it didn't, at all.

And hence if WW2 happened again, I would not be in favor of carpet bombing population centers of totalitarian states in an attempt to get the people to overthrow their dictator.

I was not aware the CSA burned up Northern towns on a grand scale and did what could be described as a punitive terror campaign, my apologies. Because that is the only way Sherman's civilian-punishing campaign could had been proportionate.

We can agree to disagree on the WW2 bombings. I mean, I think what it should be judged upon, and for this we will never have data: would the German (and Japanese) general population would have turned against their "we are über alles" general ruling principle without so brutally destroyed beforehand? I honestly don't know, and I can be just malicious.

Just talking to a guy in  Israel. For those who think the Gaza rockets are harmless, and I'll concede that their potency is limited, what we forget about, or don't treat as seriously is the psychological effect or even what I call the pain-in-the-ass factor. Depending on where you are in Israel you have between 30-90 seconds to head for shelter when a siren goes off. You can be taking a shit on the 10th floor of an apartment building and have to run down to the shelter. As this person said "Each rocket attack is like an earthquake, and we run to our bomb shelters, safe rooms and stairwells. "

Imagine having an earthquake three times a day. If you're driving to work, you have to pull over, get out and lie on the ground with your hands over your head (standard defensive procedure). If you're watching a movie, the movie stops.

These are just pains in the ass that disrupts ordinary life...and that's why Israel should seek an end to it.

Quote from: Josephus on July 18, 2014, 12:47:55 PM
Just talking to a guy in  Israel. For those who think the Gaza rockets are harmless, and I'll concede that their potency is limited, what we forget about, or don't treat as seriously is the psychological effect or even what I call the pain-in-the-ass factor. Depending on where you are in Israel you have between 30-90 seconds to head for shelter when a siren goes off. You can be taking a shit on the 10th floor of an apartment building and have to run down to the shelter. As this person said "Each rocket attack is like an earthquake, and we run to our bomb shelters, safe rooms and stairwells. "

Imagine having an earthquake three times a day. If you're driving to work, you have to pull over, get out and lie on the ground with your hands over your head (standard defensive procedure). If you're watching a movie, the movie stops.

These are just pains in the ass that disrupts ordinary life...and that's why Israel should seek an end to it.

Yeah my co-worker and I guess discussed what her cousin was telling her recently about hiding out. We both decided we couldn't even imagine dealing with that.

Quote from: derspiess on July 18, 2014, 12:33:23 PM
Well, it would help if you made mention of the actual objective rather than focusing on collateral damage.

Why? We all know what the objective is, at least in theory.

I don't have any issue with their objectives, except insofar as I am supicious that it isn't really the objective, since the things they are doing seem pretty obviously not possible to meet that objective.

Although going in on the ground is more convincing, if more concerning. If they are serious about stopping the rockets, they are going to have to go in at some point. Which is going to suck for everyone.

Quote from: Tamas on July 18, 2014, 12:42:26 PM

Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2014, 12:19:01 PM

Quote from: Tamas on July 18, 2014, 12:05:47 PM
Well, disproportionate answer worked very well in the American Civil War - it needed Sherman to show just how fucked up an idea continued resistance is.

I would argue that Shermans campaign was a perfectly proportionate response.

Quote

Same thing with allied terror-bombing in WW2.

This is much more debatable, and at least one can argue that the proponents of terror bombing simply did not know if it would work. Turns out it didn't, at all.

And hence if WW2 happened again, I would not be in favor of carpet bombing population centers of totalitarian states in an attempt to get the people to overthrow their dictator.

I was not aware the CSA burned up Northern towns on a grand scale and did what could be described as a punitive terror campaign, my apologies. Because that is the only way Sherman's civilian-punishing campaign could had been proportionate.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2014, 12:52:15 PM

Quote from: Tamas on July 18, 2014, 12:42:26 PM

Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2014, 12:19:01 PM

Quote from: Tamas on July 18, 2014, 12:05:47 PM
Well, disproportionate answer worked very well in the American Civil War - it needed Sherman to show just how fucked up an idea continued resistance is.

I would argue that Shermans campaign was a perfectly proportionate response.

Quote

Same thing with allied terror-bombing in WW2.

This is much more debatable, and at least one can argue that the proponents of terror bombing simply did not know if it would work. Turns out it didn't, at all.

And hence if WW2 happened again, I would not be in favor of carpet bombing population centers of totalitarian states in an attempt to get the people to overthrow their dictator.

I was not aware the CSA burned up Northern towns on a grand scale and did what could be described as a punitive terror campaign, my apologies. Because that is the only way Sherman's civilian-punishing campaign could had been proportionate.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Well. You are using it to describe the number of Israeli civilian casualities vs. Palestinian civil casualities being a bad thing. So I think I am justified to use it to compare the damage in llives and infrastructure caused by CSA on the North, vs. the same caused by the North on the CSA. I am doing that to show you that your conclusion is wrong, of course.

Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2014, 12:50:23 PM
Although going in on the ground is more convincing, if more concerning. If they are serious about stopping the rockets, they are going to have to go in at some point. Which is going to suck for everyone.

I believe that is already happening, or it least it was announced as such.  The objective is destroying tunnels and other locations where rocket munitions are being stashed.

her'es a quick video of a siren that went as a woman was driving to work on the highway. She captures the specks in the sky which is the Iron Dome blowing up rockets. Her complaint, rightly, is that while protocol dictates that cars stop and people get out and go to ground, lots of cars don't stop...


https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10152221321985172&set=o.1488508684720081&type=2&theater

Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2014, 12:16:49 PM

But that is a complete cop-out. You claim you don't know how many lives were saved, and hence you simply imagine that enough are saved to justify thousands of casualties.

No, I'm saying it is literally impossible to determine how many lives were saved, because one cannot know an alternate version of history in which Hamas attacks and Israel doesn't defend itself using this tactic.

That's why the test ought not to be "proof" that the Israeli (or indeed any) tactics work, but the lesser test of whether it is "reasonable in the circumstances" that they work.

QuoteI addressed this precise point in the scenario you asked - I said that I would want to see some reason to believe that the threat actually existed before I accepted that hundreds of innocent lives were a reasonable price to pay to prevent it.

No, you copped out. I asked a simple question that you refused to answer. 

QuoteAnd there is plenty of evidence that Hamas rocket attacks don't work, even absent Israeli bombing. The complete lack of any effect at all, EVER, is in fact pretty good evidence that they are not effective. You simply continue to pretend like this FACT does not exist.

Because this FACT doesn't exist. There is no period in which Hamas fired rockets into Israel without fear of Israeli retaliation. Once again, you are arguing from the observed results without taking into account that the observed results could be caused by the factor under discussion. This is a totally fallacious way of arguing - you are ignoring causation.

Now, IT MAY be the case that there is no causation - that, with or without the Israeli habit of blowing the shit out of Hamas rocket launchers, and Hamas reasonable fear of the same, Hamas STILL would (only rarely) score a hit. But you have no "facts" to demonstrate that this is the case. You simply assume it is. Is that assumption at all reasonable? I say it is not.

Of course, in Berkut-speak, my whole post above can be summarized as "I long to chew the living guts of Palestinian babies. With extra hot sauce".

Quote from: Tamas on July 18, 2014, 01:02:02 PM

Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2014, 12:52:15 PM

Quote from: Tamas on July 18, 2014, 12:42:26 PM

Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2014, 12:19:01 PM

Quote from: Tamas on July 18, 2014, 12:05:47 PM
Well, disproportionate answer worked very well in the American Civil War - it needed Sherman to show just how fucked up an idea continued resistance is.

I would argue that Shermans campaign was a perfectly proportionate response.

Quote

Same thing with allied terror-bombing in WW2.

This is much more debatable, and at least one can argue that the proponents of terror bombing simply did not know if it would work. Turns out it didn't, at all.

And hence if WW2 happened again, I would not be in favor of carpet bombing population centers of totalitarian states in an attempt to get the people to overthrow their dictator.

I was not aware the CSA burned up Northern towns on a grand scale and did what could be described as a punitive terror campaign, my apologies. Because that is the only way Sherman's civilian-punishing campaign could had been proportionate.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Well. You are using it to describe the number of Israeli civilian casualities vs. Palestinian civil casualities being a bad thing. So I think I am justified to use it to compare the damage in llives and infrastructure caused by CSA on the North, vs. the same caused by the North on the CSA. I am doing that to show you that your conclusion is wrong, of course.

That is an irrelevant comparison.

My point about palestinian casualties was to point out that killing a lot of Palestinians in order to stop something that was not working (killing Israelis) was not proportionate.

Sherman didn't invade Georgia in an effort to stop Georgians from killing Pennsylvanians, he did it in order to end the war.

Now, if you want to get obtuse, then I suppose I could point out that in fact Georgians WERE killing Pennsylvanians, althought it was on the field of battle - so I guess if you wanted to take your bad analogy even further, we could go there, but that turns around to arguing for me again.

But more to the point, invading Georgia is a perfectly proportional action in the context of the military goal of defeating the south in the middle of a general war.

What that has to do with the IDF bombing the Gaza Strip I am not so sure...

Quote from: Malthus on July 18, 2014, 01:17:47 PM

Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2014, 12:16:49 PM

But that is a complete cop-out. You claim you don't know how many lives were saved, and hence you simply imagine that enough are saved to justify thousands of casualties.

No, I'm saying it is literally impossible to determine how many lives were saved, because one cannot know an alternate version of history in which Hamas attacks and Israel doesn't defend itself using this tactic.

That's why the test ought not to be "proof" that the Israeli (or indeed any) tactics work, but the lesser test of whether it is "reasonable in the circumstances" that they work.

QuoteI addressed this precise point in the scenario you asked - I said that I would want to see some reason to believe that the threat actually existed before I accepted that hundreds of innocent lives were a reasonable price to pay to prevent it.

No, you copped out. I asked a simple question that you refused to answer. 

Answered it perfectly in fact, and noted that if your example where in alignment with this example, I would not support bombing Mexicans in the manner in question.

Quote

QuoteAnd there is plenty of evidence that Hamas rocket attacks don't work, even absent Israeli bombing. The complete lack of any effect at all, EVER, is in fact pretty good evidence that they are not effective. You simply continue to pretend like this FACT does not exist.

Because this FACT doesn't exist.

Of course it does.

Quote
There is no period in which Hamas fired rockets into Israel without fear of Israeli retaliation.

That is infantile. What reason do you have to believe that in thousands of attacks over years and years, every single time they could not shoot straight because they were so afraid of being bombed in retaliation, and that deterrent is 100% perfectly effective such that it has never, ever, EVER failed despite the claim that absent it these "threats" attacks would be effective?

That is just stunningly idiotic. So much so that I cannot believe that you actually buy into it.

Quote
Once again, you are arguing from the observed results without taking into account that the observed results could be caused by the factor under discussion. This is a totally fallacious way of arguing - you are ignoring causation.

No, I am looking at observed results and make a very reasonable inference from them based on a long history and large data set to surmise from  - you are the one saying that since the attacks never work, we should assume that the reason they never work is bombing civilians, and we absolutely must continue bombing civilians to make sure they never work.

Quote
Now, IT MAY be the case that there is no causation - that, with or without the Israeli habit of blowing the shit out of Hamas rocket launchers, and Hamas reasonable fear of the same, Hamas STILL would (only rarely) score a hit.

That is almost certainly the case given the evidence we have that their current hit miss rate is something like 99.99%, and that is true whether they are being actively bombed, recently bombed, not bombed in months, or not bombed in years.

With active bombing: 0%
With recent bombing: 0%
With threat of bombing: 0%
With vague memories of once being bombed: 0%

yeah, it takes a incredible leap of intution to suspect that perhaps it isn't the bombing that is the problem...

Quote
But you have no "facts" to demonstrate that this is the case. You simply assume it is. Is that assumption at all reasonable? I say it is not.

Except of course I do have facts to demonstrate just that. Zero effective attacks under a variety of various circumstances. You don't have to imagine that of all the things Israel does, one thing isn't the key lynchpin...oh it just so happens to be the one thing that results in massive civilian casualties.

If what you are saying is true, then Hamas rocket attacks when they were confident that there would not be an immediate response, which has happened many times, ought to have some greater effect - but nope, still zero.

So give the very rational and reasonable conclusion that the problem with Hamas rocket effectiveness is not likely to be linked to Israel bombing, one has to wonder why you are so insistent that Israel keep on bombing them. At the very least, that insistence is NOT congruent with having a single shred of empathy for the people being killed.

*That* regardless of who is right, is inescapable. Empathy means the abiltiy to see things through their lives, to understand how they might view an action, to feel for them. You cannot possibly EVER convince me you give a shit about them while arguing that killing them in the hundreds is ok because NOT doing so *might* result in some certainly fractional number of "your" team being harmed.

Even if you are right, and it is the threat of bombing, you don't know that - but you DO know that hundreds have been killed on the other side, and you have stated unequivocally that that is "reasonable". That is the very opposite of "empathy".

Quote
Of course, in Berkut-speak, my whole post above can be summarized as "I long to chew the living guts of Palestinian babies. With extra hot sauce".

No, in Berkut speak you simply don't care that much. Which is obvious.

Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2014, 02:12:34 PM

Quote from: Malthus on July 18, 2014, 01:17:47 PM

Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2014, 12:16:49 PM

But that is a complete cop-out. You claim you don't know how many lives were saved, and hence you simply imagine that enough are saved to justify thousands of casualties.

No, I'm saying it is literally impossible to determine how many lives were saved, because one cannot know an alternate version of history in which Hamas attacks and Israel doesn't defend itself using this tactic.

That's why the test ought not to be "proof" that the Israeli (or indeed any) tactics work, but the lesser test of whether it is "reasonable in the circumstances" that they work.

QuoteI addressed this precise point in the scenario you asked - I said that I would want to see some reason to believe that the threat actually existed before I accepted that hundreds of innocent lives were a reasonable price to pay to prevent it.

No, you copped out. I asked a simple question that you refused to answer. 

Answered it perfectly in fact, and noted that if your example where in alignment with this example, I would not support bombing Mexicans in the manner in question.

Quote

QuoteAnd there is plenty of evidence that Hamas rocket attacks don't work, even absent Israeli bombing. The complete lack of any effect at all, EVER, is in fact pretty good evidence that they are not effective. You simply continue to pretend like this FACT does not exist.

Because this FACT doesn't exist.

Of course it does.

Quote
There is no period in which Hamas fired rockets into Israel without fear of Israeli retaliation.

That is infantile. What reason do you have to believe that in thousands of attacks over years and years, every single time they could not shoot straight because they were so afraid of being bombed in retaliation, and that deterrent is 100% perfectly effective such that it has never, ever, EVER failed despite the claim that absent it these "threats" attacks would be effective?

That is just stunningly idiotic. So much so that I cannot believe that you actually buy into it.

Quote
Once again, you are arguing from the observed results without taking into account that the observed results could be caused by the factor under discussion. This is a totally fallacious way of arguing - you are ignoring causation.

No, I am looking at observed results and make a very reasonable inference from them based on a long history and large data set to surmise from  - you are the one saying that since the attacks never work, we should assume that the reason they never work is bombing civilians, and we absolutely must continue bombing civilians to make sure they never work.

Quote
Now, IT MAY be the case that there is no causation - that, with or without the Israeli habit of blowing the shit out of Hamas rocket launchers, and Hamas reasonable fear of the same, Hamas STILL would (only rarely) score a hit.

That is almost certainly the case given the evidence we have that their current hit miss rate is something like 99.99%, and that is true whether they are being actively bombed, recently bombed, not bombed in months, or not bombed in years.

With active bombing: 0%
With recent bombing: 0%
With threat of bombing: 0%
With vague memories of once being bombed: 0%

yeah, it takes a incredible leap of intution to suspect that perhaps it isn't the bombing that is the problem...

Quote
But you have no "facts" to demonstrate that this is the case. You simply assume it is. Is that assumption at all reasonable? I say it is not.

