Israel attacks Aid Flotilla. At least 2 dead

Macha · 08-06-2010 03:00PM

Archie D Bunker wrote: »

Just what I said when I commented about the Last Israeli operation in Gaza - they reacted because Israel was assaulted by thousands of rockets.

That is actually untrue. There had been a truce for 6 months beforehand. See graph here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_in_the_Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict_2008

Archie D Bunker wrote: »

Funny how everybody in the world are entitled to defend themselves using violence - except for Israel - they should just roll over and die when attacked...

Yes, because that's exactly what everyone here thinks Israel should do.

droidus · 08-06-2010 03:02PM

Archie D Bunker wrote: »

Just what I said when I commented about the Last Israeli operation in Gaza - they reacted because Israel was assaulted by thousands of rockets.
Funny how everybody in the world are entitled to defend themselves using violence - except for Israel - they should just roll over and die when attacked...

Sorry to go OT, but that's not the case. Israel violated a 6 month long ceasefire when they attacked the Gaza strip, and this followed repeated offers of an extension of the ceasefire, including the offer of a ten year truce (I outlined these earlier in the thread).

This was the longest period of calm since rocket attacks began in 2002. A success according to the IICC which (an organisation closely associated with the Israeli foreign ministry and the intelligence community).

Scofflaw · 08-06-2010 03:07PM

Archie D Bunker wrote: »

Just what I said when I commented about the Last Israeli operation in Gaza - they reacted because Israel was assaulted by thousands of rockets.
Funny how everybody in the world are entitled to defend themselves using violence - except for Israel - they should just roll over and die when attacked...

No, we'd just like Israel not to commit lethal assaults on very little provocation. Claiming that you're under constant threat and therefore have the right to assault anyone at any time regardless of casualties is an off-putting argument outside the core support.

regards,
Scofflaw

BlaasForRafa · 08-06-2010 03:28PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

Yes - and that's something that can only happen once the Israelis are starting to assault the ship (or it is clear they are about to do so), as a reaction to that assault, unless you believe that those activists were waiting in the stairwell the whole time the flotilla was at sea.

I have no idea why you continue to go to the extreme of obtuseness when logic would do instead. A section of the activists had obviously prepared for various contingenies along the lines of

1. If the Israelis use helicopters gather at point A and rush them as they drop down.

or

2. If the Israelis try to board by boat gather at point B and then etc...

Archie D Bunker · 08-06-2010 03:28PM

droidus wrote: »

Sorry to go OT, but that's not the case. Israel violated a 6 month long ceasefire when they attacked the Gaza strip, and this followed repeated offers of an extension of the ceasefire, including the offer of a ten year truce (I outlined these earlier in the thread).

This was the longest period of calm since rocket attacks began in 2002. A success according to the IICC which (an organisation closely associated with the Israeli foreign ministry and the intelligence community).

I understand that 4 rockets per month vs 200 rockets per month seems almost like there were no rockets - but even 1 rocket in a month constitutes an attack.
In addition - if I remember correctly, the incident for which Israel is blamed as the one who broke the cease fire (which never really existed since there was never a complete stop to rocket firing) was an incident where the IDF killed a couple of Hamas activists who were trying to tunnel their way to Israel (and no, they weren't interested in seeing the sights).

As for the 10 year truce which was offered - I'm sure Hamas would love nothing better than having 10 years of peace to arm themselves, build bunkers, train more suicide bombers, etc, but why would Israel agree to that? Did Hamas change their charter all of a sudden? Have they acknowledged Israel's right to exist? Have they done anything to show that they want peace (besides talk and talk and talk about it to western journalists and anyone else who is still willing to listen to them)?

Scofflaw · 08-06-2010 03:30PM

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I have no idea why you continue to go to the extreme of obtuseness when logic would do instead. A section of the activists had obviously prepared for various contingenies along the lines of

1. If the Israelis use helicopters gather at point A and rush them as they drop down.

or

2. If the Israelis try to board by boat gather at point B and then etc...

Yes, that's right. And do you understand how a defence plan is different from a premeditated attack?

regards,
Scofflaw

irishconvert · 08-06-2010 03:36PM

Archie D Bunker wrote: »

Just what I said when I commented about the Last Israeli operation in Gaza - they reacted because Israel was assaulted by thousands of rockets.
Funny how everybody in the world are entitled to defend themselves using violence - except for Israel - they should just roll over and die when attacked...

