Middle East - what's next [Archive] - Page 4 - Front Office Football Central

MrBigglesworth

08-18-2006, 10:39 PM

No one has the guts, esp. the extremely weak UN, to disarm Hezbollah or to even attempt to create the buffer zone.
The Green Lantern Theory of Geopolitics (http://yglesias.tpmcafe.com/blog/yglesias/2006/jul/10/the_green_lantern_theory_of_geopolitics).

The [Green Lantern power ring] is a bit goofy. Basically, it lets its bearer generate streams of green energy that can take on all kinds of shapes. The important point is that, when fully charged what the ring can do is limited only by the stipulation that it create green stuff and by the user's combination of will and imagination. Consequently, the main criterion for becoming a Green Lantern is that you need to be a person capable of "overcoming fear" which allows you to unleash the ring's full capacities. It used to be the case that the rings wouldn't function against yellow objects, but this is now understood to be a consequence of the "Parallax fear anomaly" which, along with all the ring's other limits, can be overcome with sufficient willpower.

Suffice it to say that I think all this makes an okay premise for a comic book. But a lot of people seem to think that American military might is like one of these power rings. They seem to think that, roughly speaking, we can accomplish absolutely anything in the world through the application of sufficient military force. The only thing limiting us is a lack of willpower.

They seem to think that, roughly speaking, we can accomplish absolutely anything in the world through the application of sufficient military force. The only thing limiting us is a lack of willpower.

What's more, this theory can't be empirically demonstrated to be wrong. Things that you or I might take as demonstrating the limited utility of military power to accomplish certain kinds of things are, instead, taken as evidence of lack of will. Thus we see that problems in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't reasons to avoid new military ventures, but reasons why we must embark upon them
It's not a matter of will, or guts, it's a matter of the limited abilities of modern militaries. The Soviets definitely had the 'guts' in Afghanistan and Chechnya, and look how that turned out.

Edward64

08-19-2006, 06:59 AM

With over 20 "cease fires" in the past several decades, this one has the worse chance of holding for any length of time. No one has the guts, esp. the extremely weak UN, to disarm Hezbollah or to even attempt to create the buffer zone. It's hilarious, you make "a more favorable UN mandate" sound like that's worth something. History will keep repeating itself (which you and most others seem to forget that the exact same thing has happened multiple times in the past four decades) because everyone will just dance around the issue. Besides, I fully believe that the UN under Anan will be judged as the most worthless, ineffective and corrupt period in its history.
Buccaneer. I can appreciate your passion on this subject. Here's my notes.

History will keep repeating itself. Too defeatist. In the large view, sure history repeats itself is easy to say and it does happen. When talking in generalities there are numerous examples. Also, given enough time, anything repeats itself.

However, my contention is that history does not need to repeat itself. Ex. There is hope Egypt/Jordan will continue to have peace with Israel.

My preference is not to say it can't be done because it has failed numerous times, instead we should say that we have not found the proper solution yet.

UN under Annan. Jury is still out but the scandal certainly does not help his cause. Specific to this ME situation, I'm not sure I can fault him for anything that has happened ... I think countries backed out of their initial bravado, leaving him to hold the bag.

Noop

08-19-2006, 07:03 AM

Bucc is weak.

Edward64

08-19-2006, 07:09 AM

The Green Lantern Theory of Geopolitics (http://yglesias.tpmcafe.com/blog/yglesias/2006/jul/10/the_green_lantern_theory_of_geopolitics).

It's not a matter of will, or guts, it's a matter of the limited abilities of modern militaries. The Soviets definitely had the 'guts' in Afghanistan and Chechnya, and look how that turned out.
MrBigglesworth. I disagree with you. Certainly not a matter of limited abilities of modern militaries. It is almost always a lack of political AND civilian population will. I add the "civilian factor" because I believe that is key and explains the Soviet failures in Afghanistan and Chechnya.

If US political/civilian strongly supports the US military actions, the US military can most probably prevail and accomplish anything (given a little headsup to ramp up).

Of course, the US "civilian will" is finicky at best. I think the last time there was this example of US "civilian will" was in WWII.

CraigSca

08-19-2006, 07:16 AM

Edward64

08-19-2006, 07:38 AM

Speaking of history repeating itself. Time and time again the population has proven that they go into any war "rah-rah". Then, when the war isn't won in a month, people start to question the leadership and grow tired of the situation. THIS is history repeating itself.

CraigSca. Yes, population is finicky but this did not happen in WWII and look what happened, a new world order ex. to our benefit.

CraigSca

08-19-2006, 08:10 AM

No, but it did happen in the Revolutionary War and the Civil War and look what happened there.

SFL Cat

08-19-2006, 09:34 AM

Following the Revolutionary War, the transition of America from British colony to independent nation wasn't an easy one...even AFTER we had The Constitution in place. The Fed had to put down several home-grown uprisings, there were times of severe economic uncertainty, there was still strong Tory sentiment in certain parts of the country that lasted until after the War of 1812, and the European powers were circling like vultures waiting for our little experiment with a democratic republic to fail so they could swoop in and pick up the pieces.

CraigSca

08-19-2006, 09:39 AM

Whether you realize it, you're siding with me, SFL. That's exactly the point I was trying to make.

st.cronin

08-19-2006, 10:03 AM

This "cease-fire" really is laughable.

Solecismic

08-19-2006, 02:10 PM

This "cease-fire" really is laughable.

What pisses me off is that the UN can renege on the promises made to in order to get the cease fire, Lebanon can renege on their promises, Hezbollah can openly send more troops and weapons back across the border, and the media doesn't give a damn.

But the IDF finally does something about it, and the headline on al-CNN is "Israeli Raids Jeopardize Cease-Fire." I mean, WTF? Why not give the same treatment to the lies coming out of Kofi Annan's mouth on a daily basis?

st.cronin

08-19-2006, 02:17 PM

MrBigglesworth

08-19-2006, 11:05 PM

Let's not leave out the fucking French.
Viva la France! French diplomacy makes American diplomacy look terrible. We had a situation here where each country during the conflict would prefer to return to the status quo, because the war was disasterous for both sides. But neither side wanted to be seen as the one backing down, and there was no way in hell that Israel/USA and Hez/Iran/Syria would ever negotiate with each other. Enter France. Chirac successfully completes two bait and switches, the major conflict ends, both Lebanon and Israel get what they want, and France doesn't have to use barely any of its resources.

Chirac is one smart motherfucker.

MrBigglesworth

08-19-2006, 11:10 PM

But the IDF finally does something about it, and the headline on al-CNN is "Israeli Raids Jeopardize Cease-Fire." I mean, WTF? Why not give the same treatment to the lies coming out of Kofi Annan's mouth on a daily basis?
I hope that in calmer times, you look back on things like this and feel a bit sheepish.

But on the subject matter, now that things are back to pretty much the way they were before the war except that there were lots of lives and resources lost on both sides, are you ready to admit that this wasn't the best policy of Israel's to escalate the conflict? Or what went wrong, in your mind?

MrBigglesworth

08-19-2006, 11:48 PM

MrBigglesworth. I disagree with you. Certainly not a matter of limited abilities of modern militaries. It is almost always a lack of political AND civilian population will. I add the "civilian factor" because I believe that is key and explains the Soviet failures in Afghanistan and Chechnya.