Except of course I do have facts to demonstrate just that. Zero effective attacks under a variety of various circumstances. You don't have to imagine that of all the things Israel does, one thing isn't the key lynchpin...oh it just so happens to be the one thing that results in massive civilian casualties.

If what you are saying is true, then Hamas rocket attacks when they were confident that there would not be an immediate response, which has happened many times, ought to have some greater effect - but nope, still zero.

So give the very rational and reasonable conclusion that the problem with Hamas rocket effectiveness is not likely to be linked to Israel bombing, one has to wonder why you are so insistent that Israel keep on bombing them. At the very least, that insistence is NOT congruent with having a single shred of empathy for the people being killed.

*That* regardless of who is right, is inescapable. Empathy means the abiltiy to see things through their lives, to understand how they might view an action, to feel for them. You cannot possibly EVER convince me you give a shit about them while arguing that killing them in the hundreds is ok because NOT doing so *might* result in some certainly fractional number of "your" team being harmed.

Even if you are right, and it is the threat of bombing, you don't know that - but you DO know that hundreds have been killed on the other side, and you have stated unequivocally that that is "reasonable". That is the very opposite of "empathy".

Quote
Of course, in Berkut-speak, my whole post above can be summarized as "I long to chew the living guts of Palestinian babies. With extra hot sauce".

No, in Berkut speak you simply don't care that much. Which is obvious.

Lord, with that much straw, you could build a whole fucking ARMY of straw-men.

QuoteThat is infantile. What reason do you have to believe that in thousands of attacks over years and years, every single time they could not shoot straight because they were so afraid of being bombed in retaliation, and that deterrent is 100% perfectly effective such that it has never, ever, EVER failed despite the claim that absent it these "threats" attacks would be effective?

That is just stunningly idiotic. So much so that I cannot believe that you actually buy into it.

Yes, that WOULD be idiotic. If I said anything like that. Which I did not.

Let's add some facts to your screed. First fact: Hamas rocket attacks have not been 'totally useless'. Just not very effective. Since 2006, they have killed and injured around 2,000 Israelis. Cite:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel#Casualties.2C_Fatalities_and_rockets_fired

Since 2001, there have been around 15,000 attacks by rockets and morters.

This means that for every 7 or so Hamas rockets/morters fired, an Israeli is injured or killed - on average. No doubt that sucks (for Hamas) in terms of accuracy and effect, but it is hardly the case that the rockets are without effect - particularly as they are designed to cause terror - i.e., you never know when the siren goes off if it will be you.

So we can nail the next in a long line oif "Berkut is wrong on the facts" - the rockets are not 'harmless as a kid throwing stones'. Unless you kid happens to be capable of killing and injuring 2,000 people.

Next, the notion that the Israeli counter-battery fire has to be "100% perfectly effective such that it has never, ever, EVER failed ". Again, Berkut is full of shit. No such claim was made. In fact, the position all along - and Berkut had ADMITTED IT - is that the "forcing Hamas to cut and run by playing wack-a-mole on them" is PART of a BUNCH of Israeli tactics, which COLLECTIVELY have rendered the rocket attacks progressively less effective.

Don't believe me - believe Berkut. Here is what he had to say, when his ass was NOT in the mangle for making dumb statements:

QuoteThe threat is at or near zero, because the rockets suck, the people using them are mostly incompetent, the threat of airstrikes makes effective use problematic, and the Israelis have an incredibly effective and sophisticated defense system.

To the underlined: yes, exactly.  :hmm: However, as you will note, the threat was obviously not "near zero" the whole time, as it resulted in 2000 casualties over the years.

Quote from: Berkut on July 17, 2014, 07:34:58 PM
If the guy with the spear is dumb enough to attack him, the soldier can certainly shoot him.

He probably should not shoot three other unarmed people who happen to be walking by, then claim that he he was just defending himself from the guy with the spear, and killing those other people was necessary to save himself from the spear guy.

He had to shoot the other guys. The spear guy was holding them hostage and using them as human shields.  If hostages get unavoidably killed in a shootout with police, are the police to blame, or the hostage-takers?

I don't think you quite understand what "reasonable" means in this context.  You keep arguing that the Israeli response isn't "reasonable" and, yet, it seems to have reason behind it, after all.  You might not agree with their reasoning, but to argue that the Israelis have abandoned reason, without any evidence to that effect, seems shrill.

Quote from: grumbler on July 18, 2014, 03:05:57 PM

Quote from: Berkut on July 17, 2014, 07:34:58 PM
If the guy with the spear is dumb enough to attack him, the soldier can certainly shoot him.

He probably should not shoot three other unarmed people who happen to be walking by, then claim that he he was just defending himself from the guy with the spear, and killing those other people was necessary to save himself from the spear guy.

He had to shoot the other guys. The spear guy was holding them hostage and using them as human shields.  If hostages get unavoidably killed in a shootout with police, are the police to blame, or the hostage-takers?

The hostage takers, of course.

That being said, if the police know there are human shields being used, they should mostly certainly take that into account and modify their tactics accordingly in order to minimize the risk to the hostages.

They need to decide if that risk is adequately balanced by a threat from the spear guy such that risking their lives is "reasonable" given the threat the spear chucker presents.

If previous interactions with spear chuckers has shown that their spears never hit anyone, and they don't really pose any actual threat, then blowing away the hostages to get at the spear guy is probably not reasonable.

Quote

I don't think you quite understand what "reasonable" means in this context.  You keep arguing that the Israeli response isn't "reasonable" and, yet, it seems to have reason behind it, after all.  You might not agree with their reasoning, but to argue that the Israelis have abandoned reason, without any evidence to that effect, seems shrill.

This context means their actions are reasonable, which has a different meaning from "reasoned".

Nicely done Malthus - way to add in another means of attack, then combine the numbers, then apply them to only one argument, how very Fox News of you.

It doesn't change anything though - the rockets are still totally ineffctive. 2000 injuries over 15000 attacks. and 28 fatalities over 14 years? You are proving MY point, not your own. And those casualty rates have declined considerably recently (presumably because of advancing Israeli technology) to an injury every 40 attacks, and a death ever 700 or so.

This compared to 300 odd Palestinian fatalities and more injuries in the last few weeks than Israel has seen over the last decade?

Sorry, my "facts" are just fine, at least insofar as the effectiveness of the attacks. They would be better off throwing rocks.

Quote from: Malthus on July 18, 2014, 02:34:42 PM
To the underlined: yes, exactly.  :hmm: However, as you will note, the threat was obviously not "near zero" the whole time, as it resulted in 2000 casualties over the years.

28 killed in 14 years? Compate that to how many have died in suicide bombings over that same time frame, I bet it is an order of magnitude greater.

The threat from rockets is trivial, if spectacular.

What they do accomplish is getting Israel to over-react. Mission accomplished.

Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2014, 03:44:31 PM
Nicely done Malthus - way to add in another means of attack, then combine the numbers, then apply them to only one argument, how very Fox News of you.

It doesn't change anything though - the rockets are still totally ineffctive. 2000 injuries over 15000 attacks. and 28 fatalities over 14 years? You are proving MY point, not your own. And those casualty rates have declined considerably recently (presumably because of advancing Israeli technology) to an injury every 40 attacks, and a death ever 700 or so.

This compared to 300 odd Palestinian fatalities and more injuries in the last few weeks than Israel has seen over the last decade?

Sorry, my "facts" are just fine, at least insofar as the effectiveness of the attacks. They would be better off throwing rocks.

Yes, I am quite sure that if someone fired rockets into the US killing an injuring 2,000 Americans, and putting whole US cities in fear over months and years, the only reasonable reaction would be to shrug it off as a mere nothing. Just some 'rock throwing'.

Do you really believe this?

In the end, if Israel really wanted to they have enough gunpowder to level all of Gaza, the WestBank and Syria to dust within 5 minutes.

Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2014, 03:48:31 PM

Quote from: Malthus on July 18, 2014, 02:34:42 PM
To the underlined: yes, exactly.  :hmm: However, as you will note, the threat was obviously not "near zero" the whole time, as it resulted in 2000 casualties over the years.

28 killed in 14 years? Compate that to how many have died in suicide bombings over that same time frame, I bet it is an order of magnitude greater.

The threat from rockets is trivial, if spectacular.

What they do accomplish is getting Israel to over-react. Mission accomplished.

I see that for some strange reason you are ignoring the 1,970 Israelis injured by rocket attacks. I guess they "don't count"? 

It is true that suicide bombing is more likely fatal. Actual *casualties* - that is, killed *and* wounded together - tell a different story: over the "last 14 years", the total number of casualties from suicide bombing has been: 1,395. So in fact *less* by a considerable margin than the total casualties from rocket/morter attacks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_casualties_of_war#Suicide_Bombings

Quote from: Malthus on July 18, 2014, 03:52:50 PM

Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2014, 03:44:31 PM
Nicely done Malthus - way to add in another means of attack, then combine the numbers, then apply them to only one argument, how very Fox News of you.

It doesn't change anything though - the rockets are still totally ineffctive. 2000 injuries over 15000 attacks. and 28 fatalities over 14 years? You are proving MY point, not your own. And those casualty rates have declined considerably recently (presumably because of advancing Israeli technology) to an injury every 40 attacks, and a death ever 700 or so.

This compared to 300 odd Palestinian fatalities and more injuries in the last few weeks than Israel has seen over the last decade?

Sorry, my "facts" are just fine, at least insofar as the effectiveness of the attacks. They would be better off throwing rocks.

Yes, I am quite sure that if someone fired rockets into the US killing an injuring 2,000 Americans, and putting whole US cities in fear over months and years, the only reasonable reaction would be to shrug it off as a mere nothing. Just some 'rock throwing'.

Do you really believe this?

And you accuse me of strawmen?

Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2014, 04:16:38 PM

Quote from: Malthus on July 18, 2014, 03:52:50 PM

Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2014, 03:44:31 PM
Nicely done Malthus - way to add in another means of attack, then combine the numbers, then apply them to only one argument, how very Fox News of you.

It doesn't change anything though - the rockets are still totally ineffctive. 2000 injuries over 15000 attacks. and 28 fatalities over 14 years? You are proving MY point, not your own. And those casualty rates have declined considerably recently (presumably because of advancing Israeli technology) to an injury every 40 attacks, and a death ever 700 or so.

This compared to 300 odd Palestinian fatalities and more injuries in the last few weeks than Israel has seen over the last decade?

Sorry, my "facts" are just fine, at least insofar as the effectiveness of the attacks. They would be better off throwing rocks.

Yes, I am quite sure that if someone fired rockets into the US killing an injuring 2,000 Americans, and putting whole US cities in fear over months and years, the only reasonable reaction would be to shrug it off as a mere nothing. Just some 'rock throwing'.

Do you really believe this?

And you accuse me of strawmen?

"They would be better off throwing rocks." Your words, not mine.

Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2014, 03:34:45 PM
The hostage takers, of course.

That being said, if the police know there are human shields being used, they should mostly certainly take that into account and modify their tactics accordingly in order to minimize the risk to the hostages.

Agreed.  The Israelis have arguably done this.

QuoteThey need to decide if that risk is adequately balanced by a threat from the spear guy such that risking their lives is "reasonable" given the threat the spear chucker presents.

Agreed.  The Israelis have arguably done this.

QuoteIf previous interactions with spear chuckers has shown that their spears never hit anyone, and they don't really pose any actual threat, then blowing away the hostages to get at the spear guy is probably not reasonable.

Agreed, but not applicable.  The Hamas rockets have hit things and killed people.  The Israelis are not required to play tit-for-tat.  They have a right to self-defense, within reason.  If the hostage takers only kill bystanders at a rate of one per six hours, that doesn't mean the police have to conclude that this rate is tolerable.

QuoteThis context means their actions are reasonable, which has a different meaning from "reasoned".

So you are arguing that the requirement of international law is purely subjective?  Saying that "reasonable" means "reasonable" doesn't advance your argument very far.

Quote from: grumbler on July 18, 2014, 04:24:51 PM

Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2014, 03:34:45 PM
The hostage takers, of course.

That being said, if the police know there are human shields being used, they should mostly certainly take that into account and modify their tactics accordingly in order to minimize the risk to the hostages.

Agreed.  The Israelis have arguably done this.

QuoteThey need to decide if that risk is adequately balanced by a threat from the spear guy such that risking their lives is "reasonable" given the threat the spear chucker presents.

Agreed.  The Israelis have arguably done this.

QuoteIf previous interactions with spear chuckers has shown that their spears never hit anyone, and they don't really pose any actual threat, then blowing away the hostages to get at the spear guy is probably not reasonable.

Agreed, but not applicable.  The Hamas rockets have hit things and killed people.  The Israelis are not required to play tit-for-tat.  They have a right to self-defense, within reason.  If the hostage takers only kill bystanders at a rate of one per six hours, that doesn't mean the police have to conclude that this rate is tolerable.

Exactly, they have a right to self defense within reason.

The effectiveness of the rocket attacks is nearly zero. The odds of a rocket killing or injuring someone are about as likely as the spear chucker killing a SWAT team member. Possible, but damn unlikely.

I think overall Israel has done a reasonable job, most of the time. If the reports that they've killed some 300 people and injured 1300 in air strikes, almost all of which are civlians, then I think that is not reasonable, given the threat posed by the rockets...which is, as Malthus data shows, about as dangerous (odds wise) as being hit by lightning in your lifetime.

Quote

QuoteThis context means their actions are reasonable, which has a different meaning from "reasoned".

So you are arguing that the requirement of international law is purely subjective? 

Doesn't sound like a debate I want to get into.

Quote
Saying that "reasonable" means "reasonable" doesn't advance your argument very far.

Saying that reasonable means reasonable, and not reasoned does a fine job of responding to your point though.

Quote from: Josephus on July 18, 2014, 01:13:14 PM
her'es a quick video of a siren that went as a woman was driving to work on the highway. She captures the specks in the sky which is the Iron Dome blowing up rockets. Her complaint, rightly, is that while protocol dictates that cars stop and people get out and go to ground, lots of cars don't stop...


https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10152221321985172&set=o.1488508684720081&type=2&theater

Death by siren?  I wonder if the Israelis will rethink their protocol as it seem the reaction to the alert may be more dangerous than the cause of the alert.

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 18, 2014, 05:00:14 PM

Quote from: Josephus on July 18, 2014, 01:13:14 PM
her'es a quick video of a siren that went as a woman was driving to work on the highway. She captures the specks in the sky which is the Iron Dome blowing up rockets. Her complaint, rightly, is that while protocol dictates that cars stop and people get out and go to ground, lots of cars don't stop...


https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10152221321985172&set=o.1488508684720081&type=2&theater

Death by siren?  I wonder if the Israelis will rethink their protocol as it seem the reaction to the alert may be more dangerous than the cause of the alert.

It's people who are not following the rules that are the problem. The protocol itself, duck and cover when rockets are going off, is not a bad one. The fact that trucks keeping rolling on oblivious to the problem is the danger.

Quote from: Josephus on July 18, 2014, 05:06:40 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 18, 2014, 05:00:14 PM

Quote from: Josephus on July 18, 2014, 01:13:14 PM
her'es a quick video of a siren that went as a woman was driving to work on the highway. She captures the specks in the sky which is the Iron Dome blowing up rockets. Her complaint, rightly, is that while protocol dictates that cars stop and people get out and go to ground, lots of cars don't stop...


https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10152221321985172&set=o.1488508684720081&type=2&theater

Death by siren?  I wonder if the Israelis will rethink their protocol as it seem the reaction to the alert may be more dangerous than the cause of the alert.

It's people who are not following the rules that are the problem. The protocol itself, duck and cover when rockets are going off, is not a bad one. The fact that trucks keeping rolling on oblivious to the problem is the danger.

Any policy that fails to take into consideration reality seems like a bad one.

Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2014, 04:40:04 PM
Agreed, but not applicable.  The Hamas rockets have hit things and killed people.  The Israelis are not required to play tit-for-tat.  They have a right to self-defense, within reason.  If the hostage takers only kill bystanders at a rate of one per six hours, that doesn't mean the police have to conclude that this rate is tolerable.

Exactly, they have a right to self defense within reason.

The effectiveness of the rocket attacks is nearly zero. The odds of a rocket killing or injuring someone are about as likely as the spear chucker killing a SWAT team member. Possible, but damn unlikely.[/quote]

I am afraid that i cannot accept your word for how effective rockets would be in the absence of counterfire.   In the presence of counterfire, the odds are low, I will grant you that. But, again, that doesn't mean that the Israeli's are obliged to find out how effective they are in the absence of counterfire.

QuoteI think overall Israel has done a reasonable job, most of the time. If the reports that they've killed some 300 people and injured 1300 in air strikes, almost all of which are civlians, then I think that is not reasonable, given the threat posed by the rockets...which is, as Malthus data shows, about as dangerous (odds wise) as being hit by lightning in your lifetime.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.  But that's what it is:  an opinion, and you haven't articulated any good reasons for it other than that you think it is "reasonable" and contrary opinions unreasonable.

Berkut,

I think it is unreasonable to expect that Isreal should not respond to attacks unless and until the enemy is able to mount a lethal strike.  Surely one of the objectives of a defence force is to prevent its citizens from being attacked with lethal force.  Your position seems to rest on the dubious assumption that the Israeli countermeasures are being carried out for some other purpose.  That is a serious allegation to make in the absence of any evidence. 

Quote from: grumbler on July 18, 2014, 05:22:39 PM
I am afraid that i cannot accept your word for how effective rockets would be in the absence of counterfire.   In the presence of counterfire, the odds are low, I will grant you that. But, again, that doesn't mean that the Israeli's are obliged to find out how effective they are in the absence of counterfire.

Obliged? I don't suppose they are "obliged" to, but that doesn't mean I think it is reasonable that they kill hundreds with counterfire because not doing so *might* result in something more than almost nothing, nor do I have to accept that those who are ok with hundreds dieing have any empathy for those dieing by the hundreds.

And again, the issue is not NO counterfire, it is more restrained counter fire.

Like maybe they didn't really have to drop a couple bombs on a beach today, killing 4 little kids.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/17/world/middleeast/gaza-strip-beach-explosion-kills-children.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/17/world/middleeast/gaza-strip-beach-explosion-kills-children.html)

Quote
Alon Ben-David, a well-sourced Israeli military affairs analyst, said on Israeli television that the first beach blast targeted a structure that Israel believed was used by Hamas. He said the second blast might have been aimed at the running children, perhaps mistaken for militants. He added that given the military's technologically advanced surveillance equipment, "it is a little hard for me to understand this, because the images show that the figures are children."

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic01.nyt.com%2Fimages%2F2014%2F07%2F17%2Fworld%2F07GAZA-1%2F07GAZA-1-master675.jpg&hash=7c15be612464e496f24bd2f48ea552bec0218d2d)

Now I don't look at a story like that and think that Israel is trying to blow away little kids - I am sure they hate it as much or more than any of us. But I do think that when you operate at a certain tempo, there is going to be accidents like this, and they are going to continue. Is that tempo really necessary? So far Hamas has fired over 1000 rockets since the 8th, and there has been one Israeli fatality as a result.

I don't find it credible to presume that given a current 0.1% success rate given current counterfire tempo, that that success rate is going to increase enough if they scale back their pre-emotive attacks on "suspected" positions to outweigh the very high current rate of civilian casualties we are seeing.

BTW, in regards to the actual numbers, the UN is saying there has been more than 150 civilian deaths, 40 of which have been children. So apparently the numbers aren't that far off, if they are off at all.

QuoteMore than 150 civilians, including more than 40 children, have been killed in Israel's air assaults in Gaza to curb militant rocket fire. Civilians make up about 75 percent of the Palestinian deaths, according to a running count by the United Nations.

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 18, 2014, 05:38:51 PM
Berkut,

I think it is unreasonable to expect that Isreal should not respond to attacks unless and until the enemy is able to mount a lethal strike.

That would certainly be very unreasonable.

But we aren't talking about "not responding" we are talking about responding by massive airstrikes into urban areas that result in mostly killing civilians, and not stopping rocket attacks anyway.

Quote
Surely one of the objectives of a defence force is to prevent its citizens from being attacked with lethal force.  Your position seems to rest on the dubious assumption that the Israeli countermeasures are being carried out for some other purpose.

My position is that *these* particular Israeli counter measures don't seem to be working to stop rocket attacks, result in massive collateral damage, and I don't think the Israelis, in this case, have come down on the right side of the "reasonable" response line.

Quote
  That is a serious allegation to make in the absence of any evidence. 

It seems odd to me that the person calling for restraint and consideration for the lives of civilians is the one being asked to provide all the evidence for their position. But those advocating for a policy that has resulted in some large number of dead civilians insist that we should simply presume that it is necessary, despite a complete lack of evidence that the rocket attacks are effective.

Quote from: Berkut on July 16, 2014, 02:53:47 PM
Israel certainly is not carpet bombing Gaza.

However, their bombing of Gaza that is ongoing does seem well out of proportion to the threat posed by the rocket attacks.

I'd rephrase that, but I don't know how. I think Israel's response in general is disproportionate to the gains they can expect.

For example there was the four children on the beach in front of the journalists' hotel who Israel killed. The Israeli defence is that they thought they were straggling fighters. My view is that the action that if they weren't sure and couldn't identify them, then the action that killed them was disproportionate. The risk, given that they only thought they were stragglers, that they were actually children or elderly men, or just innocent men, in my view was too high.

Similarly when they bombed the care home for the disabled. I literally cannot think of a high value enough target to justify the optics of actually bombing a care home, far less the actual suffering caused.

But I don't think the Israeli escalation is driven by a military response or need. I think it's political. Parts of Bibi's cabinet support re-occupying Gaza, from day one parts of his cabinet have been publicly saying that should be the politics and other ministers have openly criticised his policy (some of whom have been fired). I think the reason Israel's moving in now is because while Bibi maybe Obama-ish and love drones, bombs and special forces, a larger part of his coalition wants more full-scale military action and he's had to bend.

Especially after the Egyptians embarrassed themselves (incidentally, a question, raised by this conflict: what is the point of Egypt now?) and the Turks disqualified themselves with the ceasefire talks.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 18, 2014, 09:51:20 AM
I tend to side with the Berkut side of the debate in the sense that the Israeli offensive really is pointless and why heap even more suffering on this population for no end.  But really there is no good policy here.  Hamas' strategy revolves around  getting the people they are supposed to protect killed in the most media-attracting gruesome way possible, and one way or another they are going to get that job done.

I agree.

I'd add that Israel also has an interest in keeping Hamas going in some way because they do provide a structure and a reasonable level of order in Gaza most of the time, I mean Hamas have largely been trying to stop rockets launching into Israel since 2012. If Hamas were destroyed there'd be a civil war with, probably, far more severe consequences for Israel. They're radical in comparison to Fatah and Abbas, but the truth is that in Gaza there's Islamic Jihad, numerous al-Qaeda affiliates and probably soon there'll be a few ISIS affiliates.

I think Bibi, though perhaps not his cabinet, want to balance stopping Hamas's rocket capability with maintaining them in some way as the force in charge of Gaza as, short of Fatah, they're the best option.

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 18, 2014, 08:10:53 PM
I think Bibi, though perhaps not his cabinet, want to balance stopping Hamas's rocket capability with maintaining them in some way as the force in charge of Gaza as, short of Fatah, they're the best option.

Hamas is an organization whose entire raison d'etre is struggle with Israel, they are incapable of ever coming to a deal with Israel.  And, frankly, vice versa.  Fatah is a non-entity.  They are corrupt and have no legitimacy.  I guess there could conceivably be a worse organizations running the Palestinians but it is hard for me to conceive what they might look like.  I mean sure there could be ISIS but what would they do besides get killed by the Israelis?

Quote from: Valmy on July 18, 2014, 08:44:00 PM
Hamas is an organization whose entire raison d'etre is struggle with Israel, they are incapable of ever coming to a deal with Israel.  And, frankly, vice versa.  Fatah is a non-entity.  They are corrupt and have no legitimacy.  I guess there could conceivably be a worse organizations running the Palestinians but it is hard for me to conceive what they might look like.  I mean sure there could be ISIS but what would they do besides get killed by the Israelis?

I think saying Hamas is an organisation is putting a bit strongly. They're several organisations in a not very coherent or often terribly clear structure. Which is part of the problem. At the minute it looks like the military wing within Gaza are in the driving seat. Of course the other fact is that things change whether it's the PLO, the IRA (in various incarnations), Menachem Begin or Ariel Sharon, situations drive people and organisations to seek unthinkable settlements with alarming regularity.

Fatah isn't strong in Gaza. But let's remember that there was an election, which Hamas won, and Fatah tried to seize control in Gaza. But they run the West Bank. So it's a bit mad to say they're a non-entity. They're as much of an entity as Hamas, despite not getting attention through violence.

However my point isn't that Israel and Hamas can negotiate a peace. All I'm saying is the best situation for Israel would be if Fatah were in control of Gaza. After that I think the best situation is that Hamas is in charge - yes, there are circumstances like now, but they have been stopping other groups from attacking Israel since 2012 and they have reached deals on peripheral issues - I think the dirty secret of both sides is that they can kind of live with each other, doing the same old things. I mean since Hamas took over in 2007 this is only the second big conflict. Most of the time they're able to talk through back channels and pull back.

I don't think any of that's a given in a situation of Gazan anarchy with it inevitably becoming the most important site for international jihadis.

I could be wrong but my suspicion is that the part of the Israeli government (including Bibi) that doesn't want to reoccupy Gaza doesn't want to crush Hamas. They want to, as far as possible, remove their rocket capability but not destroy them.

Do you guys think that Israel is secretly controlled by the Jews?

Didn't know Calgary had Jews.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi1IqwKFAxA&feature=share

11,000 people at yesterday's protests according to police (organizers say 30,000). The whole thing was peaceful, though a few people collapsed, with temperatures going up to the mid-30s, and a lot of the participants observing the Ramadan fasting during the day.

The organizers say they're not antisemites but pro-human, calling for an end to the slaughter of thousands of innocents in Gaza.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffiles2.orf.at%2Fslides2%2Fwienmagazin%2F48809%2F188756%2F1405869744422_nf1wohkg.jpg&hash=27ac87d1470a2a4c38238ff682a9c8ebb633e78a)

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffiles2.orf.at%2Fslides2%2Fwienmagazin%2F48809%2F188757%2F1405869744534_001c96q9.jpg&hash=c6b2b640570aede9bafc8218689334eea98b238f)

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.derstandard.at%2F2014%2F07%2F20%2Fdemo1.jpg&hash=80d5851a456290811db8ae9426d337f090019c29)

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.derstandard.at%2Fc%2FfHwyNSwwLDc3NSw1MDB8REMyN0I3N0MyQTI3OTIwQkM1MUNDMDNGQUQxRDhDRTY%3D%2F2014%2F07%2F20%2Fdemowien_1.jpg&hash=dc0357541248629c730692affc16d5dd1f822667)

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.diepresse.com%2Fimages%2Fuploads_930%2Fd%2Fc%2Fd%2F3841485%2Fwien03_1405874515166717.jpg&hash=ab1f912627b010b4767561dee4e98aa5a4e9a40a)

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.diepresse.com%2Fimages%2Fuploads_930%2Fd%2Fc%2Fd%2F3841485%2Fwien08_1405874517764622.jpg&hash=7d7a5513d4857ac76b934f7892e1ae641879b8f5)

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.diepresse.com%2Fimages%2Fuploads_930%2Fd%2Fc%2Fd%2F3841485%2Fwien09_1405874518297490.jpg&hash=b1a72e064dcb1bd7adc5c76fb21c239ea7c88532)

Meanwhile, in Paris:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/19/us-palestinians-israel-france-idUSKBN0FO0OY20140719

QuotePro-Palestinian protesters clash with police in Paris

(Reuters) - Pro-Palestinian protesters clashed with police in Paris on Saturday as they defied a ban on a planned rally against violence in the Gaza strip.

A Reuters photographer said demonstrators in northern Paris launched projectiles at riot police, who responded by firing teargas canisters and stun grenades.

Demonstrators also climbed on top of a building and burned an Israeli flag. At least one car was set on fire.

A police spokesman said that 38 demonstrators had been arrested by early evening and that the clashes were dying down.

However, dozens of police trucks were seen rolling into the narrow streets of the historically Jewish Marais neighborhood where French media said groups of protesters had assembled.

President Francois Hollande earlier said he had asked his interior minister to ban protests that could turn violent after demonstrators marched on two synagogues in Paris last weekend and clashed with riot police.

"That's why I asked the interior minister, after an investigation, to ensure that such protests would not take place," he told journalists during a visit to Chad.

In defiance of the ban, large crowds gathered in northern Paris chanting "Israel, assassin" until they were dispersed by tear gas.

Peaceful rallies were also held in more than a dozen other cities, from Lille in the north to Marseille in the south.

"This ban on demonstrations, which was decided at the last minute, actually increases the risk of public disorder," the Greens Party said in a statement. "It's a first in Europe."

Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve justified bans in Paris and the Mediterranean city of Nice by saying the security risk was too great, prompting outrage from left-wing and pro-Palestinian groups.

Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius responded to criticism France was biased in favor of Israel, which sent ground forces in on Thursday after 10 days of air and naval barrages failed to stop rocket fire from Gaza.

"In no way does this mean that the French government has taken a position against the Palestinians," he told journalists during a visit to Jordan.

TENSIONS HIGH

Elsewhere in Europe, a man set off a security alert in Geneva when he stopped a tram to retrieve bags that included a book with a radical Islamist image in it, police said.

The alert coincided with a demonstration against Israel's assault on Gaza that drew some 300 protesters to the front of the U.N. European headquarters in the Swiss city.

In London, thousands of pro-Palestinian demonstrators marched peacefully clutching Palestinian flags and banners reading "Stop the bombing" and "Free Palestine" before congregating outside of the Israeli embassy.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has contributed to growing tensions between France's Muslim and Jewish populations, both of which are the largest in Europe.

In the first three months of 2014 more Jews left France for Israel than at any other time since the Jewish state was created in 1948, with many citing rising anti-Semitism as a factor.

Yeah I am reading a short summary of the We Are Not Antisemites protests around Europe and North Africa this past few days:

Allegedly:
-a synagogue in Paris was surrounded and an a good-old fashioned European pogrom almost took place
-another synagogue was Molotoved near Paris
-lotsa' protests in France in general, allegedly yelling for the destruction of Jews in Arabic
-in German cities the far-left and far-right united in protest against "cionist aggression"
-in Gelsenkirchen, they wanted to "gas the Jews"
-in Frankfurt, protesters had the opportunity to use a police car's loud speaker: http://jungle-world.com/jungleblog/2841/
-in Turkey, a pro-government newspaper said that the Jewish community in Turkey supports the murder of children: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0%2C7340%2CL-4545097%2C00.html
-in Marocco a rabbi was beaten up for "what happens in Gaza"
-in Australia a former Israeli soldier was stabbed for the same

People always talk about the identity crisis of the EU. The solution is quite evident from that list: put the Endlosung on official EU agenda, and the people will rally under the blue flag.

Quote from: Tamas on July 21, 2014, 03:40:28 AM
Yeah I am reading a short summary of the We Are Not Antisemites protests around Europe and North Africa this past few days:

Allegedly:
-a synagogue in Paris was surrounded and an a good-old fashioned European pogrom almost took place
-another synagogue was Molotoved near Paris
-lotsa' protests in France in general, allegedly yelling for the destruction of Jews in Arabic

People always talk about the identity crisis of the EU. The solution is quite evident from that list: put the Endlosung on official EU agenda, and the people will rally under the blue flag.

