Lebanon fires rockets into Israel

[iNow]

There was a great discussion this morning at the round table on THIS WEEK with George Stephanopoulos (one of these days I'll learn how to spell that last name without googling) about the Israel/Gaza issue. I found the points by Tom Friedman (and oddly, both George Will and also Newt Gingrich) to be rather poignant, valid, and on-point.

 

 

The comments start with about 10:30 left in the video at the link below, and go on for roughly 5 minutes. Your thoughts?

 

http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=6621672

[Pangloss]

It was a surprisingly conservative panel this week. Not a pure liberal in the bunch. The "stop Israel" point of view wasn't even represented. I was surprised, especially given that last week's panel had Hurricane Katrina and in general he's pretty balanced with his panels.

 

But needless to say I agreed with the majority view. I don't know about NATO occupation, and I'm not even sure I agree with the "radically different approach" suggestion, but he's certainly right about the situation being untenable.

[JohnB]

iNow, that was interesting.

 

I thought the "conversation" with Hamas was a great example. I do think that part of the problem is that in the West there is a part of the political spectrum that steadfastly refuses to believe that groups like Hamas mean exactly what they say. This segment believes that these groups will "come around" or similar if we talk to them enough.

 

Their worldview does not encompass the concept that Hamas et al mean what they say. For them it is not real. They think it's just posturing. This segment in the West delays action and opposes action by the Israelis at every turn.

 

I've actually met people that believe that if the Israelis refrained from any form of retaliation, Hamas et al would eventually get fed up with lobbing ammo and come to the table. Utter twaddle.

 

And while ever Hamas et al think they have any sort of support from the West, they will not stop. They won't stop anyway, but they will play the West in the same fashion the North Vietnamese played the US media (and through them the West) 30 years ago. The same way Arafat played the West.

 

Another part of the problem is that the Israelis are being held to the "Rules" of civilised warfare, where Hamas play by no rules. Then people complain if they think Israel "bends" the rules?

 

There is one, and only one rule in war "Act so as to destroy the enemies ability to continue the conflict". Israel has been remarkably restrained in their responses over the years. As Mooey said, Israel could solve the problem in 24 hours or so, they have the ability but choose not to use it.

 

Is there anyone who actually believes Hamas would show similar restraint if they had the ability?

[Mr Skeptic]

You could ask the same thing about Israel and their use of white phosphorus on Gaza civilians...

 

Do you have any evidence of this? Keep in mind that white phosphorous is allowed as a smokescreen. Why do you say it was used against civilians, and why would Israel do that?

 

I think there's been unacceptable loss of civilian life in this invasion, including children. If their goal was to get rid of the rockets why a ground invasion? Why not a surgical strike?

 

Just a few highlights of Israel's invasion I don't think have been covered in the other threads: Israeli soldiers ordered 100 Palestinians into a single house, then repeatedly shelled the house. 70 Palestinians died.

 

http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=105&pid=0&sid=1568632&page=2

His face covered with blood and dust, Samouni said he stood and screamed "'Whoever is alive, come outside. If we raise our hands up, they won't shoot us, but we have to go.'"

 

Samouni said about 40 relatives walked out, many with hands raised. He said Israeli forces, watching them from nearby rooftops and positions on the ground, allowed them to pass, neither helping nor attacking them.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/06/gaza-israel

As [samouni] ran, Israeli troops fired over their heads and then ordered them to lift up their shirts to show they carried no weapons under their clothes. "We just made it out and here to the hospital," Nael said. Then, in a moment of anger, he pointed the blame. "Hamas is responsible for this. They are starving us, now they are killing us," he said. "They asked the Israelis to enter but where is the resistance? They are hiding. All the leaders of Hamas are underground. It's just the civilians confronting the Israeli army. I don't like Hamas and I don't want them ruling Gaza."

 

Hospital officials believe nine people were killed in the Samouni house, including at least four children.