If US political/civilian strongly supports the US military actions, the US military can most probably prevail and accomplish anything (given a little headsup to ramp up).

Of course, the US "civilian will" is finicky at best. I think the last time there was this example of US "civilian will" was in WWII.
Like was said, it's impossible to prove the Green Lantern Theory wrong, because every defeat can just be explained away by a lack of sufficient 'will'. But, how could Iraq have gone better if the US political/civilian 'will' was stronger? An increase in our 'will' wouldn't make the Shiites and the Sunnis and the Kurds love each other. Killing more of them wouldn't make them love us more. How can you look at Iraq and see anything other than a limitation of a modern army?

Glengoyne

08-20-2006, 01:20 AM

Viva la France! French diplomacy makes American diplomacy look terrible. We had a situation here where each country during the conflict would prefer to return to the status quo, because the war was disasterous for both sides. But neither side wanted to be seen as the one backing down, and there was no way in hell that Israel/USA and Hez/Iran/Syria would ever negotiate with each other. Enter France. Chirac successfully completes two bait and switches, the major conflict ends, both Lebanon and Israel get what they want, and France doesn't have to use barely any of its resources.

Chirac is one smart motherfucker.

You're right about one thing. America wouldn't have backed out of the obligation it had made. I do question your point that by doing so, France looks smart. I understand your point, but I can't look at essentially a country reneging on its promise pragmatically. France may be getting what it wants, but it looks chicken shit, not "smart".

MrBigglesworth

08-20-2006, 04:34 AM

You're right about one thing. America wouldn't have backed out of the obligation it had made. I do question your point that by doing so, France looks smart. I understand your point, but I can't look at essentially a country reneging on its promise pragmatically. France may be getting what it wants, but it looks chicken shit, not "smart".
I don't know what France got that is so great. All it has are a bunch of people calling it 'chicken shit'. But what it did was stop the conflict that both sides wanted stopped and that the US was trying to keep going. I'm thankful that France stepped in so that the disasterous conflict didn't have to go on for one more day than it had to.

Think of it this way: who gets screwed by France reneging? Not France, not Israel (who wanted a way out to save face), not Lebanon (that also wanted a return to the status quo and didn't want to open up the whole representation thing again with their Shiites), not the UN (which did its job by helping bring about the ceasefire), not the US (who can now blame the French surrender monkies for screwing up what the US didn't want in the first place). Granted, it's not an ideal ending, but it's better than the alternatives.

Edward64

08-20-2006, 06:33 AM

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth
Think of it this way: who gets screwed by France reneging? Not France, not Israel (who wanted a way out to save face), not Lebanon (that also wanted a return to the status quo and didn't want to open up the whole representation thing again with their Shiites), not the UN (which did its job by helping bring about the ceasefire), not the US (who can now blame the French surrender monkies for screwing up what the US didn't want in the first place). Granted, it's not an ideal ending, but it's better than the alternatives.

As for 'who gets screwed by France reneging?' ...

France. Probably right, a little loss of face and although some parties will remember it, this renege won't be significant in the future.

Israel. Disagree, definitely got screwed. From what I've read, the IDF and Israeli population would have wanted a continuation of the war till a positive conclusion. Increasing from 10K to 30K troops in the last days was probably political manuevering but it shows some intent.

Lebanon. Agree, worked out the best for them.

UN. Agree, Kofi can't help it that France renege. But do wonder if a Chapter 7 mandate vs a Chapter 6 mandate is what France really wants?

US. Agree, I think US public opinion was not as positive on the Israeli's this time around and GWB/Rice could see the trend.

You forgot Hezbollah. Agree, if the 15K + 15K force is toothless (as it now seems to be), Hezbollah wins.

Edward64

08-20-2006, 06:55 AM

Like was said, it's impossible to prove the Green Lantern Theory wrong, because every defeat can just be explained away by a lack of sufficient 'will'. But, how could Iraq have gone better if the US political/civilian 'will' was stronger? An increase in our 'will' wouldn't make the Shiites and the Sunnis and the Kurds love each other. Killing more of them wouldn't make them love us more. How can you look at Iraq and see anything other than a limitation of a modern army?
I think you are assuming 'good intentions' with your Green Lantern Theory, ex. win the hearts and minds etc. My point is there is plenty of examples of overwhelming military might subjugating a population into docility (for the most part) ... definitely not forever (don't think there are any examples of this) but for a long period of time.

Do you really believe that the US, given enough military/civilian will, could not subjugate Iraq (and bordering countries that mess with us) into submission?

Or think of it this way, if General x had a mandate to use whatever means possible to subjugate Iraq regardless of the political consequences over a time frame of 20 yrs with x increase in troop levels with x unlimited funds and a guarantee of 'civilian support/will' ...

Again, plenty of examples of overwhelming military might subjugating a population.

Edward64

08-20-2006, 07:02 AM

What pisses me off is that the UN can renege on the promises made to in order to get the cease fire, Lebanon can renege on their promises, Hezbollah can openly send more troops and weapons back across the border, and the media doesn't give a damn.

But the IDF finally does something about it, and the headline on al-CNN is "Israeli Raids Jeopardize Cease-Fire." I mean, WTF? Why not give the same treatment to the lies coming out of Kofi Annan's mouth on a daily basis?
I think one of Israel's issues is PR, they seem to be very reactionary right now and surprising the world with their tactical actions. Maybe not the best example but I think of a rabid dog reacting aggresively to every movement. Israel's actions are very overt and public, Hezbollah/Syria's are not.

IMO, a better way would be saying "look world, here are some photos of Syria/Hezbollah violation #1 ... oh look world, here are some photos of another Syria/Hezbollah violation #2 ... okay world, with violation #3, all bets are off and we will start intercepting".

At least in the US, Israel will get more sympathy.

Edward64

08-20-2006, 07:04 AM

With France reneging and a significant UNIFIL force questionable (I think I read only 3500 committed so far) in the near future, I would recommend to Israel to stop transitioning territory to the Lebanese forces until there is a larger UN force in place.

I think this is the only trump card that Israel has to force a better UN committment.

MrBigglesworth

08-20-2006, 01:14 PM

Again, plenty of examples of overwhelming military might subjugating a population.
Do you have any examples of the past 50 years?

Do you really believe that the US, given enough military/civilian will, could not subjugate Iraq (and bordering countries that mess with us) into submission?

Or think of it this way, if General x had a mandate to use whatever means possible to subjugate Iraq regardless of the political consequences over a time frame of 20 yrs with x increase in troop levels with x unlimited funds and a guarantee of 'civilian support/will' ...
We've spent a trillion dollars (and we have no more money) and we've had 150k troops in the country (and we have no more troops), and the thing is a disaster. So what do you mean by 'whatever means'? What could the generals do in Iraq that would help that they aren't currently allowed to do?

