Israel vs Hamas, Round 5,672,341,566,125

[bascule]

This image is/was on the front page of the BBC news website, linked to an article about Gaza.

 

What is the explodey cloudy thingy? Is it something which a bunch of projectiles have converged on, or did it shoot out a load of missiles before going "poof"?

 

Slightly off-topic I know, but I for one would like to know what is being deployed in this round.

 

 

This is what the Times was claiming was the "tell-tale" smoke trail left from the use of white phosphorus.

 

Here's a picture of the alleged white phosphorus actually being deployed over Gaza. It should give you a better idea of what made the smoke:

 

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23611375-details/Israel+uses+phosphorus+shells+as+smokescreen+for+troops/article.do

 

 

Once the shell explodes it rains down burning white phosphorus.

 

For the record Israel has denied the claims of using white phosphorus.

[iNow]

IfAnd for the record, my friends and relatives don't live in Florida, they live in London, where one of them 'Lydia' had her place of work destroyed by an IRA bomb.

My government didn't respond with firey rage and malice, they got talking and now we have peace.

 

The point you appear to be missing, however, is that it's not just one bomb, and also that Israel has already conceded land for peace, and that the ceasefire has been in effect for years, and infinitum... They have been talking. There WAS a peaceful agreement, and STILL rockets were fired.

 

Again, I appreciate the desire for peace, I really do, but at some point when the bully keeps punching you in the face and taking your lunch money, turning the other cheek is no longer an option and you have to wail him in the nuts in front of everybody.

[tomgwyther]

Agreed, it is a bit of a 'chicken and egg' situation, but kicking the bully (who ever the bully is deemed to be) can only serve to antagonise the bullied.

The school playground analogy is very apt here.

 

If the Palestinians enjoyed the same rights to jobs, economic security, food, health care, education and security that their Isrealy neighbours did, it would be a step towards peace.

Militants would have no real reason to fire rockets in the first place.

 

I'm talking from the perspective of the common man, trying to live in Gaza.

If my home was bulldozed, and my family destitute, and my friends had their backs broken by Israels soldiers with hammers, I might think about taking up arms.

 

p.s I may be lacking in understanding in Judaism, but why does this religion have to have specific piece of land associated with it?

no other religion has a 'Homeland' to be so bitterly contested.

I say again "The middle east: Worlds largest outdoor lunatic asylum."

[john5746]

On a more realistic note, a good start point would be for one side to take the moral high ground and swallow it's pride.

To Hamas I say

“Gandhi did it, Martin Luther did it, Nelson Mandela did it, all through non violence, through which they all archived 'martyrdom'

 

Yes, if Hamas did this, everyone would just love them to death and be on their side. They can do this because Israel has not vowed to wipe them off the map. Gandhi couldn't have done what he did without his head. Comparing Jews to Nazis is pretty stupid. Unless you think everyone is a Nazi. I mean, at least Israel is going into the right country, unlike Bush.

 

 

If the Palestinians enjoyed the same rights to jobs, economic security, food, health care, education and security that their Isrealy neighbours did, it would be a step towards peace.

Militants would have no real reason to fire rockets in the first place.

 

So if you are poor, then that means you can murder? Really? How are living standards in Saudi Arabia or Iran?

 

I'm talking from the perspective of the common man, trying to live in Gaza.

If my home was bulldozed, and my family destitute, and my friends had their backs broken by Israels soldiers with hammers, I might think about taking up arms.

 

Especially if you were brainwashed in school to hate Jews.

 

p.s I may be lacking in understanding in Judaism, but why does this religion have to have specific piece of land associated with it?

no other religion has a 'Homeland' to be so bitterly contested.

I say again "The middle east: Worlds largest outdoor lunatic asylum."

 

I beg to differ, heard of Mecca? Heard of the crusades in Jerusalem? All the Abrahamic religions want that property.

[tomgwyther]

I think you've pretty much hit the nail on the head with your post, and enforced my point.

 

Thank you

[Sisyphus]

I beg to differ, heard of Mecca? Heard of the crusades in Jerusalem? All the Abrahamic religions want that property.

 

Which is exactly the problem, of course. But still, with Christians and Muslims, it's "just" a matter of holy sites that they want to protect (or at least it is with Christians - I've never read the Quran). With Jews it's more explicit. They think of themselves as the Israelites, who they believe God has specifically granted absolute domain over that particular plot of land, complete with license to kill whoever happens to be living there who isn't them. God actually even promises they can return there and reclaim it after a long dispersion, and Zionism is the modern movement to hold Him to that promise.