 

First, let me point out that 9 is not 70. Also no one knows if these were intentional Israeli strikes (very poor casualty rate, and why would they then let them escape?), a reaction to someone shooting from the roof (Hamas is famous for using Gaza citizens as meatshields), an attack by Hamas (it seems that the family was not a supporter of theirs, and they would love to get rid of an enemy and make Israel look bad at the same time), or even stray Israeli fire. You know none of this, yet gleefully place the blame entirely on Israel.

 

The UN suspended aid operations in Gaza after one of their trucks was destroyed by Israeli tank fire, killing the driver.

 

Things get destroyed in a war. Are you suggesting that Israel intentionally shot at aid forklifts? I didn't even know that forklifts were used for aid in war zones. Otherwise, it is just another example of friendly fire. Do you even know what friendly fire means?

 

Dennis Kucinich is arguing that

.

 

And he can argue all he wants. Aristotle argued that the world was flat, but that doesn't mean it is so. Any facts?

 

Also, per the BBC article the US, UK, and France have all dropped their opposition to a UN resolution urging an immediate ceasefire.

 

Good. I'm sure Israel would love a ceasefire as well, but who is going to enforce Hamas' adherence to it? You do realize that a ceasefire applies to both sides, don't you?

[Sisyphus]

Aristotle argued that the world was flat

 

[wild nonsequitor]No, he didn't. Even then they knew the Earth is round, and about how large it is. He did, however, argue that the Earth is at the center of the enormous spinning sphere of the fixed stars powered by a thought thinking itself that is the source of all animation in the cosmos. But I guess that takes longer to say.[/wild nonsequitor]

[bascule]

Bascule, come on.. Where is this proven? I see your points and they're very appealing, but when you make something like this one, please support it, otherwise it's quite an emotional and unfair point to make.

 

No, you're missing the point. People here are already blaming Hezbollah for the Lebanese rocket attacks. Hezbollah has denied it. How is that any different from blaming the Israeli military for using white phosphorus?

 

Maybe it's true, maybe it's not. But bascule you've been posting one-sided conspiracy theories since you started in on this subject, and I have to say it's getting a little old.

 

Conspiracy theories? The Daily Telegraph, CNN, AFP, and New York Times are reporting "conspiracy theories"? And the UN is investigating them?

 

Pangloss, are you getting a little out of touch? Or is "conspiracy theory" your euphamism for news you don't want to hear because it conflicts with your world view?

[mooeypoo]

No, you're missing the point. People here are already blaming Hezbollah for the Lebanese rocket attacks. Hezbollah has denied it. How is that any different from blaming the Israeli military for using white phosphorus?

People who? Not me. I would expect not you, either.

Two wrongs don't make a right. If it's unproven, it shouldn't be used as a claim. Specifically since this claim seems to play more on the emotional side rather than the practical side. That's quite unfair. I can do it too, btw, telling horror stories of dead friends with heads chopped off while holding their baby brother on their way to school. It will doubtfully contribute anything to the discussion.

 

Other than that, bascule, you're bieng a bit unfair. You're putting out claims out there and when being confronted (like my post + questions to you, which I put a bit of time on) you seem to either ignore or post a single-line-link rebuttal.

 

Come on. I give you the benefit of the doubt and I want to hear your opinion. Give me the same and read what I have to say.

 

War involves 2 sides, not just one, no matter how much the mainstream media tries to claim otherwise.

 

~moo

[bascule]

People who? Not me.

 

Why, the person I was responding to, ecoli in this case!

 

If Hezbollah denies this, then the question is are they lying?

 

A reasonable question to be sure. However, my response:

 

You could ask the same thing about Israel and their use of white phosphorus on Gaza civilians...

 

Is it any less reasonable to wonder if Hezbollah is lying about perpetrating the rocket attacks than it is to wonder if Israel is lying about using white phosphorus?

 

In context I don't see anything unreasonable about this remark.