Do you also think the UK should have bombed Dublin, Belfast and Cork back to the stone age in response to the IRA campaign in the UK?

droidus · 08-06-2010 03:38PM

Archie D Bunker wrote: »

I understand that 4 rockets per month vs 200 rockets per month seems almost like there were no rockets - but even 1 rocket in a month constitutes an attack.
In addition - if I remember correctly, the incident for which Israel is blamed as the one who broke the cease fire (which never really existed since there was never a complete stop to rocket firing) was an incident where the IDF killed a couple of Hamas activists who were trying to tunnel their way to Israel (and no, they weren't interested in seeing the sights).

As for the 10 year truce which was offered - I'm sure Hamas would love nothing better than having 10 years of peace to arm themselves, build bunkers, train more suicide bombers, etc, but why would Israel agree to that? Did Hamas change their charter all of a sudden? Have they acknowledged Israel's right to exist? Have they done anything to show that they want peace (besides talk and talk and talk about it to western journalists and anyone else who is still willing to listen to them)?

Sorry to intrude on your fantasies, and apologies for OT posting, but I think this is relevant here.

Let's start by having a look at the exact text of the 'understanding' which was released to the International Crisis Group.

1- Mutual agreement to cease all military activities by the start of “zero hour” on Thursday, June 19, at 6:00AM.

2- Duration of ceasefire is six months according to agreement concluded among the national parties under Egyptian auspices.

3- Ceasefire will be implemented under national consensus and under the Egyptian auspices.

4- After seventy two hours from the start of the ceasefire, the crossing points will be opened to allow 30% more goods to enter the Gaza strip.

5- Ten days after that (i.e., 13 days after ceasefire begins), all crossings would be open between Gaza and Israel, and Israel will allow the transfer of all goods that were banned or restricted to go into Gaza.

6- Egypt will work to expand the ceasefire into the West Bank later.

From the beginning of the ceasefire on June 19th there was a marked decrease in rocket attacks, in fact, between June 19th and November 4 there was a 98% decrease in rockets fired with no fatalities.

This was the longest period of calm since rocket attacks began in 2002. A success according to the IICC which (as already mentioned is a closely associated with the Israeli foreign ministry and the intelligence community):

4. An analysis of the situation on the ground indicates two distinct periods:

i) A period of relative quiet between June 19 and November 4 : As of June 19, there was a marked reduction in the extent of attacks on the western Negev population. The lull was sporadically violated by rocket and mortar shell fire, carried out by rogue terrorist organizations, in some instance in defiance of Hamas (especially by Fatah and Al-Qaeda supporters). Hamas was careful to maintain the ceasefire. The IDF refrained from undertaking counterterrorism activities in the Gaza Strip, taking only routine defensive security measures along the border fence. Between June 19 and November 4, 20 rockets (three of which fell inside the Gaza Strip) and 18 mortar shells (five of which fell inside the Gaza Strip) were fired at Israel .

14. As soon as the lull arrangement went into effect there was a marked decrease in the
extent of rocket and mortar shell attacks against the western Negev population and the
Ashqelon region. There was relative calm in Sderot and the towns and villages near the GazaStrip, although the calm was disrupted by sporadic rocket and mortar shell fire and occasionally by light arms fire and attempts to place IEDs by rogue terrorist organizations (primarily networks of Fatah, the Popular Resistance Committees and other small groups, some of them affiliated with Al-Qaeda). Hamas, for its part, was careful to maintain the ceasefire. IDF forces refrained from undertaking counterterrorism activities in the Gaza Strip and only carried out defensive security activity around the border security fence to prevent attacks. That was the situation on the ground before November 4. During the first period 20 rockets were fired, three of which fell inside the Gaza Strip, and 18 mortar shells, five of which fell inside the Gaza Strip.

15. The sporadic rocket fire during this period was generally carried out in response to what the rogue organizations called “Israeli violations” of the arrangement. In certain instances there were attacks to protest the fact that the arrangement had not been extended to Judea and Samaria; that was noticeable from the beginning of the lull. For example, on June 24 three rockets were fired at Sderot, the first Palestinian violation of the arrangement, after a Palestinian Islamic Jihad operative was killed in Nablus (in Samaria), despite the fact that Judea and Samaria were not included in the lull arrangement, and both terrorist attacks and counterterrorism activities were carried out there at that time.