 

Now, obviously, in practice the state of Israel has practiced a great deal more restraint than many believe the Jewish religion demands, to the point where even people like me, who have nothing but utter contempt for ancient prophecies (especially those that dictate genocide), tend to side with Israel in particular incidents like the one happening now, especially compared with the ridiculous psychopaths trying to do them in. But neither that restraint nor the fact that others are just as bad means that the fundamental mission is any less flawed, or deserves any more respect.

[john5746]

Which is exactly the problem, of course. But still, with Christians and Muslims, it's "just" a matter of holy sites that they want to protect (or at least it is with Christians - I've never read the Quran). With Jews it's more explicit. They think of themselves as the Israelites, who they believe God has specifically granted absolute domain over that particular plot of land, complete with license to kill whoever happens to be living there who isn't them. God actually even promises they can return there and reclaim it after a long dispersion, and Zionism is the modern movement to hold Him to that promise.

 

Yeah, that may be true. The Jews wrote that stuff when the world was small, so they never dreamed of world conquest, I guess. They only have permission to kill for that plot of land? What a little god. The Christians and Muslims take that right with them where ever they go.

 

I think Mecca is pretty important though. I mean their travel to that site would be ruined if Americans took over and strip clubs serving beer and pork rinds were all about the place.

 

Anyway, of course I don't support a theocracy - the Brits and Americans didn't want them, so I guess having them go there was a good solution. That is old history though.

[bombus]

I am appalled by the behaviour of Israel, and the lack of understanding of the conflict that seems to be being aired by some here. A few crappy missiles shot by terrorists that kill a handful of israeli civilians does not justify this response that has killed over 300 Palestinian civilians. Terrorists are bastards, but democratic states that are supposed to be liberal and wish to have the respect of other such states should not be even bigger bastards. This is effectively collective punishment which is illegal! But Israel can do as it likes cos no-ones got the moral stamina to try to stop them. Shame on Israel. It will end in tears, maybe for all of us.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

Anyway, of course I don't support a theocracy - the Brits and Americans didn't want them, so I guess having them go there was a good solution. That is old history though.

 

I'd say a very bad decision - and one that's not really that old!

 

Too late now though, we let Israel have nukes of their own.

 

There will never be peace in the region.

[DrP]

If the Palestinians enjoyed the same rights to jobs, economic security, food, health care, education and security that their Isrealy neighbours did, it would be a step towards peace.

 

What has that got to do with Isreal? The Palastinians have their own land and their own government (Hamas). Surley it is up to them to provide their people with these basic standards of living. Instead they wage war.

 

What you have said is like saying "Botswana is poor and they don't have the same standard of living as the South Africans - therefore Botswana should wage war on South Africa so they can can have the same rights to jobs, housing etc.." It's rubbish.

[padren]

I am appalled by the behaviour of Israel, and the lack of understanding of the conflict that seems to be being aired by some here. A few crappy missiles shot by terrorists that kill a handful of israeli civilians does not justify this response that has killed over 300 Palestinian civilians. Terrorists are bastards, but democratic states that are supposed to be liberal and wish to have the respect of other such states should not be even bigger bastards. This is effectively collective punishment which is illegal! But Israel can do as it likes cos no-ones got the moral stamina to try to stop them. Shame on Israel. It will end in tears, maybe for all of us.

 

Honestly, if a handful of Palestinians managed to carry out attacks on Israel that were on scale with the 9/11 attacks in the US, including death tolls, I would consider that a less valid reason to invade Gaza than these missile attacks - if the 9/11 style attack was condemned by Hamas and general populous of the Palestinian civilians.

 

The problem I see, is that (unless I see evidence to the contrary) these missile attacks are sanctioned, if not carried out by Hamas which holds popular support of the civilian population.

 

If the Georgian government decided to suddenly launch missiles into Russia and basically declare war - that's their prerogative, but they'd be fooling themselves if they think they are not inviting a world of hurt down on their people, including civilians.

 

No degree of effectiveness or ineffectiveness of an act of war, changes the fact it's an act of war. If you try to use biological weapons to wipe out as many people as you can, but end up only killing a few cattle, does that mean you are only on the hook for minor property damage?