[Mr Skeptic]

No, you're missing the point. People here are already blaming Hezbollah for the Lebanese rocket attacks. Hezbollah has denied it. How is that any different from blaming the Israeli military for using white phosphorus?

 

How's it different? Well, here are a few ways it is different:

1) Hezbollah is an organization whose stated intent is to destroy Israel, whereas Israel is a country whose stated intent is peaceful existence (among other things).

2) The rocket type is one that Hezbollah has access to, and of military quality, and sent from an area that Hezbollah controls, and has no legitimate purpose in times of peace. Israel has white phosphorous, but but has a legitimate use for it, and claims of misuse came from a biased source.

 

Despite this, it is quite possible that the rockets were fired by rouge operatives rather than by order of Hezbollah command, so it is quite reasonable for Israel to restrain itself like it did rather than attack Hezbollah.

[bascule]

Hezbollah is an organization whose stated intent is to destroy Israel, whereas Israel is a country whose stated intent is peaceful existence

 

It's all well and dandy to talk about "stated intent". The United States has a stated intent of peace too, but stated intent goes out the window when you invade another country. When we invaded Iraq, was peace our intent?

 

As for Hezbollah's stated intent to destroy Israel, can I have an actual quote with a citation on that please?

 

claims of misuse came from a biased source

 

Oh for the love of ad hominems. The claims from several different sources, and regardless of their particular bias of the source in question that does not make the claims wrong.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

When I asked "what is the alternative" I meant generally; correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be opposing a military response against Gaza in general.

 

At least one where 33% of nearly thousand victims aren't children. That's not a surgical strike, sorry.

 

My question is -- in light of all the above, what do you think would be a better response (that would SOLVE the situation, of course).

 

I don't know. This is an ugly situation some of the wisest politicians and diplomats of our time have tried to solve and so far nothing has worked. Why are you asking me for better suggestions? I don't have any.

 

I do have an observation: this is part of a vicious cycle. Does Hamas reserve retaliation from Israel? Sure! But how much culpability does Israel have in being attacked in the first place? An enormous amount. Israel has its own fair share of atrocities leveraged against the Palestinians, and as we see from these attacks they are ongoing.

 

How do you think Hamas will react to 300 dead Palestinian children? Do you think this will make them want to fire more rockets at Israel in the future? This just feeds into the same vicious cycle, and it's not going to stop until one side can be the bigger person.

 

Israel decided to risk its soldiers and send them in to try and react to terrorists specifically, gain control on the area to flush out militant terrorists, and try to avoid harming civilians. Neither of us are trained in military tactics or strategy, so I think a criticism of the exact actions is difficult (specifically since I am not sure how much of the intelligence we have). But the point is that this ground assault was intended to AVOID continuing a *less accurate* Air strike.

 

If that was the intention, it failed. Most of the civilian casualties seem to have come from Israeli tank fire.

 

So my second question is -- What do you think should be done *right now*, after there are already troops in there, to solve this situation?

 

I would like to see a ceasefire followed by a withdrawal, with the intention of subsequently entering negotiations for a more prolonged ceasefire. But that's just wishful thinking.

Edited January 13, 2009 by bascule
Consecutive post/s merged.

[iNow]

I would like to see a ceasefire followed by a withdrawal, with the intention of subsequently entering negotiations for a more prolonged ceasefire. But that's just wishful thinking.

 

To be fair, I think that last sentence is what everyone seems to agree with you on. This is what motivates them not to accept the first.

[Saryctos]

Is it any less reasonable to wonder if Hezbollah is lying about perpetrating the rocket attacks than it is to wonder if Israel is lying about using white phosphorus?

 

In context I don't see anything unreasonable about this remark.

 

The rockets aren't in contention, just the source. Whereas the white phosphorous, not who done it, is in question.

The difference being a motive vs. an act, which I think is a big difference.

[bascule]

The rockets aren't in contention, just the source. Whereas the white phosphorous, not who done it, is in question.

The difference being a motive vs. an act, which I think is a big difference.