16. Networks belonging to Fatah/Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades were the most prominent and central in violating the lull arrangement. Their motivation was the desire to show themselves as the standard bearers of the “resistance” (i.e., terrorism) and to send a message of defiance to Hamas, their rivals, even though Fatah in Judea and Samaria renounced the attacks.5 In certain instances the Palestinian Islamic Jihad or other organizations fired rockets. In most instances they did not publicly claim responsibility. Such attacks were motivated by deep internal Palestinian rivalries, especially between Fatah and Hamas, and not responses to “violations” on the part of Israel.

17. During the first period Hamas was careful to maintain the ceasefire and its operatives were not involved in rocket attacks. At the same time, the movement tried to enforce the terms of the arrangement on the other terrorist organizations and to prevent them from violating it. Hamas took a number of steps against networks which violated the arrangement, but in a limited fashion and contenting itself with short-term detentions and confiscating weapons. For example, a number of times Hamas’s security services detained Fatah/Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades operatives, including Abu Qusai, an Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades spokesman, who claimed responsibility for rocket fire (June 29). Detained operatives were released after a short interrogation and no real measures were taken against them. However, it was clear that throughout the first period Hamas sought to avoid direct confrontations with the rogue organizations (especially the PIJ) insofar as was possible, lest it be accused of collaborating with Israel and harming the “resistance.” Hamas therefore focused on using politics to convince the organizations to maintain the lull arrangement and on seeking support for it within Gazan public opinion (including issuing statements by its activists regarding the lull’s achievements).

So according to one of the most prominent anti-terror groups and an approved source of the Israeli foreign ministry, Hamas maintained the ceasefire, attempted to prevent rocket attacks which were launched in defiance of Hamas, and rocket attacks only restarted as a response to the Israeli incursion of November 4th.

This has all been partly confirmed by Mark Regev, spokesman for the Israeli prime minister in an interview on Channel 4 news.

Hamas for their part publicly condemned the al-Asqa Martyrs Brigade (a military splinter group of Fatah) launched rocket attacks of the week of June 23rd, "claiming that they were deliberately trying to wreck the fragile Gaza truce with Israel to "settle internal scores"." They also publicly reaffirmed their commitment to the ceasefire.

It's also worth mentioning here that Fatah groups such as Abbas's presidential guard and the "Preventive Security Force" headed by warlord Mohammad Dahlan had previously been armed and trained via Israel and had the political support of Israel and the US in their armed opposition against the elected Hamas government.

If there was any doubt whatsoever about Israel's support for Fatah fighters in the strip it was dispelled when150 Fatah supporters were allowed to enter Israel as a refuge following a Hamas crackdown - possibly including some members of the same groups that had been firing on Israel in defiance of Hamas' truce agreements.

As for Israel's side of the deal - on June 19th they did allow 30% more aid (not normal traffic - just humanitarian aid) into the strip but then restricted access for the remainder of the ceasefire after the first al-Asqa rockets were launched. Israel expanded the security zone at the border to 300 meters, entry into which was an automatic death sentence for Palestinians. Israeli officials acknowledged in June that "that they had no intention of opening the border crossings fully, even though they anticipated that this would be the source of serious conflict with Hamas... ...and in late July Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni declared that the border crossings should remain closed until Hamas agreed to the release of Gilad Shalit...", which was not a condition of the ceasefire.

Remember that the Israeli siege was a continuation of policies which were commenced prior to 'disengagement' from Gaza, and are in direct violation of International Humanitarian law and constituted collective punishment, condemned by the UN human rights council in January 07 (the 15th such condemnation on human rights in the occupied territories in the preceding 2 years). In March of the same year, aid agencies and NGO's such as Amnesty, CARE International UK, CAFOD, Christian Aid, Medecins du Monde UK, Oxfam, Save the Children UK and Trocaire issued the joint report 'The Gaza Strip: A Humanitarian Implosion':

Amnesty etc... wrote:

The situation for 1.5 million Palestinians in the Gaza Strip is worse now than it has ever been since the start of the Israeli military occupation in 1967. The current situation in Gaza is man-made, completely avoidable and, with the necessary political will, can also be reversed.