MrBigglesworth

08-20-2006, 01:19 PM

Israel. Disagree, definitely got screwed. From what I've read, the IDF and Israeli population would have wanted a continuation of the war till a positive conclusion. Increasing from 10K to 30K troops in the last days was probably political manuevering but it shows some intent.
I'm sure the IDF wanted to keep going, and maybe the Israeli population, but the Israeli leadership knew it was hopeless. They had Israeli kids out there dying for no reason, Israelis at home dying for no reason. Hezbollah was tougher to root out than they thought. I can guarantee you that if they could have taken a do-over of the war, they would have never escalated it. Israel made a mistake, and the UN, with France's help, helped them out of it without making it look like they were backing down.

Edward64

08-20-2006, 02:20 PM

Do you have any examples of the past 50 years?
Lets say since 1900 (why 50 yrs btw?).

China - Civil war.
Soviet Union - Civil war.
WWII - US in Japan. Soviet Union over Eastern Europe.
Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.

I can probably dig up another dozen examples of petty African dictators and their civil wars etc. where they have kept the people in line.

We've spent a trillion dollars (and we have no more money) and we've had 150k troops in the country (and we have no more troops), and the thing is a disaster. So what do you mean by 'whatever means'? What could the generals do in Iraq that would help that they aren't currently allowed to do

Your first 2 sentences about money and troops are inaccurate. Kinda agree about the disaster statement. If you really believe we are out of money and troops, I don't think we will ever see eye to eye rationally.

In theory, whatever means means whatever means, no restrictions.

Was Genghis Khan worried about popular opinion? Was Stalin concerned? They effectively contained their population when they were alive.

Edward64

08-20-2006, 02:31 PM

I'm sure the IDF wanted to keep going, and maybe the Israeli population, but the Israeli leadership knew it was hopeless. They had Israeli kids out there dying for no reason, Israelis at home dying for no reason. Hezbollah was tougher to root out than they thought. I can guarantee you that if they could have taken a do-over of the war, they would have never escalated it. Israel made a mistake, and the UN, with France's help, helped them out of it without making it look like they were backing down.
We agree that Israel could not keep the war going but we disagree on the reason.

I think you believe Israel thought they could not acheive their military objectives and decided to take the cease fire.

I believe Israel would have expanded the war and would have been able to acheive their military objectives if the political price (both domestic and abroad) would not have been too high.

Yes, Israel could not wipe out Hezbollah in 30+ days. Pretty sure if it went on for 180+ days, Israel would be in much better shape than Hezbollah (public opinion notwithstanding).

MrBigglesworth

08-20-2006, 02:53 PM

Lets say since 1900 (why 50 yrs btw?).

China - Civil war.
Soviet Union - Civil war.
WWII - US in Japan. Soviet Union over Eastern Europe.
Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.

I can probably dig up another dozen examples of petty African dictators and their civil wars etc. where they have kept the people in line.
Why 50 years? Because before that is an entirely different period in military history. Just a few examples from the past 50 years is all I ask.

Your first 2 sentences about money and troops are inaccurate. Kinda agree about the disaster statement. If you really believe we are out of money and troops, I don't think we will ever see eye to eye rationally.
We could, in theory, send every penny we have and every soldier we have to Iraq, but that is just a little absurd, isn't it? What does the Iraq effort need money for that it doesn't have already? Where would you take troops away from to put into Iraq, and if you have what we agree is a disaster with 150k, how many do you think we would need for it to be a success?

In theory, whatever means means whatever means, no restrictions.

Was Genghis Khan worried about popular opinion? Was Stalin concerned? They effectively contained their population when they were alive.
I'll ask again: what do you want the Iraqi generals do be able to do that they aren't allowed to do right now?

Our discussion is about the limited uses of a modern military. Our goal in Iraq is to bring about a stable democracy, something I don't think can be done militarily while you (I think) are arguing that it can. For your examples of how a military can bring about democracy, you use Ghengis Kahn and Josef Stalin. Are you saying that to bring democracy to Iraq, what we need to do is institute a nomadic ancient Mongolian style government that beheads everyone in each village it takes over? Or are you saying that to bring democracy to Iraq we need to instutute a brutal early Soviet style purging Communist government? Or what is it that you are trying to say?

MrBigglesworth

08-20-2006, 03:05 PM

Yes, Israel could not wipe out Hezbollah in 30+ days. Pretty sure if it went on for 180+ days, Israel would be in much better shape than Hezbollah (public opinion notwithstanding).
I don't think anyone believes that Hezbollah would be able to defeat Israel, but you have to look at it from a cost/benefit approach: let's assume that Israel achieves its goal of getting rid of Hezbollah militarily. That still doesn't change the political climate which resulted in Hezbollah, so someone else will just come and take their place. Meanwhile, the cost to Israel would be huge: thousands of casualties, perhaps thousands of deaths, and billions and billions of dollars. Meanwhile, if they had just kept the status quo, they would have a dozen people killed every decade or so, with the possibility of creating a situation in Lebanon where they will be able to get rid of Hezbollah on their own.

Dutch

08-20-2006, 03:07 PM

Our goal in Iraq is to bring about a stable democracy, something I don't think can be done militarily while you (I think) are arguing that it can.

Our goal militarily was to oust the former regime. Our military is not going to bring democracy to anywhere. The US Military is probably the most socialistic organization in America. So it's pretty impossible for them to provide democracy.

What the US military can do, is provide a security arm for the fledgling Iraqi government while it is forming. It is a crutch and obviously a much needed one at that.

The true gains remain the Iraqi government for forming and it's people for voting. The US Military can only get credit for helping fascilitate that, but the true credit goes to the Iraqi people who went to vote under threat of terror-retaliation.

And in the end, it will remain the Iraqi's who decide. They can now vote to allow Al Qaeda run the country for them if they wish, but I think they have had enough of war and would never do that.

In any event, the US Military is there to help. Something that a military under Ghengis Khan or Stalin would never be accused of.

Edward64

08-20-2006, 03:15 PM

I don't think anyone believes that Hezbollah would be able to defeat Israel, but you have to look at it from a cost/benefit approach: let's assume that Israel achieves its goal of getting rid of Hezbollah militarily. That still doesn't change the political climate which resulted in Hezbollah, so someone else will just come and take their place. Meanwhile, the cost to Israel would be huge: thousands of casualties, perhaps thousands of deaths, and billions and billions of dollars. Meanwhile, if they had just kept the status quo, they would have a dozen people killed every decade or so, with the possibility of creating a situation in Lebanon where they will be able to get rid of Hezbollah on their own.
I don't disagree with this. The cost/benefit equation is equivalent to my political price/public opinion factor.

I thought in a prior thread you implied that Israel accepted the cease fire because they could not acheive their aims regardless of cost.

MrBigglesworth

08-20-2006, 03:29 PM

I thought in a prior thread you implied that Israel accepted the cease fire because they could not acheive their aims regardless of cost.
I may have said that, I think it depends on what you define their aims as. If their aim was to create a buffer zone in southern Lebanon, that was definitely possible, if there aim was to weaken Hezbollah militarily, that was definitely possible and achieved. If they wanted to get rid of Hezbollah and create a 100% representative democracy in Lebanon, that was pretty much impossible.

Edward64

08-20-2006, 03:36 PM

Why 50 years? Because before that is an entirely different period in military history. Just a few examples from the past 50 years is all I ask.
50 yrs was not a claim I made. The issue with the 50 yr limit is because of East/West polarization and the UN which limited large conflicts.