That should tell you how French are these anti-jew people. Most of them are thugs which benefit from the lax immigration and justice policies of left-wing governments. But then, even a football game with Algeria involved was enough for good old-fashioned rioting...
As for yelling in Arabic, I guess some people could twist it into see at last they are speaking a language, a real one, not just some illiterate delinquent sociolect, but I don't see the point.
As for France, the Jewish Defense League (Jewish Extreme right-wing too extreme for the official French Jewish umbrella org called CRIF) is still not banned. The current troubles will no doubt boost their membership.
FN will benefit as well, as they have always been under a PS government. They are quite quiet right now and are not showing up on Pro-Palestine rallies (sorry Tamas).
Soral and Dieudonné followers will claim this is the result of Louis Alliot's "zionist" line. Louis Alliot is the companion of Marine Le Pen.

Lots of Muslims voted for Hollande (90%). However, in view of his perceived pro-Israeli attitude, homosexual marriage and focus on gender theories at school but not basic skills, they are regretting it.
They are probably missing Sarkozy right now  :lol: who was once described as "pro-zionist" but had a falling out with Netanyahu. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/world/middleeast/in-overheard-comments-nicolas-sarkozy-calls-benjamin-netanyahu-a-liar.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/world/middleeast/in-overheard-comments-nicolas-sarkozy-calls-benjamin-netanyahu-a-liar.html)
However, rioting under the cover of a protest of the Gaza operation, even if "criminal", is unacceptable. The conflict ought to say localised in the Near East.


PS: Missed the one in Frankfurt, on the Zeil means it's not like it happened in an ethnic enclave as in Paris but in a smaller-scale Champs-Élysées.
The synagog near Paris was the one in Sarcelles? That's Strauss-Kahn city. There used to be lots of Sefaradi there. They are going the Siege way, as well trying to move out of this suburb, gentrifying even more Paris.

Syt

The accidents you mentioned happened in the 10. Bezirk equivalent of Paris. Recently, an arthouse cinema opened there but it's not enough for boboisation.

10th District isn't the most multicultural, that'd be 15th or 16th. Or perhaps 20th.

Quote from: Syt on July 21, 2014, 05:38:58 AM
10th District isn't the most multicultural, that'd be 15th or 16th. Or perhaps 20th.

Barbès is hardly multicultural. It's North African mostly.

http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/07/15/hamas-uses-horror-movie-still-of-headless-girl-in-miniskirt-to-depict-gaza-casualties-on-social-media-warning-graphic-video/

Rocket attacks have generated a low body count in large part, I presume, because of Israel's early warning, home shelter, and interception systems. 

What would constitute a proportionate response to that?

Quote from: Syt on July 21, 2014, 12:11:18 AM
11,000 people at yesterday's protests according to police (organizers say 30,000). The whole thing was peaceful, though a few people collapsed, with temperatures going up to the mid-30s, and a lot of the participants observing the Ramadan fasting during the day.

The organizers say they're not antisemites but pro-human, calling for an end to the slaughter of thousands of innocents in Gaza.

closer to the truth would be stating that they generally are anti-semites, joining by usueful idiots and die-hard communists

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 21, 2014, 01:42:12 PM
Rocket attacks have generated a low body count in large part, I presume, because of Israel's early warning, home shelter, and interception systems. 

What would constitute a proportionate response to that?

Salting of the land and selling of its inhabitants on the arab-slavemarkets. Call it conflict-resolution Roman style.

http://www.israellycool.com/2014/07/20/analysis-of-gazans-killed-so-far-in-operation-protective-edge/

A slightly more systematic analysis than the one I did earlier.

QuoteAnalysis Of Gazans Killed So Far In Operation Protective Edge
Posted by: Aussie Dave  July 20, 2014

Some of the claims I am seeing online include how the vast majority of Gazans killed are civilians, and how Israel is deliberately targeting them.
Regarding the latter, we all know this is nonsense – if Israel wanted to kill civilians it would carpet bomb Gaza. It is precisely because we want to avoid civilian casualties, that we opt for pinpoint strikes and ground operations, at risk to our soldiers' lives.
But what about the first claim? Are the vast majority civilians?
Without having all of the terrorist obituaries or intel to prove who was a terrorist, this is hard to analyze. But what we do have is a list of the names and ages of those killed so far, which does provide us with some insights.
An anonymous Israellycool reader and her family spent countless hours going over this list from Al Jazeera – a media outlet that can't be accused of slanting things Israel's way. The reader's main findings regarding the casualties to date are as follows:

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.israellycool.com%2Fwordpress%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fgraph1.jpg&hash=a8aa4cefb058f3f76b69bcda8dc80b303d29d32b)

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.israellycool.com%2Fwordpress%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fgraph-3.jpg&hash=0abe2cd52b3a4a9807ff42522d73685770cd4937)

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.israellycool.com%2Fwordpress%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fgraph-3.jpg&hash=0abe2cd52b3a4a9807ff42522d73685770cd4937)

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.israellycool.com%2Fwordpress%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fgraph4.jpg&hash=fe0da1acb56bda4a9d10c167fa34d33bc782ec7f)

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.israellycool.com%2Fwordpress%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fgraph2.jpg&hash=bc4d4f79a4a9ce0966fe2ef6e4c5f7071f6b95c9)

As you can see, over 80% of Gazans killed so far have been male, with almost half of these males being in the 18-28 age group. One can imagine many of these being "combatants." A further 20% of these males are between 29 and 48, an age group one could envisage may also contain many Hamas members.
In other words, these figures bring into question how many of those killed were really innocent civilians.
What these figures also indicate is if Israel was indiscriminately killing Gazans, the representation in terms of gender and age would be broader (with relatively more children killed than the approx 18%, considering nearly 50% of Gazans are under the age of 14).
Update: Even way back in 2008, Israellycool linked to Bret Stephens in the Wall Street Journal who noticed Palestinian sources have always reported far too many male casualties to back up the claim of indiscriminate killing by the IDF, let alone the crazy charge of deliberately targeting civilians.

I actually think the operation is more justifiable now that the IDF is at least trying to accomplish some kind of strategic objective.  Although it doesn't seem worth it - how hard it is to dig a bunch of new tunnels?

Another thing that struck me is that all the international protests and pressure are probably having the unintended effect of causing the Israelis to rush and increase tempo to try to end their incursion faster, thus leading to higher casualties for both sides . . .

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2014, 10:16:52 AM
I actually think the operation is more justifiable now that the IDF is at least trying to accomplish some kind of strategic objective.  Although it doesn't seem worth it - how hard it is to dig a bunch of new tunnels?

I actually agree - there will be more casualties, of course, but at least Israel seems to be trying to accomplish something, rather than just bomb some shit so people can feel like they are doing something.

Quote
Another thing that struck me is that all the international protests and pressure are probably having the unintended effect of causing the Israelis to rush and increase tempo to try to end their incursion faster, thus leading to higher casualties for both sides . . .

Doesn't this always work like that? Israel tries to get as much done as they can until the demands for a cease fire calls a halt?

Quote from: Tamas on July 21, 2014, 07:34:25 AM
http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/07/15/hamas-uses-horror-movie-still-of-headless-girl-in-miniskirt-to-depict-gaza-casualties-on-social-media-warning-graphic-video/

Had this even been a real photo, odds would favor Hamas having done that to a girl wearing a miniskirt in Gaza.

Quote from: Syt on July 21, 2014, 12:11:18 AM
The organizers say they're not antisemites but pro-human, calling for an end to the slaughter of thousands of innocents in Gaza.

Pfft sure.  If it was Egypt or ISIS or somebody going through Gaza murdering everybody they wouldn't care at all.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2014, 10:16:52 AM
I actually think the operation is more justifiable now that the IDF is at least trying to accomplish some kind of strategic objective.  Although it doesn't seem worth it - how hard it is to dig a bunch of new tunnels?

Another thing that struck me is that all the international protests and pressure are probably having the unintended effect of causing the Israelis to rush and increase tempo to try to end their incursion faster, thus leading to higher casualties for both sides . . .

I disagree. I think the ground operation was a mistake - it is bound to vastly increase the number of civilian casualties, purely for the purpose of *appearing* to do something.

Chromeo is still together, so not all is lost.

Quote from: derspiess on July 22, 2014, 02:13:12 PM
Chromeo is still together, so not all is lost.

How is that relevant? :unsure:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGksDvKZ9ek

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BtQdpA3CUAA1Bvl.jpg)

God, I just saw these photos yesterday, as well. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/07/22/france-jewish-shops-riot_n_5608612.html

:angry:

Really French Anti-Semites?  Broken glass?

Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 22, 2014, 11:36:37 PM

Quote from: derspiess on July 22, 2014, 02:13:12 PM
Chromeo is still together, so not all is lost.

How is that relevant? :unsure:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGksDvKZ9ek

One guy is a Jew and the other is an Arab. 

Quote from: Tamas on July 24, 2014, 06:16:05 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BtQdpA3CUAA1Bvl.jpg)

I laughed my ass off.

Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2014, 08:44:29 AM
Really French Anti-Semites?  Broken glass?

Ugh and I made the mistake of looking at the comment section...

Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2014, 09:24:55 AM

Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2014, 08:44:29 AM
Really French Anti-Semites?  Broken glass?

Ugh and I made the mistake of looking at the comment section...

Jew-hating?  Muslim-hating?  Combination of the two?  This Israel-Palestine stuff is ugly enough without all the temper tantrums it causes throughout Euroland all the time.

Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2014, 09:49:39 AM

Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2014, 09:24:55 AM

Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2014, 08:44:29 AM
Really French Anti-Semites?  Broken glass?

Ugh and I made the mistake of looking at the comment section...

Jew-hating?  Muslim-hating?  Combination of the two?  This Israel-Palestine stuff is ugly enough without all the temper tantrums it causes throughout Euroland all the time.

Well I didn't spend that much time. I exited as soon as I saw "well rockets don't really hurt many people" and "myth."

Quote from: Tamas on July 24, 2014, 06:16:05 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BtQdpA3CUAA1Bvl.jpg)

The perps have been identified as Turks. The Austrian intelligence service is investigating. Politicians from all parties have condemned the attacks.

Who are they attacking?  Is that guy an Israeli or something?

Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2014, 08:44:29 AM
Really French Anti-Semites?  Broken glass?

Most of these anti-semites are not only of foreign origin AND anti-French, anti-West as well, Not to mention demonstrations organised by amateurs as these regularly end with rioting since there is real security and they get infiltrated very easily.
By Derspiess' criteria anyways, they would not be considered French.
Last demo went okay btw.


In other news, a Kurd wearing a red keffieh ended in court since the cops thought he might a dangerous anti-semite.

QuoteJuste après F. comparaît E., 26 ans, ingénieur, arrêté samedi à Bastille suite à une altercation avec des policiers et au port d'un keffieh. «Mais je suis kurde ! Je n'étais pas en train de manifester, proteste-t-il. Mon keffieh est rouge ! Cela n'a rien à voir avec le keffieh noir des Palestiniens.» E. explique qu'il a vu une femme voilée chuter à terre devant un cordon de CRS, qu'il a voulu courir la relever et que c'est là qu'on l'a interpellé. Au bout de quinze minutes d'interrogatoire, il craque : «Écoutez, je ne voulais pas dire ça, mais vous allez m'y pousser... Je suis désolé pour ceux qui sont propalestiniens dans la salle mais... la Palestine, j'en ai rien à foutre. Je suis kurde. Qu'est-ce qui attaque le peuple kurde en Syrie ? C'est le Hezbollah. Et le Hezbollah, c'est le premier à défendre la Palestine.» Le procureur ne croit pas à son discours, ni à «l'étrange coïncidence» de sa présence devant un cordon de CRS. Il rappelle sa «rébellion» à l'interpellation et réclame quatre mois de prison avec sursis. Après délibéré, E. est relaxé.

http://www.liberation.fr/societe/2014/07/22/elle-ne-va-pas-payer-pour-tout-ce-qui-s-est-passe-a-barbes_1068007 (http://www.liberation.fr/societe/2014/07/22/elle-ne-va-pas-payer-pour-tout-ce-qui-s-est-passe-a-barbes_1068007)

Red keffieh= kurt black/white keffieh = Palestine
I thought red keffieh meant pro-PFLP  :hmm:

He should not have opposed the ID checking I guess and is not so good at finding excuses.

Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2014, 10:40:02 AM
Who are they attacking?  Is that guy an Israeli or something?

Israeli team playing (Maccabi Haifa) in Austria vs Lille.

I'm amazed that Grallon has come and said: "I told you so"

http://www.der-postillon.com/2013/08/unesco-erklart-nahostkonflikt-zum.html

My translation from German:

QuoteUNESCO declares Middle East Conflict World Cultural Heritage

Paris, Jerusalem (dpo) - The UNESCO has today officially declared the Middle East Conflict a World Cultural Heritage. The organization wants to ensure that one of the most important monuments to human idiocy is protected from possibly being destroyed one day through empathy and willingness to compromise. The recent attempts at mediation by the USA and Egypt are not seen as threat by the UNESCO but rather as part of the conflict that deserves protecting.

UNESCO speaker Michelle Levevre explains the surprising addition to the list of World Heritage: "With its history of more than a century the Middle East Conflict is one of the few constants of modern times. The roots of the dispute reach back into antiquity. Additionally, the Middle East Conflict is a much better testimonial to the character of humanity than all pyramids, castles and Buddha statues combined."

Protected is the Middle East Conflict as comprehensive work. According to the UNESCO this not only includes shrill, uncompromising hardliners, suicide attacks, missile attacks, bombings, violence against children and civilians, or unshakeable belief on both sides to be well within their right to commit those acts. All peace talks are also considered protected part of the Middle East Conflict - as long as they remain without success or consequence and only serve to increase the standing of the third parties involved in the process.

The decision was unanimous after the members of the World Heritage board determined that the Middle East Conflict easily fulfilled most of the ten criterias required for protection (e.g. "master piece of human ingenuity", "exceptional example of cultural tradition" etc.).

Both Israel and the Palestinian National Authority claimed full credit for the elevation of the Middle East Conflict to World Cultural Heritage and promised to do anything necessary to prevent misuse of the title by the other side.

As in other cases the UNESCO is obligated tointervene in case the Middle East Conflict should be threatened in in any way. The organization is confident, however, that this won't be necessary in the coming decades.

Beautiful.  It is a national shame they beat the Onion to it.

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on July 24, 2014, 01:35:50 PM
I'm amazed that Grallon has come and said: "I told you so"

Not sure how keen he is on Jews either.

Die Presse commented today, that some young Turks in Austria might be taking their cues from Erdogan who frequently riles against the Jews (he called Israel's behavior in Gaza literally "worse than Hitler", blamed them for the troubles in Egypt, for the Gezi protests etc.). And that for some immigrants who are searching for identity the conflict creates an "Us" (Muslims) vs. "Them" situation that gives them a feeling of belonging.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcontent.gallup.com%2Forigin%2Fgallupinc%2FGallupSpaces%2FProduction%2FCms%2FPOLL%2Fbfqtv1eidusbmbrxcsrjea.png&hash=831d6641dc1a006f1ad68336ebaa2021b7df3b0f)

Come on, Berkut.  Be a guy...

Apparently the more uneducated you are the more pro-Palestinian you are :hmm:

Quote from: derspiess on July 25, 2014, 04:21:38 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcontent.gallup.com%2Forigin%2Fgallupinc%2FGallupSpaces%2FProduction%2FCms%2FPOLL%2Fbfqtv1eidusbmbrxcsrjea.png&hash=831d6641dc1a006f1ad68336ebaa2021b7df3b0f)

Come on, Berkut.  Be a guy...

In the context of that poll, I would come down on "Justified".

Overall, I think they are justified - in some particulars I think their chosen tactics are not justified.

IT WORKED!!