Gaza has suffered from a long-term pattern of economic stagnation and plummeting development indicators. The severity of the situation has increased exponentially since Israel imposed extreme restrictions on the movement of goods and people in response to the Hamas take over of Gaza...

Israeli human rights group B'tselem outlined these breaches of humanitarian law and the effects of the economic strangulation of Gaza even prior to the Hamas takeover in 2006, in their March '05 report 'The Gaza Strip - One Big Prison':

B'tselem wrote:

Despite the easing of restrictions that Israel declared following the Sharm el-Sheikh summit in February 2005, there has been almost no improvement in the movement of Palestinians to and from Gaza, nor in the movement of goods. The report illustrates the extent to which Israel treats many fundamental human rights – among them the right to freedom of movement, family life, health, education, and work – as “humanitarian gestures” that it grants or denies at will...

...The strangulation of the Gaza Strip increased following Palestinian attacks against civilians in Israel and the Occupied Territories over the past few years. Targeting civilians is a “war crime” and never justified. Israel is entitled, even obligated, to protect its citizens. However, Israel’s right to self-defense does not permit it to trample on the rights of an entire population...

...

As for the ridiculous justification for Israel's break of the truce? Hamas' 'terror tunnel'? Not even worth justifying with a response TBH.

Archie D Bunker · 08-06-2010 03:46PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, we'd just like Israel not to commit lethal assaults on very little provocation. Claiming that you're under constant threat and therefore have the right to assault anyone at any time regardless of casualties is an off-putting argument outside the core support.

regards,
Scofflaw

Unfortunately, it seems that as far as Israel and the Palestinians are concerned no provocation what so ever is enough to justify an Israeli response.
Damned if they do, dead if they don't - I guess Israel decided to go with the "damned if they do" option.

Archie D Bunker · 08-06-2010 03:48PM

irishconvert wrote: »

Do you also think the UK should have bombed Dublin, Belfast and Cork back to the stone age in response to the IRA campaign in the UK?

If the IRA were the elected Irish government at the time, and if the IRA fired thousands of rockets into the UK and sent dozens of suicide bombers to blow themselves up in the streets of London, I think the brits would have leveled Ireland.

Scofflaw · 08-06-2010 03:50PM

Archie D Bunker wrote: »

Unfortunately, it seems that as far as Israel and the Palestinians are concerned no provocation what so ever is enough to justify an Israeli response.
Damned if they do, dead if they don't - I guess Israel decided to go with the "damned if they do" option.

Israel invariably does, as far as I can see. Many events have justified an Israeli reaction, but they rarely justified the Israeli reaction.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Archie D Bunker · 08-06-2010 03:52PM

droidus wrote: »

Sorry to intrude on your fantasies, and apologies for OT posting, but I think this is relevant here.
...

As for the ridiculous justification for Israel's break of the truce? Hamas' 'terror tunnel'? Not even worth justifying with a response TBH.

Nice long post. Unfortunately, even according to your findings - the rocket attacks did not stop. A 98% decrease means just that - a decrease.
A cease fire is a cease fire - no rockets should have been fired.
Hamas claimed other organizations fired the rockets, and as the elected Palestinian government they should have stopped it. Even according to your quotes - Hamas didn't really do anything to the other faction members who fired those rockets.

droidus · 08-06-2010 04:02PM

Archie D Bunker wrote: »

Nice long post. Unfortunately, even according to your findings - the rocket attacks did not stop. A 98% decrease means just that - a decrease.
A cease fire is a cease fire - no rockets should have been fired.

Yes that's true, and also, Israel never lifted the blockade, so Israel also breached the agreement. Its all outlined above. try reading the entire post rather than selectively quoting the bits you agree with.