Nevertheless, see attached list. I'm sure we can find some examples of overwhelming might subjugating the populace.

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/massacre.html

We could, in theory, send every penny we have and every soldier we have to Iraq, but that is just a little absurd, isn't it? What does the Iraq effort need money for that it doesn't have already?
Yes, it is absurd because this example is the extreme. If you do not believe we can come up with another 500B or 100K troops, I do not believe we can have a intelligent discussion on this specific point.
Where would you take troops away from to put into Iraq, and if you have what we agree is a disaster with 150k, how many do you think we would need for it to be a success

I'll ask again: what do you want the Iraqi generals do be able to do that they aren't allowed to do right now?
You are making a point that about Iraq that I have not contested. I have not made a claim that Iraq can be fixed (although I have expressed hopes).

My premise was in response to your Green Lantern theory. Given US political and civilian will, the US military can assuredly overwhelm most any other country, and China/Russia is probable.

I have made claims that we do not have this political and civilian will.

Of course, the US "civilian will" is finicky at best. I think the last time there was this example of US "civilian will" was in WWII.

Our discussion is about the limited uses of a modern military. Our goal in Iraq is to bring about a stable democracy, something I don't think can be done militarily while you (I think) are arguing that it can. For your examples of how a military can bring about democracy, you use Ghengis Kahn and Josef Stalin. Are you saying that to bring democracy to Iraq, what we need to do is institute a nomadic ancient Mongolian style government that beheads everyone in each village it takes over? Or are you saying that to bring democracy to Iraq we need to instutute a brutal early Soviet style purging Communist government? Or what is it that you are trying to say?

I see our misunderstanding.

Modern Military. This probably implies past 50 yrs and implies East/West, not necessarily sub-saharan/latin-south american petty dictatorships.

Goal in Iraq is to bring about a stable democracy. Yes, that is definitely the goal, but not one I had in mind when I was theorectically talking about using US military force to overwhelm a country. I am actually a proponent of 'pax americana' (I know this is a dangerous statement without a clear definition, but that's another thread). England/Rome/Barbarians/Greeks et all ruled big chunks of the world quite profitably and for a long period of time without democracy.

I will concede (and agree with Dutch) that US Military might and democracy probably do not go hand-in-hand other than in the most optimal situations.

MrBigglesworth

08-20-2006, 04:26 PM

50 yrs was not a claim I made. The issue with the 50 yr limit is because of East/West polarization and the UN which limited large conflicts.

Nevertheless, see attached list. I'm sure we can find some examples of overwhelming might subjugating the populace.

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/massacre.html
Can you pick an example out of that list of a military taking down a foreign insurgency? I don't see any. I see many failures: Kurds in Iraq, Vietnam, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Chechnya...

You are making a point that about Iraq that I have not contested. I have not made a claim that Iraq can be fixed (although I have expressed hopes).

My premise was in response to your Green Lantern theory. Given US political and civilian will, the US military can assuredly overwhelm most any other country, and China/Russia is probable.

I have made claims that we do not have this political and civilian will.
I think we have a misunderstanding about the Green Lantern Theory. The GLT says that the military can do anything, it's just a question of will. But no matter how much will we have, our military can't bring about peace in Iraq. As Dutch alluded to (in the midst of disavowing his responsibility for the failure of the foreign policy that he has stridently supported for the past several years), the Iraqi people matter, and if they don't want to have our style of democracy we won't be able to force it on to them at the barrell of a gun. In a similar vein, Israel is not able to completely root out Hezbollah and similar groups from along their borders through their military. It's just not possible, and our lack of evidence to the contrary in the past 50 years supports that.

But GLT can not be proven wrong. Any failure, no matter how complete, can just be explained away as having a lack of 'will', like your explanation for Iraq.

And Russia/China? Do you mean we can beat them militarily, or pacify those countries?

Edward64

08-20-2006, 05:25 PM

Edward64

08-20-2006, 06:08 PM

And Russia/China? Do you mean we can beat them militarily, or pacify those countries?

I know this may sound flippant and I do not mean it to be, I am trying to be as clear and blunt as possible. To answer your question, given enough political and civilian "will" we can most assuredly military beat and pacify them through a series of first strikes.

Maybe not China in 2050.

flere-imsaho

08-21-2006, 08:44 AM

Edit: NM, I should real the whole thread first.

flere-imsaho

08-21-2006, 08:55 AM

I think post-WWII history shows that as the use of force escalates, so does a resolve amongst the populace to resist such force, especially in the long term.

Also, I don't think you can consider the repression under the U.S.S.R. or China to be analogous. Both regimes relied not just on military power, but an extensive security infrastructure (read: secret police) to keep local populations in line.

I also think the comparison to African warlords is overblown. Most such states exist(ed) in relative chaos, and the warlord in question typically only has (had) full control wherever his troops are (were).

I think the point you're making is that given infinite troops, and infinite will to send them into harm's way, one can pacify any country. Hypothetically, I suppose that's true. If we put 5 million U.S. soldiers into Iraq, perhaps it would be peaceful. I think what MrB's pointing out is that from a non-hypothetical standpoint, the 2nd half of the 20th century is bereft of successful examples of this strategy. Perhaps the best example of this is Vietnam, where the United States (for a good long while) actually had the ability to send a very large number of troops into the country.

Edit: Ironically, as usual it's here that I agree with Dutch. U.S. troops are in Iraq (well, they're in Iraq for this reason now, but who knows why we originally went) to provide security in the hopes that out of such security a new government may be formed, get its legs, and get off the ground.

The U.S. military will fail in this mission, however, because it lacks adequate resources to accomplish it. While U.S. soldiers do lack "regular" resources such as working vehicles, ammunition, etc..., they key resource they lack, and have lacked since the beginning, is enough troops to provide security. This is the difference between the "Rumsfeld Doctrine" (fewer troops, more mobile military) and the Powell Doctrine (if you're going to provide security, do it with an overwhelming number of troops.

I'm not sure where Dutch stands with the above paragraph, but I believe that's where we agreed to disagree the last time.

Klinglerware

08-21-2006, 09:12 AM

I know this may sound flippant and I do not mean it to be, I am trying to be as clear and blunt as possible. To answer your question, given enough political and civilian "will" we can most assuredly military beat and pacify them through a series of first strikes.

Maybe not China in 2050.

Very questionable. Russia has second-strike nuclear capability--if there is military success to be had in the invasion of Russia, it will come at a great price. China does not have reliable 2nd strike capability at the moment, however...

What do you mean by "pacify"? The Mongols were the only power that managed to subjugate present-day Russia (and to some extent, China) for any significant length of time. The Germans and French failures in occupying Russia/USSR are well known, and they had the advantage of territorial contiguity. Even if there was tremendous political "will", I don't really see the US having the necessary manpower to occupy territories that are 3X the size of the US and have 5X the population.

flere-imsaho

08-21-2006, 09:37 AM

The Mongols were the only power that managed to subjugate present-day Russia (and to some extent, China) for any significant length of time.