 

That is a reasonable criticism. Here's the best article I've seen on the matter yet (CNN)

 

The international group Human Rights Watch is accusing Israel of firing weapons containing white phosphorus into Gaza. The group demands that the alleged practice cease.

 

The group's researchers in Israel "observed multiple air-bursts of artillery-fired white phosphorus over what appeared to be the Gaza City/Jabaliya area" on Friday and Saturday, the organization said on its Web site.

 

[...]

 

HRW's assertion was supported by munitions experts and some Palestinian doctors, including Nafiz Abu Sha'aban, who said the burns it caused were unlike anything he has seen in 27 years of practice.

 

However, the overall sentiment of the article is inconclusive on the matter. They do note Israel has since stopped denying use of white phosphorus.

[JohnB]

As for Hezbollah's stated intent to destroy Israel, can I have an actual quote with a citation on that please?

Maybe you could try their "An open letter to all the oppressed in Lebanon and the world"? The text is still around, but Hezbollah have pulled chunks from their website.

 

I Quote;

The Necessity for the Destruction of Israel

 

We see in Israel the vanguard of the United States in our Islamic world. It is the hated enemy that must be fought until the hated ones get what they deserve. This enemy is the greatest danger to our future generations and to the destiny of our lands, particularly as it glorifies the ideas of settlement and expansion, initiated in Palestine, and yearning outward to the extension of the Great Israel, from the Euphrates to the Nile.

 

Our primary assumption in our fight against Israel states that the Zionist entity is aggressive from its inception, and built on lands wrested from their owners, at the expense of the rights of the Muslim people. Therefore our struggle will end only when this entity is obliterated. We recognize no treaty with it, no cease fire, and no peace agreements, whether separate or consolidated.

 

We vigorously condemn all plans for negotiation with Israel, and regard all negotiators as enemies, for the reason that such negotiation is nothing but the recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist occupation of Palestine. Therefore we oppose and reject the Camp David Agreements, the proposals of King Fahd, the Fez and Reagan plan, Brezhnev's and the French-Egyptian proposals, and all other programs that include the recognition (even the implied recognition) of the Zionist entity.

Therefore our struggle will end only when this entity is obliterated.

Let's see, they call Israel the "enemy" and the fight will only end when the enemy is eliminated. Nope, I have no idea why people might think that Hezbollahs stated aim is the destruction of Israel.

We vigorously condemn all plans for negotiation with Israel, and regard all negotiators as enemies, for the reason that such negotiation is nothing but the recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist occupation of Palestine.

Maybe they didn't word it properly and really meant to say "We hope for a negotiated peace", but somehow I don't think so.

In 2005, Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahar said;

Hamas would "definitely not" be prepared for coexistence with Israel should the IDF retreat to its 1967 borders.

 

"It can be a temporary solution, for a maximum of 5 to 10 years. But in the end Palestine must return to become Muslim, and in the long term Israel will disappear from the face of the earth."

The Hamas Charter says in article 7

But even if the links have become distant from each other, and even if the obstacles erected by those who revolve in the Zionist orbit, aiming at obstructing the road before the Jihad fighters, have rendered the pursuance of Jihad impossible; nevertheless, the Hamas has been looking forward to implement Allah's promise whatever time it might take. The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said:

 

The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree.

You might also like Article 11.

Article Eleven

 

The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine has been an Islamic Waqf throughout the generations and until the Day of Resurrection, no one can renounce it or part of it, or abandon it or part of it. No Arab country nor the aggregate of all Arab countries, and no Arab King or President nor all of them in the aggregate, have that right, nor has that right any organization or the aggregate of all organizations, be they Palestinian or Arab, because Palestine is an Islamic Waqf throughout all generations and to the Day of Resurrection.

Hamas include the nation known as "Israel" as part of "Palestine", ergo "Israel" cannot exist.

 

Article 13 points to the fact that you seem unable to comprehend. Hamas say it, it's in thier charter, but you don't want to believe it.