 

Maybe the Palestinians are justified in starting their war - maybe, as I don't have all the details. That being said though, you cannot start a war with a much, much stronger enemy and not expect your own people (including civilians) to suffer. That is just madness.

 

The people I really feel sorry for are those who appear to be a minority of Palestinians that do not like Hamas and do not support Hamas (at least privately) who, because their elected officials believe they should attack Israel even if their whole world burns - have been hijacked by this insanity.

Edited January 5, 2009 by padren

[ecoli]

Here's a video of interest: Michael Bloomberg fresh from his trip to Israel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGgBjZTsPaw&e

[Mr Skeptic]

I am appalled by the behaviour of Israel, and the lack of understanding of the conflict that seems to be being aired by some here. A few crappy missiles shot by terrorists that kill a handful of israeli civilians does not justify this response that has killed over 300 Palestinian civilians. Terrorists are bastards, but democratic states that are supposed to be liberal and wish to have the respect of other such states should not be even bigger bastards. This is effectively collective punishment which is illegal! But Israel can do as it likes cos no-ones got the moral stamina to try to stop them. Shame on Israel. It will end in tears, maybe for all of us.

 

Just remember, it is not the Israelis that are responsible for that response. A few soldiers killing a bunch of Palestinians, how is that Israel's problem? Remember, the Palestinians elected Hamas, which makes them about as responsible for their actions as the Israelis are for the actions of their government.

[bascule]

There was an existing ceasefire, bascule... since 2005. That didn't stop Hamas from lobbing rockets into Israel (like 80-90 every single day), so Israel is doing what any nation would do.

 

If that was the purpose of this exercise it's failing:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/05/israel.gaza/index.html

 

On Monday Hamas militants fired dozens of rockets into southern Israel despite a 10-day Israeli military campaign that reportedly has left more than 500 Palestinians dead.

 

Abu Obeida, a spokesman for Hamas' military wing, warned Israel that Izzedine al Qassam Brigades will continue rocket strikes "for many months" and vowed to strike deeper into Israeli territory. He spoke on Hamas' Al-Aqsa TV.

[mooeypoo]

Which is why it's not done yet.

[iNow]

As fast moving as this thread is, I'm not sure anyone will take the time to watch this, but a few weeks back, NOVA did a great program on the bible and some of these issues. Good watch:

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bible/program.html

[waitforufo]

With Jews it's more explicit. They think of themselves as the Israelites, who they believe God has specifically granted absolute domain over that particular plot of land, complete with license to kill whoever happens to be living there who isn't them. God actually even promises they can return there and reclaim it after a long dispersion, and Zionism is the modern movement to hold Him to that promise.

 

The above simply is not true. Modern Zionism really got rolling after the first world war. The movement was dominated by atheists and socialists who shared a common ethnicity. This ethnic group originated in the geographic area referred to as Palestine by the Romans. Since this ethnic group was forcibly removed from Roman Palestine and distained or hated in the areas in which they currently lived, they chose to return to the land of their origin. Prior to 1948 very few modern Zionist moved to Israel for religious reasons. They moved there to join their ethnic clan and to participate in a socialist experiment.

 

The vast majority of Arabs living in Palestine at the time were at best peasants but better described as surfs. They belonged to the land owned by feudal lords of the Turkish caliphate. At the end of word war one, this caliphate as eliminated and divided into European administered colonies. The former feudal lords became land owners and the surfs became tenants. The land owners sold their land to Zionists. The Zionists, in the main, paid a premium to have the tenants relocated. The land owners did not relocate their tenants. They felt no feudal obligation to do so since their former surfs were now legally tenants. When Arab Palestinians talk about a "right of return" they include it that the right to return to land they once belonged to as surfs. These Arabs in part complain about Zionists because when the Zionists bought the land on which the Arabs lived, the Zionists, like the former feudal lords, did not respect the former feudal obligations to the people that belonged to that land under the former Turkish caliphate.

 

The origins of this problem are political not religious. Even today, the majority of Jews living in Israel are atheists or religiously non observant. The religious aspects of this conflict did not really begin to dominate until after the 1973 Yom Kippur war.

[bascule]

This thread really confuses me. Even my fellow moonbat iNow seems to think Hamas is entirely culpable here and that Israel is entirely justified, but that's not what I see at all.