I'd like to point out that this claim is, from a historical standpoint, ridiculously overblown. "Subjugate" suggests a population held in complete thrall to the overlords, which simply wasn't the case, especially outside of urban areas. Sure, the Mongols were the accepted overlords, but local communities continued to mostly regulate themselves, submitting to Mongol control only when the Mongols were in the area.

In fact, I'd suggest that it was only with the advent of "secret police" that the complete subjugation of a populace for an extended period became possible. The goal should be (and was, in successful instances) to make the populace fear each other, not just the State. If they only fear the State, they can continue to work together towards its eventual overthrow. If they're always worried that they'll be ratted out, it's much more difficult, and a good percentage will just give up and be subjugated.

Klinglerware

08-21-2006, 09:45 AM

Solecismic

08-21-2006, 12:30 PM

:
Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth
I don't think anyone believes that Hezbollah would be able to defeat Israel, but you have to look at it from a cost/benefit approach: let's assume that Israel achieves its goal of getting rid of Hezbollah militarily. That still doesn't change the political climate which resulted in Hezbollah, so someone else will just come and take their place. Meanwhile, the cost to Israel would be huge: thousands of casualties, perhaps thousands of deaths, and billions and billions of dollars. Meanwhile, if they had just kept the status quo, they would have a dozen people killed every decade or so, with the possibility of creating a situation in Lebanon where they will be able to get rid of Hezbollah on their own.

I don't disagree with this. The cost/benefit equation is equivalent to my political price/public opinion factor.

I thought in a prior thread you implied that Israel accepted the cease fire because they could not acheive their aims regardless of cost.

What people don't understand is that Hezbollah isn't a random group of angry people. It's a highly organized army, financed and supplied by Iran, which is dedicated to the eradication of Israel. They don't hide that, even though the international media paints a far rosier picture.

This army was entrenched on Israel's border, and for 20 years now, has been amassing weapons stockpiles.

If you look at the last few years in a vaccuum, Israel was wrong to respond in the manner it did. But if you look at history of the region, the Hezbollah attack that started the war demanded a response. It's naive to assume that Israel would have incurred less casualties had they simply ignored the attack.

In that vein, the IDF response was a lot like the first strike in 1967 which took out the Egyptian air force while tens of thousands of troops waited on Israel's border to attack.

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1201

This article is optimistic from an Israeli point of view, but describes why it probably was a good idea for the IDF to respond more harshly than it had in the past.

However, it's clear from the anger coming out of Israel right now (http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=3149) that the war was badly mismanaged from a strategy perspective. Israel's leaders did not see that Hezbollah wanted to highlight civilian casualties in Lebanon, and the effect that would have on the international media. They picked a poor initial strategy, which turned the media (being led to the site of every civilian casualty, as illustrated by the video showing how news reports were staged by Hezbollah). Then they kept changing strategies and would not fully commit. Nevertheless, they did take out an enormous number of weapons caches - and that's however many thousand missiles that will never see Israeli soil. And Hezbollah is significantly weakened, with the UN and France forced to accept a solid plan to gain a cease fire (though, as was inevitable, the UN seems to have no intention of honoring the more important parts of that plan).

I'm not sure it was worth it in the end, but it's by no means as big a disaster as Bush's decision to go into Iraq. With that kind of military buildup, Hezbollah was certain to launch a full-scale attack sooner or later. Did the IDF response force that to happen too soon?

I just hope this warning isn't true, as the story of Iran's military games takes on a bizarre religious slant based on Muhammad and 8/22. Ahmadinejad is nothing if not insane.

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1203

Bubba Wheels

08-21-2006, 01:08 PM

Some middle-east 'expert' was just on Fox stating that according to her sources Iran will attack Israel, if not on 8/22 then in the early fall. She further states that Iran is doing this to unite growing dissent in their own country for regime change.

MrBigglesworth

08-21-2006, 02:43 PM

MrBigglesworth. Lets define this discussion clearly. I am losing track of the definition of GLT and my/our suppositions ...

It is my understanding that from reading the website link you provided ...

1) GLT was discussed specific from the viewpoint of US Military
2) Assumed to be associated with 'modern military' as the viewpoint was of US Military
3) Assumed to be associated only with 'foreign insurgency' as the viewpoint was of US Military in Iraq

Under these specific assumptions, I concede the GLT is true.

However, if you add a 4th statement

4) No amount of US will can make our military acheive its military objectives in Iraq

I tend to disagree with. Our military objectives probably won't be acheived in Iraq because we do not have the "will" ... however, in theory, if we did have the "will" we could ...

This is where our discussion went off on a tangent. I was trying to use historical examples to point out "will" and "might" can subjugate a populace.

My added suppositions are:

1) Civilian as well as political will
2) Plenty of historical scenarios (not just 50 yrs, eh?) where military might was imposed and subjugated populace for a long period of time
3) Not limited to foreign insurgency, my comment was on military might imposed on population to control them, this includes the various civil wars with a military junta aspect to them.

Under these added suppositions that expands the GLT in timespan and other countries, I do not agree with GLT.

Feel free to add or correct to this list of assumptions, talking points and lets go from there after clearly defining the discussion parameters.

Specific to the above quote, is it not possible to prove (my expanded) GLT wrong if I can show historical examples of where will and might subjugated a population for a long and profitable period of time?
Your view of GLT is incorrect, you are arguing on the PRO side of GLT, not trying to prove it wrong. GLT states that our military can do anything, it's just a matter of will, which seems to be your position also.

I think you'd agree that keeping control of your own country is much easier than keeping control of a forieng country, for various logistical, cultural, religious, political, intelligence, etc reasons, so civil wars aren't a good example of the strategic tactics of battling insurgencies. Neither is going back to 500 AD when everyone lined up across from each other in big groups and engaged in hand to hand combat: you have to use modern militaries against insurgents with modern weaponry. And the track record for such insurgency battles is not good.
I know this may sound flippant and I do not mean it to be, I am trying to be as clear and blunt as possible. To answer your question, given enough political and civilian "will" we can most assuredly military beat and pacify them through a series of first strikes.

Maybe not China in 2050.
I don't think anyone doubts the military's ability to kill people. But turning Russia or China into a barren wasteland is not an optimal outcome. Killing every last man, woman, and child in Iraq is not a desirable outcome either. Those that are against GLT aren't against it because they believe the US is not able to win wars, but against it because they believe that the US military is incapable of achieving the goals that GLT supporters say are only a matter of 'will', such as bringing democracy to Iraq, or Israel rooting out Hezbollah, or other such missions that for the military are mostly just a waste of time, money, and, most importantly, lives.

If we had the will, what could we do differently in Iraq? I've asked this a couple times now, and the only answer that I think I have gotten is thinly-vieled insinuations of genocide, which isn't going to help democracy along in Iraq.

MrBigglesworth

08-21-2006, 03:03 PM

It's naive to assume that Israel would have incurred less casualties had they simply ignored the attack.
Why? There were hardly any casualties in the decade before, and Israel is now in a worse situation than they were before going forward. And I don't think anyone suggested that they should have just ignored the attack, I think the most common complaint is that they should have responded in a more measured manner.