Regardless of minor violations of the ceasefire, both sides regarded it to be working and both sides continued to adhere to the 'real world' version of it, until of course Israel bombed the strip and conclusively ended the ceasefire, followed by their brutal assault which was accompanied by repeated offers of a new ceasefire from Hamas.

alastair · 08-06-2010 04:11PM

Archie D Bunker wrote: »

Nice long post. Unfortunately, even according to your findings - the rocket attacks did not stop. A 98% decrease means just that - a decrease.
A cease fire is a cease fire - no rockets should have been fired.
Hamas claimed other organizations fired the rockets, and as the elected Palestinian government they should have stopped it. Even according to your quotes - Hamas didn't really do anything to the other faction members who fired those rockets.

So, rather than 'they reacted because Israel was assaulted by thousands of rockets', your new position is that 'they reacted because Hamas, while observing a ceasefire, didn't do enough to stop another group who fired 20 rockets, killing no-one'?

Just so we're clear. And this justifies 1400 dead?

Archie D Bunker · 08-06-2010 04:15PM

droidus wrote: »

Regardless of minor violations of the ceasefire, both sides regarded it to be working and both sides continued to adhere to the 'real world' version of it, until of course Israel bombed the strip and conclusively ended the ceasefire, followed by their brutal assault which was accompanied by repeated offers of a new ceasefire from Hamas.

So, two Hamas terrorists try to cross the Israeli border into Israel, the IDF blows them up, and Israel is the one who broke the 'real world' cease fire?
isn't what Israel did a 'real world' version of a cease fire also?

Dar · 08-06-2010 04:17PM

Archie D Bunker wrote: »

Nice long post. Unfortunately, even according to your findings - the rocket attacks did not stop. A 98% decrease means just that - a decrease.
A cease fire is a cease fire - no rockets should have been fired.
Hamas claimed other organizations fired the rockets, and as the elected Palestinian government they should have stopped it. Even according to your quotes - Hamas didn't really do anything to the other faction members who fired those rockets.

The number of attacks was drastically reduced. Expecting a complete cessation is unrealistic, this is not an organised state military we are talking about here. Even so, the number of attacks were trending downwards right up until the IDF moved back into Gaza in November with troops and bulldozers marking an end to the ceasefire.

The ceasefire was working but once again Israel shot itself with the foot with one of their typical disproportionate responses.

BlaasForRafa · 08-06-2010 04:17PM

droidus wrote: »

As for the ridiculous justification for Israel's break of the truce? Hamas' 'terror tunnel'? Not even worth justifying with a response TBH.

Gilad Shalit was captured by terrorists using a tunnel from gaza into Israel so the IDF are well within their rights to deal with anyone constructing or using such a tunnel.

Selkies · 08-06-2010 04:19PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

Yes, that's right. And do you understand how a defence plan is different from a premeditated attack?

regards,
Scofflaw

Israel claimed that the palestinians in the Gaza strip had committed an act of war by increased the number of rockets in Gaza during the truce.

Before the war broke out they had destroyed tunnels that were said to be transporting rockets.

From their perspective the war was inevitable, they simply chose to have it at a time at which the Palestinians were at more of a disadvantage.

That said I think they should have come out into the UN with proof that the Palestinians were preparing for war if that is indeed the case and their invasion would have been significantly less disastrous in PR and potentially in human lives.

I think that showed that they are more motivated by military strategy and the loss of Israeli life than by a real commitment to a long lasting peace.

This may have something to do with the failure of previous peace initiatives but I think it is within the Israeli public's hands to demand that the price of temporary security for the goal of a long term peace is paid. Naturally this would have to be bilateral agreement which doesn't seem likely at any point.

droidus · 08-06-2010 04:23PM

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Gilad Shalit was captured by terrorists using a tunnel from gaza into Israel so the IDF are well within their rights to deal with anyone constructing or using such a tunnel.

If there was such a tunnel, and if Hamas was trying to use a tunnel to kidnap an Israeli soldier (none of which has been proven), then if Israel was interested in maintaining the ceasefire it could have apprehended, bombed, shot or obliterated the Hamas operatives after they entered Israeli territory - that way they wouldnt have breached the ceasefire.

Can you please provide evidence that Hamas was building a tunnel to capture Israeli soldiers and that bombing the Gaza strip and breaking the ceasefire was the only way to prevent this from happening?

alastair · 08-06-2010 04:25PM

Archie D Bunker wrote: »

So, two Hamas terrorists try to cross the Israeli border into Israel, the IDF blows them up, and Israel is the one who broke the 'real world' cease fire?
isn't what Israel did a 'real world' version of a cease fire also?