Quote from: Valmy on July 25, 2014, 04:22:45 PM
Apparently the more uneducated you are the more pro-Palestinian you are :hmm:

That's because these people never go to classes at university. They're always "raising awareness".

I think it's counterproductive.  I don't know if they were Justified or not.  Wasn't following it to closely.  Were the Israeli teens actually murdered on Hamas orders or not?

Quote from: derspiess on July 25, 2014, 04:21:38 PM
Come on, Berkut.  Be a guy...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qtrAMK7_Qk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qtrAMK7_Qk)

Quote from: Berkut on July 25, 2014, 04:32:20 PM
In the context of that poll, I would come down on "Justified".

Overall, I think they are justified - in some particulars I think their chosen tactics are not justified.

Sorry, only black-and-white or "don't know" answers are acceptable.

I share your concerns but we differ on degree.  That's all good.  Debate is good, unless it is not of the "What's wrong with you?" variety.

I'm probably going to get some flak for this, but the conflict is a lot about getting worldwide support.

So far the Hamas is killing less children with their attacks than the IDF. This obviously goes out in most media outlets.
However, I am not blind. What I see is a use of disproportionate force against people who are being held hostage by a bunch of bearded clerics, gladly using them as pawns in a game of garnering more support by the moral outrage of a generally hostile opinion towards Israel in most of Europe.

The carnage itself is terrible. These people have very few places to run. As a human being, I feel extremely bad about this whole thing.

Quote from: Norgy on July 25, 2014, 05:40:44 PM
I'm probably going to get some flak for this, but the conflict is a lot about getting worldwide support.

So far the Hamas is killing less children with their attacks than the IDF. This obviously goes out in most media outlets.
However, I am not blind. What I see is a use of disproportionate force against people who are being held hostage by a bunch of bearded clerics, gladly using them as pawns in a game of garnering more support by the moral outrage of a generally hostile opinion towards Israel in most of Europe.

The carnage itself is terrible. These people have very few places to run. As a human being, I feel extremely bad about this whole thing.

No reason to feel bad about that opinion.  I'd bet it is shared by every sane person on the planet.  The "hostage populace" problem is, morally, the hardest one there is.  None of those six-year-old girls at Hiroshima deserved to die.

What I find puzzling is Syria is billed as the civil war of massive indiscriminate killing, yet apparently two thirds of the casualties aren't civilians. Whereas the Gazan operation is supposedly one of precision targeting by one side. 

Well, little Masanao Uehara did.  He had already killed like three neighborhood cats and was probably going to grow up to be a serial killer.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BtqwIkvCIAEJ2pi.jpg)


I remember those two attacks making rounds in the press as Evil Israel Strikes Again news.

Quote from: Valmy on July 25, 2014, 04:22:45 PM
Apparently the more uneducated you are the more pro-Palestinian you are :hmm:

not unexpected

Quote from: Tamas on July 29, 2014, 08:48:16 AM
I remember those two attacks making rounds in the press as Evil Israel Strikes Again news.

Greenwald was all over that one.  He is quite the Palestinian stooge isn't he?  He just reports whatever they feed him.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-a-rizvi/post_8056_b_5602701.html

It is incredible how hard it is to find any actual nuance at all.

You are either a jew hating anti-semite terrorist supporter, or a baby killing warmonger.

Quote from: Valmy on July 29, 2014, 02:04:45 PM

Quote from: Tamas on July 29, 2014, 08:48:16 AM
I remember those two attacks making rounds in the press as Evil Israel Strikes Again news.

Greenwald was all over that one.  He is quite the Palestinian stooge isn't he?  He just reports whatever they feed him.

The point of the educated journalist is in part to explain what the event mean and put them in context. It is not to parrot the reuters news feed.

Picture from earlier today:

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FH0NSLBk.jpg&hash=d531c875bcc65c6b5d6f14a2c334897874395db5)

Video of the explosion: http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/50691002

Based on the secondary explosions I'm guessing they hit what they were aiming for.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 30, 2014, 12:00:36 AM
Based on the secondary explosions I'm guessing they hit what they were aiming for.

That's what I was thinking. :D

"Those monsters!  They hit our peaceful firecracker, fuel oil, and fertilizer depot!"

This is exactly what Hamas wants.  They provoke the Israelis into attacking them and then try to show the world how evil the Israelis are.  I wonder if the best way to save Palestinian lives is just to ignore the whole thing so Hamas would not think this is a good strategy.  I mean presuming anybody gives a crap about Palestinian lives.

Quote from: Valmy on July 30, 2014, 08:05:27 AM
This is exactly what Hamas wants.  They provoke the Israelis into attacking them and then try to show the world how evil the Israelis are.  I wonder if the best way to save Palestinian lives is just to ignore the whole thing so Hamas would not think this is a good strategy.  I mean presuming anybody gives a crap about Palestinian lives.

I guess we should expect this from a people who a few thousand years ago roasted their own children alive.  Sacrificing their own children must just be in their blood or something.

More seriously I find the cynical manipulation of militarizing hospitals and playgrounds just so you can show off dead children repulsive.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28544391

QuoteTurkey PM Erdogan returns US Jewish award in Israel row

Turkey's Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is returning an award he received in 2004 from the American Jewish Congress, which has accused him of "dangerous rhetoric" against Israel.

Last week the New York-based lobby group said Mr Erdogan was "inciting the Turkish population to violence against the Jewish people".

It asked him to hand back the award, granted for Middle East peace efforts.

Turkey's ambassador to the US said Mr Erdogan would be "glad" to do so.

Ambassador Serdar Kilic said Mr Erdogan should not be expected to turn a blind eye to Israel's actions in Gaza and the West Bank.

"Attempts to depict Prime Minister Erdogan's legitimate criticisms of the Israeli government's attacks on civilians as expressions of anti-Semitism is an obvious distortion and an effort to cover up the historical wrongdoings of the Israeli government," Mr Kilic said in a letter quoted by the Turkish news website Hurriyet.

Mr Erdogan is campaigning to be elected president next month and has sharply criticised Israel's military offensive against Palestinian Hamas militants in Gaza, where more than 1,100 people have died, most of them civilians.

Ah well what else is new?  Erdogan is fighting for the Pals now.

Quote from: Berkut on July 29, 2014, 02:08:21 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-a-rizvi/post_8056_b_5602701.html

It is incredible how hard it is to find any actual nuance at all.

You are either a jew hating anti-semite terrorist supporter, or a baby killing warmonger.

This is the best piece I've read on it. Not least because it sums up my views:

QuoteLiberal Zionism After Gaza
Jonathan Freedland

Never do liberal Zionists feel more torn than when Israel is at war. Days after I'd filed my essay for The New York Review on Ari Shavit and his fellow liberal Zionists, the perennial tension between Israel and the Palestinians had flared into violent confrontation and, eventually, a war in Gaza—the third such military clash in five years. For liberal Zionists these are times when the dual nature of their position is tested, some would say to destruction. What the Israel Defense Forces called Operation Protective Edge—a large-scale mobilization that by the time a twelve-hour "humanitarian truce" was agreed on July 26 had reached its nineteenth day—was no different.

Even during the grim chain of events that led to this episode, liberal Zionists found themselves facing both ways, switching direction day-by-day, even hour-by-hour. Of course, they, like everyone else, condemned the brutal June kidnapping of three Israeli teenagers on the West Bank, an act immediately blamed on the Hamas leadership (falsely so, it later turned out: the kidnapping was, in fact, the work of a local "lone cell," acting without authorization). But some felt queasy during the subsequent two-week Israeli operation to root out Hamas militants there, referred to as "mowing the lawn," not least because several Palestinian civilians were killed in the process. Still, it was hard to criticize too loudly, because that effort was conducted under the cover of a search for the three missing teens and, by then, the three were the object of a campaign that encompassed the global Jewish diaspora: #BringBackOurBoys.

Few of these campaigners knew that the Israeli authorities had, in fact, established from the start that the boys were dead and apparently withheld that information from the public. Naturally, liberal Zionists condemned the Hamas response to the West Bank lawn mowing—the resumption of rocket fire from Gaza into southern Israel—but they hoped Benjamin Netanyahu's government would react with restraint. And of course the eventual discovery of the teenagers' corpses had liberal Zionists standing in solidarity with Israel during its hour of national grief. But when that led to the revenge kidnapping and murder by Jewish extremists of a Palestinian teenager from East Jerusalem, forced by his abductors to drink gasoline and then set alight, they were appalled at what furies had been unleashed.

This constantly dual posture—defense of Israel paired with horror at the violation of liberal values—only became more pronounced as the military operation gathered steam. The Israeli novelist and veteran peacenik, Amos Oz, likes to say Zionism is a surname, a family name that can sit alongside a wide range of different first names: socialist, religious, revisionist, and so on. In this sense, liberal Zionists remain part of the Israel-supporting family and, when the family is under assault, they feel their place is at Israel's side. Accordingly, they cannot help but sympathize with and echo the key elements of the case for Israel's defense.

So they asked—genuinely, not just as a hasbara talking point—what any other country would do in a similar position. As Shavit wrote in Haaretz, "Barack Obama's United States would never accept al-Qaeda rocket fire on Miami Beach, Washington, D.C. or New York City. David Cameron's Britain would never accept a terror attack in Manchester, Birmingham, or London." They insisted that when Israel mounted air strikes against Gaza it was no more than a straightforward act of self-defense.

But the first week of Protective Edge produced awkward statistics. The Palestinian death toll kept climbing while Israel's remained stubbornly at zero. (Israel's first casualty came on July 15.) Liberal Zionists were ready with the reply that Israel too would be suffering casualties in serious numbers were it not for the Iron Dome defense system: if Hamas was not succeeding in killing civilians, it was not through lack of trying.

Similar lines of argument were readily deployed, even as the violence escalated and Palestinian civilians began dying in greater numbers. Hamas fighters were ultimately responsible, it was said, because of their willingness to embed themselves among Gaza's most vulnerable people, using them as human shields. Hamas commanders had spent millions on bunkers for themselves and on cement-lined tunnels to attack Israel, rather than on bomb shelters for their own people. If the TV pictures looked horrific, that was partly because of the media's application of different rules when it comes to covering Israeli wars. US bombs had wrought similar havoc in Iraq and Afghanistan—orphaning children and wiping out whole families—it was just the world's media were not gathered on the spot, and in a small, concentrated space, to cover it.

For Zionists of the right, repeating these arguments came easily. But liberal Zionists felt conflicted. A death rate that saw civilians account for four out of every five Palestinians killed—and that by July 25, according to the UN, included nearly 200 children—was hard to defend. Earlier this week, the former editor-in-chief of Haaretz, David Landau, wrote that it was no longer good enough to rely on the traditional hasbara sound bite that, while Hamas deliberately targets civilians, Israel only ever kills civilians by accident. Citing halacha, Landau argued that when it's certain that civilians will die as a result of one's actions, the distinction between intended and unintended becomes meaningless and is "nullified." (Landau added that a ground operation was more morally defensible, because it allowed for greater precision.)

Others have not been so specific in their dissent, but they share the sense that it will no longer do simply to trot out the familiar lines. Partly it's because some of the consequences of the Israeli bombardment have been so hard to stomach: hospitals, schools, and homes battered by shells, with instantly lethal consequences. It requires a special steel, perhaps lacking in some liberal Zionists, to speak up for Israel when the country's air force has just hit a home for the disabled.

And partly it's that the way some Israelis themselves have reacted is difficult to defend. Liberal Israelis are mocked for the habit known as yorim u'vochim, literally shooting and crying—indulging their guilt even as they continue to oppress Palestinians—but shooting and laughing is surely worse. Reports that Israelis were sitting on garden chairs on a hilltop by the Gaza border, munching popcorn as they watched the shelling of Gaza, as if witnessing a fireworks display, wrongfooted many usually reliable defenders of Israel. I have heard one rabbi, an avowed Zionist, describe these developments as nothing less than "a failure of Judaism."

In continental Europe there is another dimension. Defending Israel when Israel is killing civilians by the hundred now exacts a very direct price. In Paris, protests against the war in Gaza spilled over into anti-Jewish violence, with chants of "Death to the Jews" and the attempted storming of two synagogues. In Berlin, an Israeli tourist was attacked during a Gaza-related demonstration. Few Jews or Israel-supporters would ever want to back down in the face of such intimidation: indeed, for many it strengthens their resolve, seeing in such overt anti-Semitism confirmation of the Zionist necessity for Jews to have a place of their own. But it is naïve to pretend everyone reacts to such hostility that way.

So there is a weariness in the liberal Zionist fraternity. Privately, people admit to growing tired of defending Israeli military action when it comes at such a heavy cost in civilian life, its futility confirmed by the frequency with which it has to be repeated. Operation Cast Lead was in 2008-2009. Operation Pillar of Defense followed in 2012. And here we are again in 2014.

But underlying this fatigue might be a deeper anxiety. For nearly three decades, the hope of an eventual two state solution provided a kind of comfort zone for liberal Zionists, if not comfort blanket. The two-state solution expressed the liberal Zionist position perfectly: Jews could have a state of their own, without depriving Palestinians of their legitimate national aspirations. Even if it was not about to be realized any time soon, it was a goal that allowed one to be both a Zionist and a liberal at the same time.

But the two-state solution does not offer much comfort if it becomes a chimera, a mythical notion as out of reach as the holy grail or Atlantis. The failure of Oslo, the failure at Camp David, the failure of Annapolis, the failure most recently of John Kerry's indefatigable nine-month effort has prompted the unwelcome thought: what if it keeps failing not because the leaders did not try hard enough, but because the plan cannot work? What if the two-state solution is impossible?

That prospect frightens liberal Zionists to their core. For the alternatives to two states are unpalatable, either for liberal reasons or for Zionist reasons. A single state in all of historic Palestine, dominated by Jews but in which Palestinians are deprived of the vote, might be Zionist but it certainly would not be liberal. A binational state offering full equality between Jew and Arab would be admirably liberal, but it would seem to thwart Jewish self-determination, at least as it has traditionally been conceived, and therefore could not easily be described as Zionist.

When Israelis and Palestinians appear fated to fight more frequently and with ever-bloodier consequences, and when peace initiatives seem to be utopian pipe-dreams doomed to fail, the liberal Zionist faces something like an existential crisis. For if there is no prospect of two states, then liberal Zionists will have to do something they resist with all their might. They will have to decide which of their political identities matters more, whether they are first a liberal or first a Zionist. And that is a choice they don't want to make.

July 26, 2014, 11 a.m.

Jon Chait and Roger Cohen have made similar points here (with more indictment of Netanyahu over the failure of Kerry):
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/07/why-i-have-become-less-pro-israel.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/30/opinion/roger-cohen-zionism-and-israels-war-with-hamas-in-gaza.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region&region=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&_r=0

QuoteI disagree. I think the ground operation was a mistake - it is bound to vastly increase the number of civilian casualties, purely for the purpose of *appearing* to do something.

I agree but think it's worse. I think the ground operation is purely political. Bibi's been on the far left of his own government the past few weeks (he had to fire Danny Danon from the Defence Ministry after he was accused of not doing enough to protect Israel). The ground operation, I don't think, has any goals, even appearing to do something, beyond placating his own cabinet.

Edit: Incidentally I thought this piece was interesting:
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/gaming-israel-and-palestine#axzz38r5V2UJx

I guess my question is why did the two state solution ultimately fail?  I mean the Israelis moved out of Gaza.  If Palestinian aspirations were so very legitimate there would be state building going on right now.  But there is none because this is not a fight to establish a Palestinian state so the Palestinians can live in peace, this is a fight for victory.  That is why every effort to solve it fails.  And each side wages this struggle however best they can.  They just do these little songs and dances to recruit useful idiots from the outside.  Now not everybody in Israel/Palestine feels that way...but enough to do to control events.