...it's by no means as big a disaster as Bush's decision to go into Iraq. With that kind of military buildup, Hezbollah was certain to launch a full-scale attack sooner or later. Did the IDF response force that to happen too soon?
Agree on the first part, but what's this about a 'full-scale' attack? It's not like Hezbollah tanks would come rolling into Tel Aviv, or that Hezbollah aircraft would lay waste to Jeruselem. You know as well as I do that Hezbollah would get destroyed in any kind of frontal attack on Israel: their only power is in insurgency. There was never going to be a full-scale attack beyond lobbing a few rockets over the border, which is not a desirable outcome, but the risk of that is a lot better than the certainty of it.

Ahmadinejad is nothing if not insane.
How did he make it up through the ranks of the dictatorial Iranian society while being obviously insane? What irrational acts has he committed?

Dutch

08-21-2006, 03:34 PM

How did he make it up through the ranks of the dictatorial Iranian society while being obviously insane? What irrational acts has he committed?

Everytime he speaks about Israel is wildly immoderate. His defiance of internationally recognized nuclear proliferation treaties is alarming to say the least. Supplying terrorist camps and waging war by proxy with Israel isn't the most reasoned response towards legal sovereign nations.

Of course being fingered as one of the terrorists involved in the Iranian Hostage Crisis and being wanted as a murderer by Austrian authorities probably doesn't help.

flere-imsaho

08-21-2006, 03:42 PM

That reads like a list of stuff we used to do against the Soviet Union.

I don't think he's insane. I think he's very committed to a particular worldview, with which I do not agree, but I don't think he's insane.

Now, Kim Il Jong? He's insane.

Edward64

08-21-2006, 05:53 PM

Your view of GLT is incorrect, you are arguing on the PRO side of GLT, not trying to prove it wrong. GLT states that our military can do anything, it's just a matter of will, which seems to be your position also.
You are absolutely right, let me try the right POV. Lets try again to clearly specify the parameters of what the GLT theory states and lets agree on some baseline facts of the GLT before we discuss more, otherwise I suspect we will go around in circles.

1) GLT is specific to the US military
2) GLT is specific to current US military
3) GLT is specific to current US military in Iraq
4) GLT supposes that with enough political/civilian "will" the US military can accomplish anything in Iraq

My additional suppositions are

A) GLT is not specific to the US military
B) GLT is not specific to current (ex. within 50 yrs)
C) GLT is not specific to Iraq scenario
D) GLT does not exclude "civil wars"

The provided link http://yglesias.tpmcafe.com/blog/yglesias/2006/jul/10/the_green_lantern_theory_of_geopolitics does not specifically exclude A,B,C,D.

MrBigglesworth. Does our discussion of GLT include my suppositions of A,B,C,D? Can you please specifically state include/exclude to the 1-4, A-D statements so I understand your interpretation of GLT? Feel free to add to either category.

Again, just trying to establish a baseline of understanding before we proceed any further.

Edward64

08-21-2006, 05:57 PM

Of course being fingered as one of the terrorists involved in the Iranian Hostage Crisis and being wanted as a murderer by Austrian authorities probably doesn't help.

I did not think the link to the Hostage Crisis was ever positively shown. Though I read US intelligence said he wasn't the one.

Can anyone give a link that shows one or the other?

Edward64

08-21-2006, 06:03 PM

I'd like to point out that this claim is, from a historical standpoint, ridiculously overblown. "Subjugate" suggests a population held in complete thrall to the overlords, which simply wasn't the case, especially outside of urban areas. Sure, the Mongols were the accepted overlords, but local communities continued to mostly regulate themselves, submitting to Mongol control only when the Mongols were in the area.

In fact, I'd suggest that it was only with the advent of "secret police" that the complete subjugation of a populace for an extended period became possible. The goal should be (and was, in successful instances) to make the populace fear each other, not just the State. If they only fear the State, they can continue to work together towards its eventual overthrow. If they're always worried that they'll be ratted out, it's much more difficult, and a good percentage will just give up and be subjugated.
flere-imasho. I know this was not directed to me but feel it was related to my discussion with MrBigglesworth on GLT and how, given enough "will", the US military can subjugate a population.

(1) I did not study the use of the word subjugate. Use what ever you wish, the point is that there are plenty of historical examples where a population was force to accept a military force's will for a long period of time.

(2) Your point of "secret police" is well taken, however I would contend that the military force came first, then the "secret police" continued environment of "subjugation". Same difference to me.

Edward64

08-21-2006, 06:13 PM

Very questionable. Russia has second-strike nuclear capability--if there is military success to be had in the invasion of Russia, it will come at a great price. China does not have reliable 2nd strike capability at the moment, however...

What do you mean by "pacify"? The Mongols were the only power that managed to subjugate present-day Russia (and to some extent, China) for any significant length of time. The Germans and French failures in occupying Russia/USSR are well known, and they had the advantage of territorial contiguity. Even if there was tremendous political "will", I don't really see the US having the necessary manpower to occupy territories that are 3X the size of the US and have 5X the population.
Yes, I am sure Russia can retaliate. Bottom line, pretty sure in a US first strike, Russia will be in much worse shape than US. Agree about China.

Regardless, in this extreme scenario, everyone loses but some (ex. US and allies) will lose less than Russia/China.

I did not mean to suggest 'pacify' include the ground occupation of Russia/China. Certainly the US could not do this alone, however I would contend that without US intervention, the Japanese would have occupied China quite easily even with the disportionate population. Let me define 'pacify' as no longer a significant threat or near-equal.

-Mojo Jojo-

08-22-2006, 01:07 AM

My additional suppositions are

A) GLT is not specific to the US military
B) GLT is not specific to current (ex. within 50 yrs)
C) GLT is not specific to Iraq scenario
D) GLT does not exclude "civil wars"

You are correct that it is very important to define terrain here. Any social theory has boundary points beyond which it doesn't make much sense. I don't know what the inventor(s) of GLT considered to be their boundaries, but in order for GLT to make sense I think your point (D) should definitely fall outside of them, and possibly point (B) as well.

(D): There are very distinctive characteristics at play in a situation where an insurgency/guerrilla military is fighting a foreign occupier that are not in play in a civil war (or at least not to the same degree). It is much more difficult for an outside force to subjugate a population than a local tyrant. The insurgents have a far easier time convincing the populace that the outsiders are to blame for everything in that scenario, and people have a natural tendency to not look very kindly on foreign control in any situation. A local tyrant necessarily has considerable local support (or would otherwise be unable to exert any force), and that support will not be easily swayed to the insurgency. I think there is ample evidence to show that in internal conflicts overwhelming force (generally assisted by an internal security apparatus) can subjugate a population. It is much more difficult to find examples of foreign forces doing the same.

(B): There are at least two important developments since WWII that probably impact the GLT equation. The first is telecommunications and mass media. Conflicts are fought much more in the public eye now than previously. The result is that excessive use of force exacts a much higher political price than before. The recognition of this fact by militants in Iraq, Palestine, and Lebanon is central to their strategic approach.

Additionally, for an occupying nation, a conflict that might in an earlier era have seemed abstract and remote is now far more accessible and immediate, again creating additional political costs and a steady attrition of public support for foreign occupation. Under GLT consideration, we may be ignoring this factor for the occupier (?), but it would remain an important international consideration (as far as I know GLT does not insist that we view events in a bilateral vaccuum), and as we saw with Lebanon (and a decade ago in Chechnya, and before that in Vietnam), international action (or the threat of it) can constrain policy options.