 

As I understand it the collapse of the existing ceasefire is what lead to a week long barrage of rocket attacks from Gaza. That's why Israel invaded, although it's hard to say if their greater goal is to crush Hamas. Some people here are claiming the rocket attacks have been going on for some time, so I'm curious if anyone has any information on how frequent they were in the past versus after the ceasefire collapsed.

 

I'm not picking sides here nor do I want to. What I'm curious about is the backlash I got when I pointed out the US is intervening to prevent the UN from pushing a new ceasefire agreement. Why isn't a ceasefire preferable?

[iNow]

I think the issue is that a ceasefire must come with conditions. The US is arguing that there MUST be a guarantee of no more rockets (or, at the very least, the promise to take specific actions should more rocket fire continue) before a ceasefire is given.

 

It's more about getting Hamas to agree to terms than it is about wanting to continue striking with force (at least, that is IMO).

 

 

Per the rockets, I haven't validated this site, but according to it:

 

 

http://idfspokesperson.com/2009/01/03/rocket-statistics-3-jan-2009/

• Today, over 950,000 Israelis live within range of rocket and mortar attacks.
  
• There have been approximately 7,200 rockets (Grads, Qassams) and mortars launched at Israel since 2005.
  
• During 2008, there have been 1755 mortars shells, 1720 Qassams rockets, and 75 Grad missiles launched at Israel.
  
• Since Hamas’ election there has been a steady increase of these rocket attacks against Israel’s citizens:
  
• Between Israel’s evacuation of Gaza and the election of Hamas (Aug. 15, 2005 – Jan. 25, 2006), there was an average of over 15 rocket and mortar attacks a month.
  
• Between Hamas’ election and Hamas’ forceful takeover of the Strip (Jan. 25, 2006 – June 14, 2007), there was an average of over 102 attacks per month—an over 650% increase.
  
• Between Hamas’ takeover and the start of the Tahadiya (State of Calm), (June 14, 2007 – June 16, 2008), there was an average of over 361 attacks per month—an increase of an additional 350%.
  
• On Nov. 4 – 5, Israel launched Operation “Double Challenge”, targeting a tunnel Hamas was building as part of a plan to kidnap Israeli soldiers.
  
• From the end of Operation “Double Challenge” until the end of the Tahadiya, (Nov. 4 - Dec. 19, 2008) a period of only a month and a half, there were 170 mortars, 255 Qassams, and 5 Grads fired upon Israel’s civilian population centers.
  
• Since the end of the Tahadiya (Dec. 19, 2009) until the beginning of Operation “Cast Lead,” (Dec. 27, 2008) a period of little more than a week, there were approximately 300 mortars and rockets fired onto Israel.
  
• Since the begining of Operation ”Cast Lead”, there have been an additional 500 launches, 284 of which have been verified as rockets (both Qassams and Grads), and 113 as mortars.
  

 

 

 

EDIT: Not necessarily unbiased, but perhaps a better site here:

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Palestinian+terror+since+2000/Missile+fire+from+Gaza+on+Israeli+civilian+targets+Aug+2007.htm

 

Also, check out Part V of this (large) PDF file:

http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/terror_07e.pdf

Edited January 6, 2009 by iNow

[Reaper]

One of the things I don't really get is why Israel is intent on bombing away the entire Gaza Strip region when they could just simply use some counter-terrorist squad or a SWAT team to go to their houses and get their leaders. It's not like they don't know where they live, and chances are they know where those rockets are being fired from (it's not that hard to trace rocket or cannon fire, that's why the MLRS is built with mobility in mind).

 

I know Hamas is a legitimately bad organization, but sending in tens of thousands of soldiers with tanks right into Gaza Strip doesn't seem right at all. It's like trying to kill a fly with a shotgun; the Palestinians for the most part haven't been able to seriously stand up to Israel since the early 80's....

[john5746]

I know Hamas is a legitimately bad organization, but sending in tens of thousands of soldiers with tanks right into Gaza Strip doesn't seem right at all. It's like trying to kill a fly with a shotgun; the Palestinians for the most part haven't been able to seriously stand up to Israel since the early 80's....

 

Oh yeah, that's the ticket - underestimate your enemy and send in the weakest possible force. Worked in Somalia for the US. Yep.

 

Maybe the UN can try that - send in a force of European and Arab countries and root out Hamas. Heck, they probably can do it without guns, because they know how to use just the right amount of force.