When everybody is done fighting and decides they want to really reach a settlement then I think it is time for the rest of us to get involved.  Until then everybody just tries to play you for leverage.  The fact that people can still stand up for either the Palestinians or the Israelis after they have consistently lied and backstabbed everybody who has tried to help them just amazes me.  Especially about how the Palestinians have all these oh so legitimate aims.  Whatever might those be?  Somebody should let the Palestinian leadership know so maybe they might start working on them someday.

Quote from: Valmy on July 30, 2014, 04:37:45 PMI guess my question is why did the two state solution ultimately fail?  I mean the Israelis moved out of Gaza.  If Palestinian aspirations were so very legitimate there would be state building going on right now.  But there is none because this is not a fight to establish a Palestinian state so the Palestinians can live in peace, this is a fight for victory.  That is why every effort to solve it fails.  And each side wages this struggle however best they can.  They just do these little songs and dances to recruit useful idiots from the outside.  Now not everybody in Israel/Palestine feels that way...but enough to do to control events.

How would that state building happen? Isn't that what Fayyad was doing as PM while being consistently undercut?

QuoteSomebody should let the Palestinian leadership know so maybe they might start working on them someday.

What do you have against Abu Mazen? :P :blink:

Edit: Now that isn't to say it's Israel's fault. The great long piece on the collapse of the Kerry peace talks make that clear. But it's rich to in effect say a pox on both their houses, when your points are all against one.

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 30, 2014, 04:44:33 PM
How would that state building happen? Isn't that what Fayyad was doing as PM while being consistently undercut?

Oh, you may have missed this, Salam Fayyad got fired for creating a modern state with modern institutions which worked for the state and the people rather than the leader and his clique.

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 30, 2014, 04:44:33 PM
What do you have against Abu Mazen? :P :blink:

For one, firing Salam Fayyad.

Quote from: Valmy on July 30, 2014, 04:37:45 PM
I guess my question is why did the two state solution ultimately fail?

Because the concept of a two state solution includes the continued existence of Israel, and that's a deal breaker for Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, the Arab League, Europe, et cetera.

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 30, 2014, 04:44:33 PM
How would that state building happen? Isn't that what Fayyad was doing as PM while being consistently undercut?

No going to war with the Israelis every couple years?  Not wasting money on weapons and tunnels and nonsense?  Not having 'death to Israel' be an important political value?  Those are not actions or values for a region trying to establish a state at peace with its neighbors.  For the perfectly good reason that is not the plan.

Quote

QuoteSomebody should let the Palestinian leadership know so maybe they might start working on them someday.

What do you have against Abu Mazen? :P :blink:

Besides being a corrupt unelected liar?

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 30, 2014, 04:12:36 PM

Quote from: Berkut on July 29, 2014, 02:08:21 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-a-rizvi/post_8056_b_5602701.html

It is incredible how hard it is to find any actual nuance at all.

You are either a jew hating anti-semite terrorist supporter, or a baby killing warmonger.

This is the best piece I've read on it. Not least because it sums up my views:

QuoteLiberal Zionism After Gaza
Jonathan Freedland

Never do liberal Zionists feel more torn than when Israel is at war. Days after I'd filed my essay for The New York Review on Ari Shavit and his fellow liberal Zionists, the perennial tension between Israel and the Palestinians had flared into violent confrontation and, eventually, a war in Gaza—the third such military clash in five years. For liberal Zionists these are times when the dual nature of their position is tested, some would say to destruction. What the Israel Defense Forces called Operation Protective Edge—a large-scale mobilization that by the time a twelve-hour "humanitarian truce" was agreed on July 26 had reached its nineteenth day—was no different.

Even during the grim chain of events that led to this episode, liberal Zionists found themselves facing both ways, switching direction day-by-day, even hour-by-hour. Of course, they, like everyone else, condemned the brutal June kidnapping of three Israeli teenagers on the West Bank, an act immediately blamed on the Hamas leadership (falsely so, it later turned out: the kidnapping was, in fact, the work of a local "lone cell," acting without authorization). But some felt queasy during the subsequent two-week Israeli operation to root out Hamas militants there, referred to as "mowing the lawn," not least because several Palestinian civilians were killed in the process. Still, it was hard to criticize too loudly, because that effort was conducted under the cover of a search for the three missing teens and, by then, the three were the object of a campaign that encompassed the global Jewish diaspora: #BringBackOurBoys.

Few of these campaigners knew that the Israeli authorities had, in fact, established from the start that the boys were dead and apparently withheld that information from the public. Naturally, liberal Zionists condemned the Hamas response to the West Bank lawn mowing—the resumption of rocket fire from Gaza into southern Israel—but they hoped Benjamin Netanyahu's government would react with restraint. And of course the eventual discovery of the teenagers' corpses had liberal Zionists standing in solidarity with Israel during its hour of national grief. But when that led to the revenge kidnapping and murder by Jewish extremists of a Palestinian teenager from East Jerusalem, forced by his abductors to drink gasoline and then set alight, they were appalled at what furies had been unleashed.

This constantly dual posture—defense of Israel paired with horror at the violation of liberal values—only became more pronounced as the military operation gathered steam. The Israeli novelist and veteran peacenik, Amos Oz, likes to say Zionism is a surname, a family name that can sit alongside a wide range of different first names: socialist, religious, revisionist, and so on. In this sense, liberal Zionists remain part of the Israel-supporting family and, when the family is under assault, they feel their place is at Israel's side. Accordingly, they cannot help but sympathize with and echo the key elements of the case for Israel's defense.

So they asked—genuinely, not just as a hasbara talking point—what any other country would do in a similar position. As Shavit wrote in Haaretz, "Barack Obama's United States would never accept al-Qaeda rocket fire on Miami Beach, Washington, D.C. or New York City. David Cameron's Britain would never accept a terror attack in Manchester, Birmingham, or London." They insisted that when Israel mounted air strikes against Gaza it was no more than a straightforward act of self-defense.

But the first week of Protective Edge produced awkward statistics. The Palestinian death toll kept climbing while Israel's remained stubbornly at zero. (Israel's first casualty came on July 15.) Liberal Zionists were ready with the reply that Israel too would be suffering casualties in serious numbers were it not for the Iron Dome defense system: if Hamas was not succeeding in killing civilians, it was not through lack of trying.

Similar lines of argument were readily deployed, even as the violence escalated and Palestinian civilians began dying in greater numbers. Hamas fighters were ultimately responsible, it was said, because of their willingness to embed themselves among Gaza's most vulnerable people, using them as human shields. Hamas commanders had spent millions on bunkers for themselves and on cement-lined tunnels to attack Israel, rather than on bomb shelters for their own people. If the TV pictures looked horrific, that was partly because of the media's application of different rules when it comes to covering Israeli wars. US bombs had wrought similar havoc in Iraq and Afghanistan—orphaning children and wiping out whole families—it was just the world's media were not gathered on the spot, and in a small, concentrated space, to cover it.

For Zionists of the right, repeating these arguments came easily. But liberal Zionists felt conflicted. A death rate that saw civilians account for four out of every five Palestinians killed—and that by July 25, according to the UN, included nearly 200 children—was hard to defend. Earlier this week, the former editor-in-chief of Haaretz, David Landau, wrote that it was no longer good enough to rely on the traditional hasbara sound bite that, while Hamas deliberately targets civilians, Israel only ever kills civilians by accident. Citing halacha, Landau argued that when it's certain that civilians will die as a result of one's actions, the distinction between intended and unintended becomes meaningless and is "nullified." (Landau added that a ground operation was more morally defensible, because it allowed for greater precision.)

Others have not been so specific in their dissent, but they share the sense that it will no longer do simply to trot out the familiar lines. Partly it's because some of the consequences of the Israeli bombardment have been so hard to stomach: hospitals, schools, and homes battered by shells, with instantly lethal consequences. It requires a special steel, perhaps lacking in some liberal Zionists, to speak up for Israel when the country's air force has just hit a home for the disabled.

And partly it's that the way some Israelis themselves have reacted is difficult to defend. Liberal Israelis are mocked for the habit known as yorim u'vochim, literally shooting and crying—indulging their guilt even as they continue to oppress Palestinians—but shooting and laughing is surely worse. Reports that Israelis were sitting on garden chairs on a hilltop by the Gaza border, munching popcorn as they watched the shelling of Gaza, as if witnessing a fireworks display, wrongfooted many usually reliable defenders of Israel. I have heard one rabbi, an avowed Zionist, describe these developments as nothing less than "a failure of Judaism."

In continental Europe there is another dimension. Defending Israel when Israel is killing civilians by the hundred now exacts a very direct price. In Paris, protests against the war in Gaza spilled over into anti-Jewish violence, with chants of "Death to the Jews" and the attempted storming of two synagogues. In Berlin, an Israeli tourist was attacked during a Gaza-related demonstration. Few Jews or Israel-supporters would ever want to back down in the face of such intimidation: indeed, for many it strengthens their resolve, seeing in such overt anti-Semitism confirmation of the Zionist necessity for Jews to have a place of their own. But it is naïve to pretend everyone reacts to such hostility that way.

So there is a weariness in the liberal Zionist fraternity. Privately, people admit to growing tired of defending Israeli military action when it comes at such a heavy cost in civilian life, its futility confirmed by the frequency with which it has to be repeated. Operation Cast Lead was in 2008-2009. Operation Pillar of Defense followed in 2012. And here we are again in 2014.

But underlying this fatigue might be a deeper anxiety. For nearly three decades, the hope of an eventual two state solution provided a kind of comfort zone for liberal Zionists, if not comfort blanket. The two-state solution expressed the liberal Zionist position perfectly: Jews could have a state of their own, without depriving Palestinians of their legitimate national aspirations. Even if it was not about to be realized any time soon, it was a goal that allowed one to be both a Zionist and a liberal at the same time.

But the two-state solution does not offer much comfort if it becomes a chimera, a mythical notion as out of reach as the holy grail or Atlantis. The failure of Oslo, the failure at Camp David, the failure of Annapolis, the failure most recently of John Kerry's indefatigable nine-month effort has prompted the unwelcome thought: what if it keeps failing not because the leaders did not try hard enough, but because the plan cannot work? What if the two-state solution is impossible?

That prospect frightens liberal Zionists to their core. For the alternatives to two states are unpalatable, either for liberal reasons or for Zionist reasons. A single state in all of historic Palestine, dominated by Jews but in which Palestinians are deprived of the vote, might be Zionist but it certainly would not be liberal. A binational state offering full equality between Jew and Arab would be admirably liberal, but it would seem to thwart Jewish self-determination, at least as it has traditionally been conceived, and therefore could not easily be described as Zionist.

When Israelis and Palestinians appear fated to fight more frequently and with ever-bloodier consequences, and when peace initiatives seem to be utopian pipe-dreams doomed to fail, the liberal Zionist faces something like an existential crisis. For if there is no prospect of two states, then liberal Zionists will have to do something they resist with all their might. They will have to decide which of their political identities matters more, whether they are first a liberal or first a Zionist. And that is a choice they don't want to make.

July 26, 2014, 11 a.m.

Jon Chait and Roger Cohen have made similar points here (with more indictment of Netanyahu over the failure of Kerry):
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/07/why-i-have-become-less-pro-israel.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/30/opinion/roger-cohen-zionism-and-israels-war-with-hamas-in-gaza.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region&region=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&_r=0

QuoteI disagree. I think the ground operation was a mistake - it is bound to vastly increase the number of civilian casualties, purely for the purpose of *appearing* to do something.

I agree but think it's worse. I think the ground operation is purely political. Bibi's been on the far left of his own government the past few weeks (he had to fire Danny Danon from the Defence Ministry after he was accused of not doing enough to protect Israel). The ground operation, I don't think, has any goals, even appearing to do something, beyond placating his own cabinet.

Edit: Incidentally I thought this piece was interesting:
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/gaming-israel-and-palestine#axzz38r5V2UJx

The problem I have with the Freedman article is that it is really a description of an appeal to emotions, not reason. Berkut may smear me again with the "callous and tribal" label if he likes (  :P ), but to my mind, the best way to approach such questions is not with "halacha", but with traditional "just war" analysis.

Simply put, either the military acts of the Israeli government make sense, or they do not. It is inevitable, given the location of the fighting, that civilian casualties will result; that has to factor into the equation as to whether the military actions undertaken are "worth it" - that is, whether the goals they seek to obtain are worth risking the casualties (hence my position that the counter-battery fire campaign was 'worth it' but the ground campaign probably is not - as the former had a defensible military goal while the latter does not).

Also, the notion that Israeli civilians behaving badly - such as by cheering Israeli bombing - are somehow undermining the correctness of the military actions. How does that follow? People are people everywhere - some are good and some are bad. The notion that Israelis must at all times be "good" or their cause is suspect strikes me as bizzare and absurd. Also, context: these are the very people who have been living for months or years under the constant threat of rocket attacks; it is not surprising to see them react badly.

Quote from: Viking on July 30, 2014, 04:47:17 PMOh, you may have missed this, Salam Fayyad got fired for creating a modern state with modern institutions which worked for the state and the people rather than the leader and his clique.

Last year in fact. My point is that the Palestinians did spend the last 7-8 years building up a state as Valmy wanted during which time Fayyad repeatedly pleaded for some concessions by Israel to support his project and show that this approach was the way to win statehood.

My view is that Israel could have done a lot more to build up and support the moderates over the past five years at the same time as tightening the noose around Gaza. I always thought the best strategy was to reward peace and security in the West Bank with concessions while meeting Gaza with restrictions until Hamas either changed or were removed. Unfortunately I think Israel's only done the latter so far.

QuoteI guess my question is why did the two state solution ultimately fail?

On this, my view is that the last best chance failed because Israeli politics has changed. I don't think her current leadership - Bibi, Bennett, Lieberman - believe in a two state solution on ideological (the latter two) or pragmatic (Bibi) grounds. As I say we're now at the point where Bibi is at the far left of his own party. In short last times the Israelis took the opportunity to miss an opportunity.

I think prior to that Olmert could never have achieved it in the later part of his premiership because of the scandals that were consuming him. Before that I'd broadly say it was the Palestinians saying 'no'.

I generally agree with the position of Chait which is the second link :)

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 30, 2014, 04:56:58 PM

Quote from: Viking on July 30, 2014, 04:47:17 PMOh, you may have missed this, Salam Fayyad got fired for creating a modern state with modern institutions which worked for the state and the people rather than the leader and his clique.

Last year in fact. My point is that the Palestinians did spend the last 7-8 years building up a state as Valmy wanted during which time Fayyad repeatedly pleaded for some concessions by Israel to support his project and show that this approach was the way to win statehood.

Oh, No you didn't! You didn't just blame Israel for Abu Mazen disposing of Salam Fayad as a rival? WTF?

Quote from: Malthus on July 30, 2014, 04:52:43 PM
Also, the notion that Israeli civilians behaving badly - such as by cheering Israeli bombing - are somehow undermining the correctness of the military actions. How does that follow? People are people everywhere - some are good and some are bad. The notion that Israelis must at all times be "good" or their cause is suspect strikes me as bizzare and absurd. Also, context: these are the very people who have been living for months or years under the constant threat of rocket attacks; it is not surprising to see them react badly.

I don't see how it's a big deal at all.  So people gathered to watch the shelling from a safe vantage point.  And they happened to bring some snacks along.  I'd do it in that situation if I didn't have anything else going on.

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 30, 2014, 04:56:58 PM
Last year in fact. My point is that the Palestinians did spend the last 7-8 years building up a state as Valmy wanted during which time Fayyad repeatedly pleaded for some concessions by Israel to support his project and show that this approach was the way to win statehood.

My view is that Israel could have done a lot more to build up and support the moderates over the past five years at the same time as tightening the noose around Gaza. I always thought the best strategy was to reward peace and security in the West Bank with concessions while meeting Gaza with restrictions until Hamas either changed or were removed. Unfortunately I think Israel's only done the latter so far.

On this, my view is that the last best chance failed because Israeli politics has changed. I don't think her current leadership - Bibi, Bennett, Lieberman - believe in a two state solution on ideological (the latter two) or pragmatic (Bibi) grounds. As I say we're now at the point where Bibi is at the far left of his own party. In short last times the Israelis took the opportunity to miss an opportunity.