Another development (and this is a more arguable point) has been the development of overwhelming military technological superiority. Going back to WWII, the application of massive destructive force that broke the enemy spirit came in the context of full on total warfare. Carpet bombing an enemy city is always ethically questionable (to say the least), but less so in the context of a large scale military conflict with national survival at stake. Today there is far less conventional military conflict. None of our opponents has a conventional military that is even worth putting on the field against the US. We essentially skip directly to the occupation phase and asymetric warfare. I imagine that if we had forced a surrender from Germany and Japan and then executed half their military-age men and firebombed their cities the local and international reaction would have been somewhat different... On the other hand, the attrition inflicted on Vietnam by the US was proportionally probably in the same ballpark as WWII, but that didn't seem to work either, so there may be other factors at work here...

MrBigglesworth

08-22-2006, 03:35 AM

You are absolutely right, let me try the right POV. Lets try again to clearly specify the parameters of what the GLT theory states and lets agree on some baseline facts of the GLT before we discuss more, otherwise I suspect we will go around in circles.

1) GLT is specific to the US military
2) GLT is specific to current US military
3) GLT is specific to current US military in Iraq
4) GLT supposes that with enough political/civilian "will" the US military can accomplish anything in Iraq

My additional suppositions are

A) GLT is not specific to the US military
B) GLT is not specific to current (ex. within 50 yrs)
C) GLT is not specific to Iraq scenario
D) GLT does not exclude "civil wars"

The provided link http://yglesias.tpmcafe.com/blog/yglesias/2006/jul/10/the_green_lantern_theory_of_geopolitics does not specifically exclude A,B,C,D.

MrBigglesworth. Does our discussion of GLT include my suppositions of A,B,C,D? Can you please specifically state include/exclude to the 1-4, A-D statements so I understand your interpretation of GLT? Feel free to add to either category.

Again, just trying to establish a baseline of understanding before we proceed any further.
I'm not sure that I follow why or how you are setting up the parameters. GLT states, in short terms, that a nation's military can accomplish anything, it's just a matter of will (military or civilian or political will, in a democracy they are one in the same). It can apply to anything you or anyone else wants to apply it to, that's part of the beauty of it. Someone could say that Hezbollah could invade Israel and wipe them off the map, it's just a question of their will to do so. You might think that is insane, but it can't be proven wrong. Any failure of Hezbollah to actuall destroy Israel could just be explained away as a lack of sufficient will. Replace Hezbollah with America, Israel with Iraq, and 'wipe them off the map' with 'install an American style democracy', and the same could be said of that situation. Certainly the American military is very good, the best in the world, but there are some jobs that it can't do for the sole reason that militaries are limited as to what they can accomplish.

Edward64

08-22-2006, 05:35 AM

I'm not sure that I follow why or how you are setting up the parameters. GLT states, in short terms, that a nation's military can accomplish anything, it's just a matter of will (military or civilian or political will, in a democracy they are one in the same). It can apply to anything you or anyone else wants to apply it to, that's part of the beauty of it. Someone could say that Hezbollah could invade Israel and wipe them off the map, it's just a question of their will to do so. You might think that is insane, but it can't be proven wrong. Any failure of Hezbollah to actuall destroy Israel could just be explained away as a lack of sufficient will. Replace Hezbollah with America, Israel with Iraq, and 'wipe them off the map' with 'install an American style democracy', and the same could be said of that situation. Certainly the American military is very good, the best in the world, but there are some jobs that it can't do for the sole reason that militaries are limited as to what they can accomplish.
MrBigglesworth. Again, I am clearly trying to define our baseline for what GLT says as it does not seem to exclude my suppositions of A,B,C,D. I am trying to establish this baseline because you differed from my opinion that there is plenty of historical examples where GLT is true.

ex. When I mentioned historical, you added "within past 50 yrs"
When I mentioned civil wars, you mentioned "foreign intervention"

I just though it would be worthwhile to clearly define the parameters before proceeding and not give each other "easy outs/wiggle room" in our future discussions.

Under the assumption that A,B,C,D is not excluded by your interpretation of GLT, I would again state that GLT is true. Without a clear response from you on my above question of A,B,C,D I will assume this discussion of GLT with you is complete.

Mojo. Thanks for your analysis on GLT and your understanding of my wish to establish a baseline of understanding. I agree, without A,B,C,D the GLT is hard to "prove with contemporary historical evidence" due to (1) lack of clear examples due to lack of overwhelming foreign military force/conflicts and (2) existence of UN and East/West polarization of major powers that have made such GLT conflicts untenable.

Regardless, I think you agree with me that with suppositions A,B,C,D that GLT is true?

Edward64

08-22-2006, 06:11 AM

It looks as if Italy will take the lead.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,209724,00.html

Good for them.

Disappointed the French did not step up. I can understand the risks (ex. it can go sour quickly) to them but it would seem they would want to play the leadership role and establish their eminence in Europe. Using the Foreign Legion would minimize the negative domesitc impact if it became a shooting conflict with Hezbollah.

Also disappointed with the Chinese. At least with India they have a large Muslim population that could complicate their internal politics. With China this would seem to be a perfect opportunity to present themselves as the emerging world leader.

(It would be a sight to see a bunch of Orientals in the Holy Land).

flere-imsaho

08-22-2006, 09:05 AM

I know this was not directed to me but feel it was related to my discussion with MrBigglesworth on GLT and how, given enough "will", the US military can subjugate a population.

Yes, my reply wasn't directed at you specifically, though it is tangential. To be completely honest, I checked out of your discussion with MrB about GLT (mostly because I don't have the time to read it all, not necessarily because of its merits).

(1) I did not study the use of the word subjugate. Use what ever you wish, the point is that there are plenty of historical examples where a population was force to accept a military force's will for a long period of time.

First of all, I don't want to seem nitpicky, but in any conversation like this, one's choice of words can often be very important. Subjugate means one thing, but your subsequent description of a generalized military occupation is something else entirely.

Secondly, I must go back to MrB's requirement that you choose examples from the last 50 years. There's a reason for this. On one topic alone, technology, we can say that the playing field for guerilla warfare has changed immensely in the past 50 years. Today, a people under military occupation have a large number of tools at their disposal which make it easier for them to keep in touch and/or wage war against an enemy which has superior technology. Iraq is a very good example of this.

(2) Your point of "secret police" is well taken, however I would contend that the military force came first, then the "secret police" continued environment of "subjugation". Same difference to me.

But it's not the same difference at all. Compare these two scenarios:

1. Iraq's security situation as it exists now.

2. Iraq's security situation with a "secret police" of native Iraqis, loyal to the U.S. military, who have the ability to infiltrate any sector of Iraqi society and "correct" people at will.

Which, do you think, would result in a more subjugated Iraq?

Imagine Nazi Germany without the Gestapo & SS. Imagine the Soviet Union without the KGB.

Which brings me back to my original point. Under realistic conditions, I don't think you can have a miltary force alone that will effectively subjugate a people in this day and age. Case in point: Iraq. Under hypothetical conditions (such as putting 5 million U.S. troops into Iraq), you might, but the problems inherent with realizing such a hypothetical scenario suggest deeper flaws with such a plan.