Peaceful Solutions, [Peace] Initiatives and International Conferences

 

Article Thirteen

 

[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion; the nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its faith, the movement educates its members to adhere to its principles and to raise the banner of Allah over their homeland as they fight their Jihad: "Allah is the all-powerful, but most people are not aware."

 

From time to time a clamoring is voiced, to hold an International Conference in search for a solution to the problem. Some accept the idea, others reject it, for one reason or another, demanding the implementation of this or that condition, as a prerequisite for agreeing to convene the Conference or for participating in it. But the Islamic Resistance Movement, which is aware of the [prospective] parties to this conference, and of their past and present positions towards the problems of the Muslims, does not believe that those conferences are capable of responding to demands, or of restoring rights or doing justice to the oppressed.

 

Those conferences are no more than a means to appoint the nonbelievers as arbitrators in the lands of Islam. Since when did the Unbelievers do justice to the Believers?

 

There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. The initiatives, proposals and International Conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility. The Palestinian people are too noble to have their future, their right and their destiny submitted to a vain game.

[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement.

 

There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad.

Can they say it any plainer than that? Peaceful solutions are contrary to to their beliefs. These people want Israel destroyed and Jews dead. That is their stated aim. Deal with it.

 

Will those "actual quotes" do?

[Mr Skeptic]

edit: looks like I cross-posted with JohnB.

 

It's all well and dandy to talk about "stated intent". The United States has a stated intent of peace too, but stated intent goes out the window when you invade another country. When we invaded Iraq, was peace our intent?

 

How hard is it to understand that when you are being attacked despite a ceasefire, the only path to peace is to attack your attackers, and then try again for peace? As for stated intent, it gives a little bit of benefit of the doubt. If someone's stated intent is to destroy Israel and they get accused of attacking Israel, its quite different than if someone's stated intent is peace and adherence to laws and they get accused of war crimes.

 

As for Hezbollah's stated intent to destroy Israel, can I have an actual quote with a citation on that please?

 

I was parroting JohnB. Let me see what I can dig up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah

Hezbollah leaders have also made numerous statements calling for the destruction of Israel, which they refer to as a "Zionist entity... built on lands wrested from their owners."

 

http://www.standwithus.com/pdfs/flyers/hezbollah_program.pdf

An Open Letter

The Hizballah Program

Our Identity

We are often asked: Who are we, the Hizballah, and what is our identity? We are the sons

of the umma (Muslim community) - the party of God (Hizb Allah) the vanguard of which

was made victorious by God in Iran. There the vanguard succeeded to lay down the bases

of a Muslim state which plays a central role in the world. We obey the orders of one

leader, wise and just, that of our tutor and faqih (jurist) who fulfills all the necessary

conditions: Ruhollah Musawi Khomeini. God save him!

...

 

The Necessity for the Destruction of Israel*

We see in Israel the vanguard of the United States in our Islamic world. It is the hated

enemy that must be fought until the hated ones get what they deserve. This enemy is the

greatest danger to our future generations and to the destiny of our lands, particularly as it

glorifies the ideas of settlement and expansion, initiated in Palestine, and yearning

outward to the extension of the Great Israel, from the Euphrates to the Nile.

Our primary assumption in our fight against Israel states that the Zionist entity is

aggressive from its inception, and built on lands wrested from their owners, at the

expense of the rights of the Muslim people. Therefore our struggle will end only when

this entity is obliterated. We recognize no treaty with it, no cease fire, and no peace

agreements, whether separate or consolidated.

We vigorously condemn all plans for negotiation with Israel, and regard all negotiators as

enemies, for the reason that such negotiation is nothing but the recognition of the

legitimacy of the Zionist occupation of Palestine. Therefore we oppose and reject the

Camp David Agreements, the proposals of King Fahd, the Fez and Reagan plan,

Brezhnev's and the French-Egyptian proposals, and all other programs that include the

recognition (even the implied recognition) of the Zionist entity.