I think prior to that Olmert could never have achieved it in the later part of his premiership because of the scandals that were consuming him. Before that I'd broadly say it was the Palestinians saying 'no'.

This, unfortunately, strikes me as likely true.

The problem is that the political left in Israel has been undermined by failure and scandal, and the political right appears only interested in stealing as much land as it can while the stealing is good.

The Palestinians are now more isolated than they have ever been. All of Israel's traditional enemies are in disarray and consumed with their own problems. Unfortunately, Israel is saddled with a right-wing government seemingly incapable of taking the high road.

Quote from: Malthus on July 30, 2014, 04:52:43 PM
The problem I have with the Freedman article is that it is really a description of an appeal to emotions, not reason. Berkut may smear me again with the "callous and tribal" label if he likes (  :P ), but to my mind, the best way to approach such questions is not with "halacha", but with traditional "just war" analysis.

Isn't the reason most people identify as 'pro-Israeli', 'pro-Palestinian', 'Zionist' or whatever else emotional?

Certainly the reason I would describe myself as pro-Israeli and someone who believes in a Zionist state is emotional (and also factual as I'm more that way inclined than 99% of the people I know).

QuoteSimply put, either the military acts of the Israeli government make sense, or they do not. It is inevitable, given the location of the fighting, that civilian casualties will result; that has to factor into the equation as to whether the military actions undertaken are "worth it" - that is, whether the goals they seek to obtain are worth risking the casualties (hence my position that the counter-battery fire campaign was 'worth it' but the ground campaign probably is not - as the former had a defensible military goal while the latter does not).

Yeah. And broadly I agree. I lean with Bibi on this. I think if you're going to make this sort of attack to neutralise this sort of threat an air and special forces campaign is probably more suited to it.

The problem I have is that we know what Hamas do (and awful though it is, isn't it natural given their military position and goals to do that?) and so does Israel. I wonder what level of work has been done by the IDF to work out alternative tactics and strategies that could more effectively minimise civilian casualties - which is their job. Because I think the damage this does to Israel's support abroad is important - which I'll come back to in a minute.

And for me the real question of proportionality is cost and benefit. As I've said before it is difficult for me to imagine a high value enough target to be proportionate to bombing a care home for the disabled. Similarly that story of the four kids bombed on the beach. Israel thought they were straggling fighters. Given the lack of ID and the range of possibilities, I'm not sure the benefit of killing four straggling fighters is worth the cost of killing four civilians whether they're children or adults.

On the decline of foreign support, I've noticed a lot more unease and unhappiness about this operation among Americans and diaspora Jews than any other I can remember - more than Cast Lead or Lebanon for example. I also think that one of the side effects of Bibi's cack-handed diplomacy is that Israel seems to be slightly more culture war tinged in the US than I previously remember. If the extent of the effect of Israel's actions was Europe and Latin America it wouldn't be a worry, but I think opinions are shifting in communities that really matter to Israel.

QuoteAlso, the notion that Israeli civilians behaving badly - such as by cheering Israeli bombing - are somehow undermining the correctness of the military actions. How does that follow? People are people everywhere - some are good and some are bad. The notion that Israelis must at all times be "good" or their cause is suspect strikes me as bizzare and absurd. Also, context: these are the very people who have been living for months or years under the constant threat of rocket attacks; it is not surprising to see them react badly.

Don't we often dispute this argument about Palestinian civilians cheering on attacks against Jews? Say we can contextualise people sitting on a deckchair to watch and cheer bombings that so far seem to be killing over 50% civilians based on a constant, though given the extraordinary success of Iron Dome, distant threat of rocket attacks. Surely it follows that we can contextualise people suffering successful attacks that kill over 50% civilians then cheering attacks against their source?

To an extent though I agree. The story of the Palestinian boy who was incinerated by Israeli extremists is horrifying. But I found the beating up of his (fortuitously American) cousin by Israeli police worse. Both sides have extremists who'll do evil things, but the police are agents of the Israeli state which is more serious.

Quote from: Viking on July 30, 2014, 05:00:06 PM
Oh, No you didn't! You didn't just blame Israel for Abu Mazen disposing of Salam Fayad as a rival? WTF?

No, I didn't.

QuoteThe problem is that the political left in Israel has been undermined by failure and scandal, and the political right appears only interested in stealing as much land as it can while the stealing is good.

The Palestinians are now more isolated than they have ever been. All of Israel's traditional enemies are in disarray and consumed with their own problems. Unfortunately, Israel is saddled with a right-wing government seemingly incapable of taking the high road.

Yeah, this is what the Stratfor piece says. Hezbollah are distracted in Syria. Syria is in a state of collapse. Egypt and Jordan are supportive. Iran is, largely, distracted closer to home. Hamas is more isolated than they've been in a very long time. It is difficult to imagine a stronger position for Israel to be in and if there's ever a time to negotiate surely that'd be it.

It's equally easy to imagine jihadis in Gaza and the Golan. Hezbollah and Iran importing tactics learned in Syria and Iraq. Jordan and Egypt in a state of chaos.

I think it's a worry that Israel seem to be wasting the most moderate leader the Palestinians have ever had or may ever have.

Quote from: derspiess on July 30, 2014, 05:03:03 PM

Quote from: Malthus on July 30, 2014, 04:52:43 PM
Also, the notion that Israeli civilians behaving badly - such as by cheering Israeli bombing - are somehow undermining the correctness of the military actions. How does that follow? People are people everywhere - some are good and some are bad. The notion that Israelis must at all times be "good" or their cause is suspect strikes me as bizzare and absurd. Also, context: these are the very people who have been living for months or years under the constant threat of rocket attacks; it is not surprising to see them react badly.

I don't see how it's a big deal at all.  So people gathered to watch the shelling from a safe vantage point.  And they happened to bring some snacks along.  I'd do it in that situation if I didn't have anything else going on.

I'd do it.  If those fuckers had been launching rockets at me I'd sit out and watch them get the shit kicked out of them.

Quote from: Malthus on July 30, 2014, 04:52:43 PM

The problem I have with the Freedman article is that it is really a description of an appeal to emotions, not reason. Berkut may smear me again with the "callous and tribal" label if he likes (  :P ), but to my mind, the best way to approach such questions is not with "halacha", but with traditional "just war" analysis.

Simply put, either the military acts of the Israeli government make sense, or they do not. It is inevitable, given the location of the fighting, that civilian casualties will result; that has to factor into the equation as to whether the military actions undertaken are "worth it" - that is, whether the goals they seek to obtain are worth risking the casualties (hence my position that the counter-battery fire campaign was 'worth it' but the ground campaign probably is not - as the former had a defensible military goal while the latter does not).

Also, the notion that Israeli civilians behaving badly - such as by cheering Israeli bombing - are somehow undermining the correctness of the military actions. How does that follow? People are people everywhere - some are good and some are bad. The notion that Israelis must at all times be "good" or their cause is suspect strikes me as bizzare and absurd. Also, context: these are the very people who have been living for months or years under the constant threat of rocket attacks; it is not surprising to see them react badly.

I think he has something about the cause of this (well the immediate cause).  I do not think the Israeli government responded wisely to the the kidnapping and murder of three kids.  The evidence that Hamas was involved was weak, and do not think military action was appropriate.  It certainly did nothing to save the lives the kidnapped has endangered many more Israeli citizens.

Quote from: Malthus on July 30, 2014, 04:52:43 PM
but to my mind, the best way to approach such questions is not with "halacha", but with traditional "just war" analysis. 

Another way of saying the same thing:

Quotebut to my mind, the best way to approach such questions is not with theory derived from traditional Jewish theology but theory derived from traditional Christian theology

.

This is mostly tongue and cheek but there is a sort-of-serious point here - the rabbinic Judaism that developed after the Hasmoneans, the Great Revolt and Bar Kochba is more hostile to war than either the earlier tradition or the parallel Christian or Muslim traditions.  So there is this tension for modern Zionist Jews of balancing the secularized pacifist version of the rabbinic tradition with the more balanced secularized version of the Christian "just war" tradition, with the nominally "Jewish" government basing itself on the supposedly alien tradition. Of course this gets to the more general tension between Zionism and Judaism as a religion that we usually prefer to sweep under the rug.

(excuses for use of the Timmy "we")

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 30, 2014, 05:12:34 PM
Isn't the reason most people identify as 'pro-Israeli', 'pro-Palestinian', 'Zionist' or whatever else emotional?

Well, I would have thought that most people who side with the Israeli state do so because it is, in the last resort, a Western democracy which is run with respect for the rule of law, while its current enemy - the Hamas regime - is an organization whose very charter commits it to Islamic extremism, genocide against its enemies, and rejection of any notion of peace. 

QuoteYeah. And broadly I agree. I lean with Bibi on this. I think if you're going to make this sort of attack to neutralise this sort of threat an air and special forces campaign is probably more suited to it.

The problem I have is that we know what Hamas do (and awful though it is, isn't it natural given their military position and goals to do that?) and so does Israel. I wonder what level of work has been done by the IDF to work out alternative tactics and strategies that could more effectively minimise civilian casualties - which is their job. Because I think the damage this does to Israel's support abroad is important - which I'll come back to in a minute.

And for me the real question of proportionality is cost and benefit. As I've said before it is difficult for me to imagine a high value enough target to be proportionate to bombing a care home for the disabled. Similarly that story of the four kids bombed on the beach. Israel thought they were straggling fighters. Given the lack of ID and the range of possibilities, I'm not sure the benefit of killing four straggling fighters is worth the cost of killing four civilians whether they're children or adults.

The issue is one of risk. There may be no target worth deliberately killiing disabled kids or whatever. However, it may be the case - and in fact, I think it arguably is - that any military action undertaken in a highly populated area risks killing the most sympathetic possible civilians - babies, disabled kids, nuns, or whatever. Military actions are not "exact" and screw-ups in undertaking them are proverbial. Soldiers are fallible and are working under high stress conditions. 

Given that fact, one has to assume any military action will, in point of fact, kill a certain number of highly sympathetic civilains - and then decide in advance whether or not the military objective is "worth it". If the answer is that you are unwilling to risk such an outcome - then don't undertake any military actions.

Of course, that presupposes that doing nothing (or nothing military) is an option.

QuoteOn the decline of foreign support, I've noticed a lot more unease and unhappiness about this operation among Americans and diaspora Jews than any other I can remember - more than Cast Lead or Lebanon for example. I also think that one of the side effects of Bibi's cack-handed diplomacy is that Israel seems to be slightly more culture war tinged in the US than I previously remember. If the extent of the effect of Israel's actions was Europe and Latin America it wouldn't be a worry, but I think opinions are shifting in communities that really matter to Israel.

I have no idea how opinions are shifting, or not.

QuoteDon't we often dispute this argument about Palestinian civilians cheering on attacks against Jews? Say we can contextualise people sitting on a deckchair to watch and cheer bombings that so far seem to be killing over 50% civilians based on a constant, though given the extraordinary success of Iron Dome, distant threat of rocket attacks. Surely it follows that we can contextualise people suffering successful attacks that kill over 50% civilians then cheering attacks against their source?

I don't understand this. If the point is that we should not judge the Hamas operations based on Palestinian cheering - well then, I don't. I judge them based on their own merits.

QuoteTo an extent though I agree. The story of the Palestinian boy who was incinerated by Israeli extremists is horrifying. But I found the beating up of his (fortuitously American) cousin by Israeli police worse. Both sides have extremists who'll do evil things, but the police are agents of the Israeli state which is more serious.

Certainly - though it is worth pointing out that the Israelis who killed that boy were arrested, and will presumably be tried, by the Israeli authorities, and the cop who beat the other kid (masked, during a riot) was suspended pending an investigation as to whether charges will be laid.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 30, 2014, 05:30:08 PM

Quote from: Malthus on July 30, 2014, 04:52:43 PM
but to my mind, the best way to approach such questions is not with "halacha", but with traditional "just war" analysis. 

Another way of saying the same thing:

Quotebut to my mind, the best way to approach such questions is not with theory derived from traditional Jewish theology but theory derived from traditional Christian theology

.

This is mostly tongue and cheek but there is a sort-of-serious point here - the rabbinic Judaism that developed after the Hasmoneans, the Great Revolt and Bar Kochba is more hostile to war than either the earlier tradition or the parallel Christian or Muslim traditions.  So there is this tension for modern Zionist Jews of balancing the secularized pacifist version of the rabbinic tradition with the more balanced secularized version of the Christian "just war" tradition, with the nominally "Jewish" government basing itself on the supposedly alien tradition. Of course this gets to the more general tension between Zionism and Judaism as a religion that we usually prefer to sweep under the rug.

(excuses for use of the Timmy "we")

Absolutely, Zionism - really, any form of nationalism, whether ethnic nationalism or not - is incompatible with traditional Jewish theology as it has developed. That should be no surprise, as traditional Jewish theology developed in the context of a stateless people living as an alien minority, on sufferance. 

The difference between halacha and "just war" analysis is that the latter creates a mechanism whereby states as we know them can operate.

Quote from: Malthus on July 30, 2014, 05:36:00 PMWell, I would have thought that most people who side with the Israeli state do so because it is, in the last resort, a Western democracy which is run with respect for the rule of law, while its current enemy - the Hamas regime - is an organization whose very charter commits it to Islamic extremism, genocide against its enemies, and rejection of any notion of peace.

Honestly I think that'd be naive. It'd certainly be inaccurate for me - though it's a part of it.

QuoteThe issue is one of risk. There may be no target worth deliberately killiing disabled kids or whatever. However, it may be the case - and in fact, I think it arguably is - that any military action undertaken in a highly populated area risks killing the most sympathetic possible civilians - babies, disabled kids, nuns, or whatever. Military actions are not "exact" and screw-ups in undertaking them are proverbial. Soldiers are fallible and are working under high stress conditions. 

Given that fact, one has to assume any military action will, in point of fact, kill a certain number of highly sympathetic civilains - and then decide in advance whether or not the military objective is "worth it". If the answer is that you are unwilling to risk such an outcome - then don't undertake any military actions.

Of course, that presupposes that doing nothing (or nothing military) is an option.

I agree, I just disagree with the Israeli balancing of risk here. I cannot think of potential targets that are high value enough to potentially end up bombing a care home for the disabled.

Doing nothing seems to me to be a decent option for Israel at the start of this. To begin with their response to the murdered kids wasn't justified by the intelligence they allegedly had - that it was a lone group of Hamas sympathisers not a Hamas operation. But also when Hamas started firing rockets they'd never been so isolated. With the exception of Qatar they had no support from Arab regimes and the signs were that Turkey was a little more dubious given what's happening in Syria and, initially, the theory was that Hamas was lobbing rockets to try and get back in Iran's good books.

Given the success of Iron Dome I think the best strategy would've been for Israel to sit it out; try and split the Hamas leadership further; and also try and isolate them further. Obviously that would've been different without Iron Dome.

QuoteI don't understand this. If the point is that we should not judge the Hamas operations based on Palestinian cheering - well then, I don't. I judge them based on their own merits.

The point is we shouldn't excuse or contextualise Israeli civilians cheering on the deaths of Arab civilians unless we're willing to do the same for Palestinian civilians cheering on the deaths of Israeli civilians.

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 30, 2014, 05:47:44 PM

Quote from: Malthus on July 30, 2014, 05:36:00 PMWell, I would have thought that most people who side with the Israeli state do so because it is, in the last resort, a Western democracy which is run with respect for the rule of law, while its current enemy - the Hamas regime - is an organization whose very charter commits it to Islamic extremism, genocide against its enemies, and rejection of any notion of peace.

Honestly I think that'd be naive. It'd certainly be inaccurate for me - though it's a part of it.