[Reaper]

Underestimate the enemy? Most of those explosives by Hamas are probably home made, and they clearly don't have any offensive capability. Hell, most of the Palestinians don't have assault rifles, or even guns. They are so weak compared to the Israeli army that they are forced to rely mostly on terrorist tactics. At this point they can't even fight a guerrilla war; for the most part all they do is throw rocks.

 

 

Somalia is a much different case; the entire government collapsed and now there is a contest between various warlords vying for control over the nation. They are all heavily armed and some even have access to aircraft. They can be said to have a proper army (even though they are for the most part using guerrilla tactics).

 

I think the problem is here most of you are grossly exaggerating their capabilities.

Edited January 6, 2009 by Reaper

[iNow]

Reaper, my man...

 

 

http://airforcepundit.blogspot.com/2009/01/stopping-hamas-rockets-necessity.html

Perhaps the stupidest line of analysis to emerge in recent days has been to compare the deaths from Hamas rockets in Israel to traffic fatalities and say that Israel should relax. To grasp the nature of the strategic threat Hamas poses, it is necessary to place it in the context of its ally, Hezbollah, in southern Lebanon, and their common backer and puppet master, Iran. During Israel's 2006 war with Hezbollah, rockets continued to rain down on Israel as far as the big industrial city of Haifa. There was an acute fear within Israel, although not much spoken of, that Hezbollah rockets would hit a massive oil refinery in Haifa. The flow-on effects from this could be catastrophic. During that war, much of northern Israel was effectively paralysed, and certainly closed for normal business. Despite the mistakes Israel made in that war, it got some things right. At the start of the conflict, it knocked out Hezbollah's longest-range missiles that could reach Israel's biggest city, Tel Aviv. And since then, the missiles have not come back from the north. Now they come from Gaza in the south. They not only terrorise the small Israeli town of Sderot, they frequently now reach Ashkelon, the industrial city that ironically provides electricity to Gaza. (There must be few occasions in history when a nation is expected to supply electricity to factories building rockets designed to blow up the electricity plant.) There are also chemical plants in Ashkelon that could be hit. The rockets also reach Ashdod, Israel's biggest port. And they reach Beersheba, site of the famous Australian victory over the Ottoman Turks, and Israel's biggest southern city. Nearby is Dimona, Israel's nuclear reactor and, apparently, the site of some of its nuclear warheads.

Hamas and Hezbollah together can then present two types of strategic threat to Israel, beyond merely killing its citizens. They can shut down vast swaths of Israeli society and industry with a rocket offensive. Or they can hit strategic targets, at least from Dimona to Haifa. Israel had no alternative but to act, although how it will restore a future equilibrium in Gaza remains deeply unclear.

 

 

Don't forget how they're operating out of hospitals and other areas populated by innocents. That doesn't exactly make it easy when taking them out.

[Reaper]

I understand that, but seriously, what type of rockets are they using?

 

I'm not saying that Israel should relax, but that there is no reason (either from a practical, strategic standpoint, or even a moral standpoint) to send a full scale invasion force to wipe Gaza Strip right off the map....

 

Regardless of what is there that is of strategic importance, as I noted before they don't appear to be capable of launching that kind of offensive despite so called "fears", otherwise they would have made numerous attempts already.

 

I mean, seriously, even Al-Qaeda made sure to strike targets of strategic importance, so there is no reason to believe that Hamas wouldn't know this too. The fact that they didn't attack and/or damage their more important installations means that either their planners are idiots, or they just aren't capable of launching any kind of serious offensive into Israel.

Edited January 6, 2009 by Reaper

[iNow]

Can you help me understand the relevance of your point? ... What it is you're driving at? I am having a hard time figuring out "how badass their rockets are" really matters. They're the type of rockets that blow stuff up. What more do we really need to know?

 

While Israel's policy against the Palenstinians for the past 50 years has left much to be desired, this specific situation is a) they just wouldn't stop, and b) something had to be done.

[Reaper]

Don't forget how they're operating out of hospitals and other areas populated by innocents. That doesn't exactly make it easy when taking them out.

 

I know, that's why I'm wondering why they don't just use counter-terrorist commandos, rather than using artillery strikes to bomb their neighborhoods away. Sure, the Israeli army is trying not to kill any innocents, but it doesn't really matter as they are still destroying everything they own and ruining lives for the most part....