 

edit: another one:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1908671.stm

Hezbollah's political rhetoric has centred on calls for the destruction of the state of Israel. Its definition of Israeli occupation has also encompassed the idea that the whole of Palestine is occupied Muslim land and it has argued that Israel has no right to exist.

 

It seems that lately Hezbollah has stopped calling for the destruction of Israel.

 

Oh for the love of ad hominems. The claims from several different sources, and regardless of their particular bias of the source in question that does not make the claims wrong.

 

Then I must ask you, where are your sources that Israel used white phosphorous illegally? You have none, do you?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

From your own link:

 

"Israel appeared to be using white phosphorus as an 'obscurant' [a chemical used to hide military operations], a permissible use in principle" under the laws of war, the HRW posting said.

...

Still, a doctor familiar with the material said it is not possible to tell, based on pictures of burns, whether white phosphorus was responsible.

Edited January 13, 2009 by Mr Skeptic
Consecutive post/s merged.

[Pangloss]

Conspiracy theories? The Daily Telegraph, CNN, AFP, and New York Times are reporting "conspiracy theories"? And the UN is investigating them?

 

Pangloss, are you getting a little out of touch? Or is "conspiracy theory" your euphamism for news you don't want to hear because it conflicts with your world view?

 

Nope, clearly not.

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=37585

 

But since you raised the subject of personal motives, I'll give you my opinion on yours. I think you've been posting conspiracy theories since this business started, I think you're pre-disposed to oppose Israel on this because of the level of violence they're committing (not that you support Hamas, but you oppose them less assiduously because they commit less violence, and this actually seems to make sense to you), and I think you're going out of your way to find things to throw at Israel no matter how off the wall they may be. And I think it's very revealing that it's been your iNow, your "fellow moonbat" (your words) that has answered most of your claims in the negative.

 

Mind you, I don't think I've attacked you on any of this (as you attack me above), because hey, it's your opinion, and you're welcome to it. Doesn't mean I won't answer it with my own, though.

Edited January 13, 2009 by Pangloss

[bascule]

Nope, clearly not.

 

So the Jerusalem Post is spreading anti-Israeli, pro-Hamas conspiracy theories?

[Pangloss]

You're the one who called it "fishy" and suggested it as an ulterior motive for the invasion of Gaza, not the Jerusalem Post.

 

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

That reminds me of a little reminder I got this morning about my annoyance with the news media over this. An announcer in NBC's Today show, talking about Israel moving into Gaza City, described that city as being "filled with women and children". As if there's nothing else that could possibly be in that location other than women and children, standing wall to wall just waiting to die at the hands of those evil villains, the Israelis. His emphasis on the word "filled" with positively DRIPPED with emotional outrage over the presumed death and destruction that is sure to follow.

Edited January 13, 2009 by Pangloss
Consecutive post/s merged.

[iNow]

Although, despite my initial inclination to support strongly the actions of Israel and try to provide context in response to bascule's comments, I will concede that the number of woman and children being killed in this mess is really starting to bother me, and my support for Israel overall has been waning during this past week (the 3rd) of the offensive.

 

I don't know what the better option is. I do, however, know that if fighting stops, rockets will continue, and that's not an option either. I further know that most of the people lobbing the rockets are not the ones in control, and it's the ones in control who we need to focus on. Further, much like the kamikazee pilots in WWII, many of these guys can be persuaded if they are removed from the nationalistic rhetoric and propaganda.

 

I simply agree that something had to be done, and think that Israel was understandably at it's wit's end. They HAD to do something, and I think they did the RIGHT something... I'm just starting to question more and more whether it's STILL right to continue doing it... a question bascule simply asked much sooner than I did.

[SH3RL0CK]

I do, however, know that if fighting stops, rockets will continue, and that's not an option either. I further know that most of the people lobbing the rockets are not the ones in control, and it's the ones in control who we need to focus on.