QuoteThe issue is one of risk. There may be no target worth deliberately killiing disabled kids or whatever. However, it may be the case - and in fact, I think it arguably is - that any military action undertaken in a highly populated area risks killing the most sympathetic possible civilians - babies, disabled kids, nuns, or whatever. Military actions are not "exact" and screw-ups in undertaking them are proverbial. Soldiers are fallible and are working under high stress conditions. 

Given that fact, one has to assume any military action will, in point of fact, kill a certain number of highly sympathetic civilains - and then decide in advance whether or not the military objective is "worth it". If the answer is that you are unwilling to risk such an outcome - then don't undertake any military actions.

Of course, that presupposes that doing nothing (or nothing military) is an option.

I agree, I just disagree with the Israeli balancing of risk here. I cannot think of potential targets that are high value enough to potentially end up bombing a care home for the disabled.

Doing nothing seems to me to be a decent option for Israel at the start of this. To begin with their response to the murdered kids wasn't justified by the intelligence they allegedly had - that it was a lone group of Hamas sympathisers not a Hamas operation. But also when Hamas started firing rockets they'd never been so isolated. With the exception of Qatar they had no support from Arab regimes and the signs were that Turkey was a little more dubious given what's happening in Syria and, initially, the theory was that Hamas was lobbing rockets to try and get back in Iran's good books.

Given the success of Iron Dome I think the best strategy would've been for Israel to sit it out; try and split the Hamas leadership further; and also try and isolate them further. Obviously that would've been different without Iron Dome.

Depends on what is meant by a "best strategy". Best for winning world opinion, certainly. But Israel as a state hasn't cared about that much for a long time.

Also, I've read that the Iron Dome mostly doesn't work, and the main reason for low Israeli casualties is that Israel has a very impressive civil defence system of early warnings and shelters.

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/07/25/israels-iron-dome-is-more-like-an-iron-sieve/

Assuming this is true, does that change the equation?

Best for weakening their opponents, in this case Hamas. Currently they're very much rekindling their relationship with Iran, strengthening it with Turkey and Qatar, and instead of the pressure of the Arab world being on an isolated Hamas (strengthening the PA and Israel) the opposite's the case.

QuoteAlso, I've read that the Iron Dome mostly doesn't work, and the main reason for low Israeli casualties is that Israel has a very impressive civil defence system of early warnings and shelters.

Interesting. How have Israeli civil defences changed from 2006 when there were far higher Israeli civilian casualties and injuries?

I was under the impression that Hamas and Hezbollah both use the same rockets and are both firing at roughly the same rate and that the big difference since then is Iron Dome.

Edit: Also while I'm sure the guy is rigorous as sourcing goes this seems a bit dubious:

QuotePostol based his conclusion on a careful analysis of amateur videos and photos of Iron Dome interceptions over the past three years. He admitted that most of his data is from a previous round of fighting in 2012. "The data we have collected so far [for 2014], however, indicate the performance of Iron Dome has not markedly improved," Postol wrote on the website of the nonprofit Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

I can see why he wants the IDF to release their data on Iron Dome, also why they don't want.

This from my "Jewish girls showing their bods" file

https://www.facebook.com/StillStandingWithIDF

Quote from: Josephus on July 31, 2014, 07:40:10 AM
This from my "Jewish girls showing their bods" file

https://www.facebook.com/StillStandingWithIDF

The one with "this tunnel is made in israel" cracked me up...

I read an analysis (in Hungarian) on why this shit started, which was very convincing to me:

It argues that the changes in Egypt together with the sharpening shia-sunni divide due to Syria has left Hamas in a peculiar position. Out of sponsors and severely weakened, its leaders were close to making a political deal with Fatah.

A sort of big coalition between the two Palestinian factions had to seem like a bad idea for two actors: the hardliners in Hamas, who had nothing to gain from doing a deal with the other side and could in fact be endangered if things went away from the organized crime state they have been running, and either Israel, or their hardliners, for whom the survival of Hamas even as a tooth-lost semi-political organisation had to look like a horrible idea, since they would still nurture their "destroy Israel" views. For Israel the collapse of Hamas is much more advantageous, and had to be in the sights with recent developments.

So as usual, whenever there seemed to be a step taken toward more stability, the forces on both sides who are not interested in that were more than happy to use each others' offered excuses to throw their shit into the fan.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/26/us-mideast-gaza-idUSKBN0GM11320140826

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs1.reutersmedia.net%2Fresources%2Fmedia%2Fglobal%2Fassets%2Fimages%2F20140826%2F20140826_9138721120140826182415.jpg&hash=f86fb561b4640f50eb84a35c76cdc669bba8c1da)

(The pic is on Reuters homepage, not chosen by me :P )

QuoteGaza ceasefire takes effect as Palestinians celebrate

(Reuters) - A ceasefire agreement between Israel and the Palestinians aimed at ending their seven-week conflict in Gaza went into effect on Tuesday and joyous Palestinians streamed into the streets of the battered enclave to celebrate.

Minutes before the Egyptian-brokered truce began at 1600 GMT (12.00 noon EDT), a rocket fired by Palestinian militants killed one person in an Israeli kibbutz, or collective farm, near the Gaza border, police said.

Palestinian and Egyptian officials said the deal calls for an indefinite halt to hostilities, the immediate opening of Gaza's blockaded crossings with Israel and Egypt and a widening of the territory's fishing zone in the Mediterranean.

A senior official of the Islamist group Hamas, which runs Gaza, voiced willingness for the security forces of Western-backed Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and the unity government he formed in June to control the passage points.

Both Israel and Egypt view Hamas as a security threat and are seeking guarantees that weapons will not enter the territory of 1.8 million people.

Under a second stage of the truce that would begin a month later, Israel and the Palestinians would discuss the construction of a Gaza sea port and Israel's release of Hamas prisoners in the occupied West Bank, the officials said.

After the ceasefire began, crowds and traffic filled the Gaza streets. Car horns blared and recorded chants praising God sounded from mosque loudspeakers.

"Today we declare the victory of the resistance, today we declare the victory of Gaza," Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said.

Israel gave a low-key response to the truce.

A statement issued by a spokesman for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel had accepted the Egyptian proposal for "an open-ended ceasefire" and would attend Cairo talks on Gaza's future only if there was a "total end to terror attacks" from the enclave.

HEAVY TOLL

The conflict has taken a heavy toll in the Gaza Strip. Palestinian health officials say 2,139 people, most of them civilians, including more than 490 children, have been killed in the enclave since July 8, when Israel launched an offensive with the declared aim of ending the rocket salvoes.

Sixty-four Israeli soldiers and five civilians in Israel have been killed.

Thousands of homes in the Gaza Strip have been destroyed or damaged in the most prolonged Israeli-Palestinian fighting since a 2000-2005 Palestinian uprising.

"We have mixed feelings. We are in pain for the losses but we are also proud we fought this war alone and we were not broken," said Gaza teacher Ahmed Awf, 55, as he held his two-year-old son in his arms and joined in the street festivities.

Despite Israeli bombardments from sea and air and an offensive that included a ground invasion, Hamas was able to keep up cross-border rocket salvoes that reached Israel's heartland, the commercial capital Tel Aviv. Many of the rockets were intercepted by the Iron Dome anti-missile system.

The Palestinian Center for Human Rights said 540,000 people had been displaced in the territory. Israel has said Hamas bears responsibility for civilian casualties because it operates among non-combatants. Israel says the group uses schools and mosques to store weapons and as launch sites for rockets.

In the run-up to the ceasefire, Israel increased pressure on militants to end persistent rocket strikes, bombing more of Gaza's tallest structures in attacks that toppled a 13-storey apartment and office tower and destroyed most of a 16-floor residential building.

Israel, which said it was targeting Hamas control and command centers, had warned occupants to leave and no deaths were reported.

Quote from: Tamas on July 31, 2014, 07:57:37 AM
I read an analysis (in Hungarian) on why this shit started, which was very convincing to me:

It argues that the changes in Egypt together with the sharpening shia-sunni divide due to Syria has left Hamas in a peculiar position. Out of sponsors and severely weakened, its leaders were close to making a political deal with Fatah.

A sort of big coalition between the two Palestinian factions had to seem like a bad idea for two actors: the hardliners in Hamas, who had nothing to gain from doing a deal with the other side and could in fact be endangered if things went away from the organized crime state they have been running, and either Israel, or their hardliners, for whom the survival of Hamas even as a tooth-lost semi-political organisation had to look like a horrible idea, since they would still nurture their "destroy Israel" views. For Israel the collapse of Hamas is much more advantageous, and had to be in the sights with recent developments.

So as usual, whenever there seemed to be a step taken toward more stability, the forces on both sides who are not interested in that were more than happy to use each others' offered excuses to throw their shit into the fan.

So, basicly it is Israel's fault.
Oh, excuse me, the evil Israeli hardliners.
Never mind the rockets and the mortar rounds.

How is this any diff from all the anti-Semite bullshit all over Europe?

Ah, dang.
I forgot I promised to stay away from Israeli themed threads.

Quote from: Siege on August 26, 2014, 09:27:07 PM

Quote from: Tamas on July 31, 2014, 07:57:37 AM
I read an analysis (in Hungarian) on why this shit started, which was very convincing to me:

It argues that the changes in Egypt together with the sharpening shia-sunni divide due to Syria has left Hamas in a peculiar position. Out of sponsors and severely weakened, its leaders were close to making a political deal with Fatah.

A sort of big coalition between the two Palestinian factions had to seem like a bad idea for two actors: the hardliners in Hamas, who had nothing to gain from doing a deal with the other side and could in fact be endangered if things went away from the organized crime state they have been running, and either Israel, or their hardliners, for whom the survival of Hamas even as a tooth-lost semi-political organisation had to look like a horrible idea, since they would still nurture their "destroy Israel" views. For Israel the collapse of Hamas is much more advantageous, and had to be in the sights with recent developments.

So as usual, whenever there seemed to be a step taken toward more stability, the forces on both sides who are not interested in that were more than happy to use each others' offered excuses to throw their shit into the fan.

So, basicly it is Israel's fault.
Oh, excuse me, the evil Israeli hardliners.
Never mind the rockets and the mortar rounds.

How is this any diff from all the anti-Semite bullshit all over Europe?

Question:  Did Israel's action in the wake of the murdered teens increase or decrease the number of mortar rounds coming falling on Israel?

Did Hamas' actions increase or decrease the number of bombs that fell on Gaza?

Quote from: Razgovory on August 26, 2014, 10:00:39 PM

Quote from: Siege on August 26, 2014, 09:27:07 PM

Quote from: Tamas on July 31, 2014, 07:57:37 AM
I read an analysis (in Hungarian) on why this shit started, which was very convincing to me:

It argues that the changes in Egypt together with the sharpening shia-sunni divide due to Syria has left Hamas in a peculiar position. Out of sponsors and severely weakened, its leaders were close to making a political deal with Fatah.

A sort of big coalition between the two Palestinian factions had to seem like a bad idea for two actors: the hardliners in Hamas, who had nothing to gain from doing a deal with the other side and could in fact be endangered if things went away from the organized crime state they have been running, and either Israel, or their hardliners, for whom the survival of Hamas even as a tooth-lost semi-political organisation had to look like a horrible idea, since they would still nurture their "destroy Israel" views. For Israel the collapse of Hamas is much more advantageous, and had to be in the sights with recent developments.

So as usual, whenever there seemed to be a step taken toward more stability, the forces on both sides who are not interested in that were more than happy to use each others' offered excuses to throw their shit into the fan.

So, basicly it is Israel's fault.
Oh, excuse me, the evil Israeli hardliners.
Never mind the rockets and the mortar rounds.

How is this any diff from all the anti-Semite bullshit all over Europe?

Question:  Did Israel's action in the wake of the murdered teens increase or decrease the number of mortar rounds coming falling on Israel?

Given the nebulous nature of Palestinian politics, we can't tell. However. Operating on the assumption that one reason for rocket fire is to demonstrate strength when being shown to be impotent then yes. Israel did use the manhunt and the highly unlikely prospect of rescue to go and arrest as many of the people released in the Kerry round of talks as possible. Mainly HAMAS men. Raiding any HAMAS activity detected since the last time they raided the west bank. HAMAS knew it was being targetted. Palestinian society knew it was being targetted. It had to do something to maintain the illusion of strength that keeps it in power.

Israels steadfast refusal to make peace unless HAMAS cries uncle and gives up without getting any concession has been making HAMAS more desperate. Hene the murder of so-called collaborators. Likely they were people expressing their opposition to HAMAS and their foolish policies.

The latest cease fire is basically a null cease fire where all of HAMAS' demands will be brought up after Israel get's it's quiet. At which point Israel is free to say screw you.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 26, 2014, 10:43:26 PM
Did Hamas' actions increase or decrease the number of bombs that fell on Gaza?

I don't think Hamas cares about that.

Quote from: Razgovory on August 27, 2014, 07:19:56 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 26, 2014, 10:43:26 PM
Did Hamas' actions increase or decrease the number of bombs that fell on Gaza?

I don't think Hamas cares about that.

They certainly do care.

Quote from: Berkut on August 27, 2014, 08:04:24 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on August 27, 2014, 07:19:56 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 26, 2014, 10:43:26 PM
Did Hamas' actions increase or decrease the number of bombs that fell on Gaza?

I don't think Hamas cares about that.

They certainly do care.

Right. They need those bombs, otherwise they become irrelevant.

Quote from: Berkut on August 27, 2014, 08:04:24 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on August 27, 2014, 07:19:56 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 26, 2014, 10:43:26 PM
Did Hamas' actions increase or decrease the number of bombs that fell on Gaza?

I don't think Hamas cares about that.

They certainly do care.

If they do care it's not the same way as the Israelis do.  Hamas would sacrifice half of Gaza if it meant destroying Israel.  If the recent operation was to protect Israeli lives, I'm not sure it was a big success.  Two dozen Israelis died in this last skirmish.  Hamas will dig more tunnels and get more rockets.  Any attempt to to deprive the enemy of these is temporary and possibly illusionary.  If the action was revenge I think it may have been misplaced since the perpetrators of the kidnapping and murders were not Hamas high command.

I sympathize with Israel here, but there's not a lot that can be done.  I suspect that this will continue until either the Palestinians get tired of this bullshit and actually want peace, or one these Palestinian groups goes to far and does something really stupid like firing a rocket with nerve gas in it.

Glass it.

Quote from: Razgovory on August 27, 2014, 09:21:24 AM

Quote from: Berkut on August 27, 2014, 08:04:24 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on August 27, 2014, 07:19:56 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 26, 2014, 10:43:26 PM
Did Hamas' actions increase or decrease the number of bombs that fell on Gaza?

I don't think Hamas cares about that.

They certainly do care.

If they do care it's not the same way as the Israelis do.  Hamas would sacrifice half of Gaza if it meant destroying Israel.  If the recent operation was to protect Israeli lives, I'm not sure it was a big success.  Two dozen Israelis died in this last skirmish.  Hamas will dig more tunnels and get more rockets.  Any attempt to to deprive the enemy of these is temporary and possibly illusionary.  If the action was revenge I think it may have been misplaced since the perpetrators of the kidnapping and murders were not Hamas high command.

I sympathize with Israel here, but there's not a lot that can be done.  I suspect that this will continue until either the Palestinians get tired of this bullshit and actually want peace, or one these Palestinian groups goes to far and does something really stupid like firing a rocket with nerve gas in it.

Dude, listen. The war with the pals will never end because Israel does not have the political will to expel their asses back to Egypt and Jordan. Therefore, the best bet for the Israel is to reduce the pals, in this case Hamas, as much possible, and then wait until they recuperate as they always do, and another round begins.
Best course of action for Israel would have been to completely reoccupy Gaza, eliminate all the bad guys whose activities have been carefully monitored and recorded by mil intel, then act on as much humint as they can buy from the locals, and then withdraw after making sure Hamas got not infrastructure left.
And so until the next cycle.

Quote from: The Brain on August 27, 2014, 10:15:40 AM
Glass it.

You heartless bastard...