There wan't any tunnel or terrorists entering Israel. The IDF went into Gaza to destroy a tunnel in the Gaza side and killed six hamas people in the process.

A four-month ceasefire between Israel and Palestinian militants in Gaza was in jeopardy today after Israeli troops killed six Hamas gunmen in a raid into the territory.

Selkies · 08-06-2010 04:27PM

Dar wrote: »

The ceasefire was working but once again Israel shot itself with the foot with one of their typical disproportionate responses.

Dar,

I believe that from the Israeli perspective disproportionate responses are like shooting a man in the head who is coming at you with a knife or shooting into a crowd that has surrounded you and holding large rocks.

Another argument would say that the Israeli solider should give his life for a peace rather than to "win" a war.

Far more noble but currently viewed as unacceptable by the Israeli public most of whom that are of a voting age are in the military or have been drafted for 2-3 years once they turn 18. Perhaps that will change, in america Martin Luther king told his followers to not defend themselves, in india Mahatma Ghandi did the same, what we need is people like them in positions of power.

droidus · 08-06-2010 04:27PM

Selkies wrote: »

Israel claimed that the palestinians in the Gaza strip had committed an act of war by increased the number of rockets in Gaza during the truce.

Before the war broke out they had destroyed tunnels that were said to be transporting rockets.

From their perspective the war was inevitable, they simply chose to have it at a time at which the Palestinians were at more of a disadvantage.

That said I think they should have come out into the UN with proof that the Palestinians were preparing for war if that is indeed the case and their invasion would have been significantly less disastrous in PR and potentially in human lives.

Would you agree that Hamas has the right to blockade Israel? They are constantly 'rearming' themselves, plus Hamas the Arab world (and much of the rest of the world) regard them as 'terrorists'.

The mindest on display here is fascinating. Hamas attacks Israel - terrorism. Hamas agrees to a ceasefire and stops attacking Israel - terrorism.

Can Hamas do anything that supporters of Israel don't describe as terrorism?

Archie D Bunker · 08-06-2010 04:34PM

alastair wrote: »

So, rather than 'they reacted because Israel was assaulted by thousands of rockets', your new position is that 'they reacted because Hamas, while observing a ceasefire, didn't do enough to stop another group who fired 20 rockets, killing no-one'?

Just so we're clear. And this justifies 1400 dead?

Israel's reaction was after thousands of rockets have been fired into Israel, including during a time period in which a cease fire was supposed to be in place.

As for the number of dead - I really don't want to get into the whole "appropriate response" issue - it was discussed to death here on boards. Suffice to say that i subscribe to the notion that if someone attacks you you strike back until they are either dead or stop attacking. The number of casualties your enemy suffers along the way is irrelevant. The Israeli government has an obligation to defend Israeli citizens, not Palestinian citizens. I believe that the number of casualties would have been much lower if Hamas didn't do their fighting from within the civilian population, from schools, near UN facilities, mosques, etc.
In addition, the Israelis always showed great restraint in their operations, trying not to harm civilians as much as possible. In such cases, you have to look at other comparative entities - in this case other armies and governments in the world who are involved in a long lasting conflict - The conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Tibet, Darfur, etc, have all cost much more in human life and suffering than the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, yet they seem to get much less attention from the media, human rights groups, the UN, etc.

Selkies · 08-06-2010 04:38PM

droidus wrote: »

Would you agree that Hamas has the right to blockade Israel? They are constantly 'rearming' themselves, plus Hamas the Arab world (and much of the rest of the world) regard them as 'terrorists'.

Indeed, both sides use terror in their tactics, terror tends to have a lower casualty count than traditional warfare while still having a great effect on the victims. Personally I'm in favour of terror over traditional warfare for that reason.

droidus wrote: »

The mindest on display here is fascinating. Hamas attacks Israel - terrorism. Hamas agrees to a ceasefire and stops attacking Israel - terrorism.

It wasn't as simple as that, there were still a small amount of rockets being fired at Israel, it was felt that Hamas could do more to stop such attacks if they were really in favour of the peace. Also both sides were arming up for the next conflict, it just needed a spark and that happened to be the deaths of two Hamas members.

droidus wrote: »

Can Hamas do anything that supporters of Israel don't describe as terrorism?