 

I question your statement that the people lobbing the rockets are not the ones in control. Either the people "in control" are actually in control and have the ability to stop the rockets (whether or not they choose to do so), or they are NOT in control.

 

Regardless, as the rockets have not stopped (even during the "ceasefire"), Israel seems to have no option but to fight until those who really are in control stops the rockets, or to put up with random, discriminate rocket attacks.

[iNow]

Think about it with suicide bombers. The guys strapping bombs to their chests are not the "ones in control." The people convincing them to strap bombs to their chests are. Same with the rockets. It's the ones convincing them to fire the rockets who hold the power, not the little minions lighting the fuse.

[bascule]

How hard is it to understand that when you are being attacked despite a ceasefire

 

Were they actually being attacked by Hamas during the ceasefire? I don't dispute that there were a small number of rocket attacks during the ceasefire period. However we're talking a substantially lower number than when there wasn't a ceasefire, and I haven't seen anyone demonstrate that those rocket attacks were actually perpetrated by Hamas.

 

Once the ceasefire fell through, there was a substantial increase in rocket attacks, and Hamas claimed responsibility. That would seem to be the reason Israel attacked Gaza. I don't think it was due to the rocket attacks during the ceasefire period at all.

[Pangloss]

I will concede that the number of woman and children being killed in this mess is really starting to bother me, and my support for Israel overall has been waning during this past week (the 3rd) of the offensive.

 

Quite right. The longer it goes on the more strained the situation gets, and the more one has to ask why Israel can't accept the win it's already achieved and stop the fighting so it can reap some more benefits from a renewed diplomatic interest. Surely it would look better to stop and let the diplomats have another go, even if it means they fail and the fighting has to start up again.

 

Politically speaking, a cease fire just makes sense. And it makes more sense sooner than later -- the longer they wait, the more foreign support Israel loses.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Were they actually being attacked by Hamas during the ceasefire? I don't dispute that there were a small number of rocket attacks during the ceasefire period. However we're talking a substantially lower number than when there wasn't a ceasefire, and I haven't seen anyone demonstrate that those rocket attacks were actually perpetrated by Hamas.

 

Yeah I can't really imagine what Israel must be thinking there. I mean, this could be anybody.

 

 

[bascule]

Were they actually being attacked by Hamas during the ceasefire? I don't dispute that there were a small number of rocket attacks during the ceasefire period. However we're talking a substantially lower number than when there wasn't a ceasefire, and I haven't seen anyone demonstrate that those rocket attacks were actually perpetrated by Hamas.

 

Yeah I can't really imagine what Israel must be thinking there. I mean, this could be anybody.

 

Nice pictures. How are they relevant to my question?

 

Are you contending those pictures are of members of Hamas holding missiles which were ostensibly fired during the ceasefire period?

 

If so, it'd be nice if you'd source them. I mean, images are great and all, but...

 

[padren]

Were they actually being attacked by Hamas during the ceasefire? I don't dispute that there were a small number of rocket attacks during the ceasefire period. However we're talking a substantially lower number than when there wasn't a ceasefire, and I haven't seen anyone demonstrate that those rocket attacks were actually perpetrated by Hamas.

 

Once the ceasefire fell through, there was a substantial increase in rocket attacks, and Hamas claimed responsibility. That would seem to be the reason Israel attacked Gaza. I don't think it was due to the rocket attacks during the ceasefire period at all.

 

I was under the impression Hamas actually took credit for the rocket attacks during this period. I could be wrong of course, but personally, anything less than condemnation of those attacks would be the same in my mind as sanctioning them - regardless of whether or not they were directly the result of orders given by Hamas.

 

Also, when you refer to the increase of the rocket attacks (that Hamas took credit for), do you mean immediately following the cease fire itself, or following the attack on the tunnel that was being constructed to bypass border checkpoints?

 

Unless I am mistaken (and I could easily be) I thought that event and the subsequent increase in attacks happened during the tail end of the cease fire.