It depends, Israel is a very diverse place in terms of viewpoints, religion and attitudes toward the conflict.
Most Israelis are afraid of Hamas, they beginning more and more to see the value of the image of their little state, but for now their fear outweighs anything else and will always be the basis on which they view Hamas and any of its operations.

alastair · 08-06-2010 04:40PM

Archie D Bunker wrote: »

Israel's reaction was after thousands of rockets have been fired into Israel, including during a time period in which a cease fire was supposed to be in place.

If Israel was prepared to engage in a ceasefire agreement after the Hamas rocket campaign, then it beggers belief that it would suddenly 'react' to that history six months after they had stopped said campaign.

So clearly it's untrue that ''they reacted because Israel was assaulted by thousands of rockets', just as it's untrue that they were reacting to 'two Hamas terrorists try to cross the Israeli border into Israel'. Is there anything else you'd like to suggest that they were 'reacting against'?

Archie D Bunker wrote: »

As for the number of dead - I really don't want to get into the whole "appropriate response" issue

I'm sure you'd like to avoid that one alright.

Archie D Bunker wrote: »

I believe that the number of casualties would have been much lower if Hamas didn't do their fighting from within the civilian population, from schools, near UN facilities, mosques, etc.
In addition, the Israelis always showed great restraint in their operations, trying not to harm civilians as much as possible. In such cases, you have to look at other comparative entities - in this case other armies and governments in the world who are involved in a long lasting conflict - The conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Tibet, Darfur, etc, have all cost much more in human life and suffering than the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, yet they seem to get much less attention from the media, human rights groups, the UN, etc.

Where do you think Hamas can fight the IDF from within Gaza except urban areas? Gaza is effectively one large urban sprawl, with a few surrounding fields - are they supposed to line up in the fields to be bombed there? The Israeli claim that Hamas were fighting from the UN compound was rejected catagorically by the UN themselves. As to the IDF 'trying not to harm civilians as much as possible' - doesn't really tally with their use of WP shells illegally (nor the raw fact of 1400 dead) does it?

Archie D Bunker · 08-06-2010 04:41PM

droidus wrote: »

Would you agree that Hamas has the right to blockade Israel? They are constantly 'rearming' themselves, plus Hamas the Arab world (and much of the rest of the world) regard them as 'terrorists'.

The mindest on display here is fascinating. Hamas attacks Israel - terrorism. Hamas agrees to a ceasefire and stops attacking Israel - terrorism.

Can Hamas do anything that supporters of Israel don't describe as terrorism?

Well, they can start by amending all those charter clauses they have that call for the destruction of Israel. That would be a nice start.:cool:

Dar · 08-06-2010 04:45PM

Archie D Bunker wrote: »

Israel's reaction was after thousands of rockets have been fired into Israel, including during a time period in which a cease fire was supposed to be in place.

37 attacks between June 19th and October does not constitute "thousands of rockets". Between 1st June and ceasefire on the 19th of June there were 238 attacks. In the entire month of October there were 2.

droidus · 08-06-2010 04:46PM

Archie D Bunker wrote: »

Well, they can start by amending all those charter clauses they have that call for the destruction of Israel. That would be a nice start.:cool:

Maybe you could suggest that Likud do the same seeing as their charter explicitly rejects the notion of a Palestine state and claims all of mandate Palestine as part of Israel?

Dar · 08-06-2010 04:47PM

Archie D Bunker wrote: »

Well, they can start by amending all those charter clauses they have that call for the destruction of Israel. That would be a nice start.:cool:

They've already announced that they are prepared to do so.

http://www.jpost.com/Home/Article.aspx?id=166300

droidus · 08-06-2010 04:48PM

Selkies wrote: »

It wasn't as simple as that, there were still a small amount of rockets being fired at Israel, it was felt that Hamas could do more to stop such attacks if they were really in favour of the peace. Also both sides were arming up for the next conflict, it just needed a spark and that happened to be the deaths of two Hamas members.

'Felt' by whom? Ive already linked to an ultra conservative group trusted by the Israeli government which 'felt' Hamas was doing everything in its power to maintain the ceasefire.

Israel attacks Aid Flotilla. At least 2 dead

Comments