Edward64

08-22-2006, 05:41 PM

First of all, I don't want to seem nitpicky, but in any conversation like this, one's choice of words can often be very important. Subjugate means one thing, but your subsequent description of a generalized military occupation is something else entirely.
Understood.

Secondly, I must go back to MrB's requirement that you choose examples from the last 50 years. There's a reason for this. On one topic alone, technology, we can say that the playing field for guerilla warfare has changed immensely in the past 50 years. Today, a people under military occupation have a large number of tools at their disposal which make it easier for them to keep in touch and/or wage war against an enemy which has superior technology. Iraq is a very good example of this.
No problem. It was not clear from the article but I now believe the GLT applies specifically to contemporary (ex. 50 yrs) foreign intervention (ex. no civil wars).

Question, under the assumption that GLT also applies to "civil wars", do you still believe the GLT is not true? My example is the Khmer Rouge, they effectively overthrew the Cambodian royalty/government and controlled the country (and would probably still be in power without Vietnamese intervention).

But it's not the same difference at all. Compare these two scenarios:

1. Iraq's security situation as it exists now.

2. Iraq's security situation with a "secret police" of native Iraqis, loyal to the U.S. military, who have the ability to infiltrate any sector of Iraqi society and "correct" people at will.

Which, do you think, would result in a more subjugated Iraq?

Imagine Nazi Germany without the Gestapo & SS. Imagine the Soviet Union without the KGB..
No arguments with which is better. I can easily believe a "secret police" is better than pure military force alone. I would add in your two examples of Nazi Germany and USSR that there would not have been a "secret police" without the military force first. I view the "secret police" as a subset of the military force and/or a direct result of the military force ... hence my "same difference".

Which brings me back to my original point. Under realistic conditions, I don't think you can have a miltary force alone that will effectively subjugate a people in this day and age. Case in point: Iraq. Under hypothetical conditions (such as putting 5 million U.S. troops into Iraq), you might, but the problems inherent with realizing such a hypothetical scenario suggest deeper flaws with such a plan
My problem is that I can't really argue for GLT (ex. show examples) without the 2 added suppositions of B or D. Remove the B-50 yrs or throw me the bone of D-Civil War and I think I can show plenty examples in the past 50 yrs.

I state again that the GLT link did not specifically say 50+ years or not include civil wars. It seemed pretty general in its stated theory.

Buccaneer

08-27-2006, 05:40 PM

Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah said in a TV interview aired Sunday that he would not have ordered the capture of two Israeli soldiers if he had known it would lead to such a war.

In other words, they would have been deterred to capture Israeli soldiers knowing the response. Or perhaps, if the IDF did not do what it did, Hezbollah would not have had second thoughts now?

flere-imsaho

08-28-2006, 07:59 PM

Or perhaps Nasrallah's acting contrite now, knowing full well that Hezbollah now has the opportunity to earn the respect of the radical islamic world by rebuilding most, if not all, of southern Lebanon before the international community can get itself in gear?

Just because he's a radical doesn't mean he can't have good PR.

MrBigglesworth

08-28-2006, 08:08 PM

There is no way this can be spun into a victory for Israel. Both sides are worse off, that's what usually happens in war. Knowing what they know now, Israel wouldn't have escalated the conflict either. This is not the end of the greater conflict.

Edward64

09-02-2006, 07:08 AM

Although too early to tell, the current situation seems to have stabilized. With UNIFIL (and EU participation), Syria's pledge to back the embargo (wonder if the UN will be monitoring this?), Olmert's domestic disenchantment/distractions ... the odds are probably much lower that another conflict will flare up.

Charles Krauthammer had an interesting article but hard to gauge the accuracy of his text. It would be nice if this was true but hard not to think Krauthammer is looking through rose-colored glasses.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2006/09/01/hezbollahs_hollow_victory

Hezbollah was seriously hurt. It lost hundreds of its best fighters. A deeply entrenched infrastructure on Israel's border is in ruins. The great hero has had to go so deep into hiding that Nasrallah has been called ``the underground mullah.''

Most importantly, Hezbollah's political gains within Lebanon during the war have proved illusory. As the dust settles, the Lebanese are furious at Hezbollah for provoking a war that brought them nothing but devastation -- and then crowing about victory amid the ruins.

I do think its good that other non-Middle Eastern muslim countries are participating in UNIFIL (ex. Indonesians).

MrBigglesworth

09-02-2006, 01:39 PM

I would love to know what Krauthammer bases his thinking on, because the facts say something different:

A poll released this week by L'Orient Le Jour, a French-language Beirut daily, found that 84 percent of Lebanon's Shi'ite Muslims, the largest religious grouping in the country, think Hezbollah should hold on to its arms in defiance of a U.N. cease-fire agreement that is being implemented.

By contrast, more than three-quarters of Lebanon's Christian and Druze communities -- the two largest religious minorities -- said they want to see Hezbollah disarmed. Opinion was more evenly split among Lebanon's Sunni Muslims, with 54 percent favoring disarmament.

Overall, 51 percent of those polled were in favor of disarming Hezbollah, and 49 percent were opposed -- a statistical tie given the survey's margin of error.

The poll, conducted Aug. 14 to 17 by the French firm Ipsos-Stat, comes amid a fierce domestic debate over Hezbollah's role in provoking the war with Israel and in Lebanon's fragmented political system.

...

A poll by the Beirut Center for Research and Information, conducted Aug. 18 to 20, found that a majority of Lebanese think Hezbollah had "won" the war with Israel, surviving a fierce ground and air attack by one of the world's most potent militaries.

That poll found that 84.6 percent think Israel had planned the war long before and had used the raid as a pretext.
Seems like the same situatin as before the war, with the Muslims backing Hezbollah and the Christians not. Plus, with 84% of Lebanese believing that Israel had planned the war beforehand, it's tough to say how they can simultaneously be furious at Hezbollah for provoking the war.

Dutch

09-02-2006, 02:54 PM

I found this line of thinking worth noting here.

``We did not think, even 1 percent, that the capture would lead to a war at this time and of this magnitude. You ask me, if I had known on July 11 ... that the operation would lead to such a war, would I do it? I say no, absolutely not.''

-- Hasan Nasrallah, Hezbollah leader, Aug. 27

So much for the ``strategic and historic victory'' Nasrallah had claimed less than two weeks earlier. What real victor declares that, had he known, he would not have started the war that ended in triumph?

As for the "Lebanese", it's a bit ambiguous. Does it mean the Lebanese Government, prominent Lebanese, or Lebanese citizens in general. Who knows.

st.cronin

09-02-2006, 03:14 PM

I found this line of thinking worth noting here.

As for the "Lebanese", it's a bit ambiguous. Does it mean the Lebanese Government, prominent Lebanese, or Lebanese citizens in general. Who knows.

I think it means Ralph Nader.

MrBigglesworth

09-02-2006, 03:16 PM

What real victor declares that, had he known, he would not have started the war that ended in triumph?
Pyrrhus?

Dutch

09-03-2006, 01:27 AM

Pyrrhus?

"One more such victory and I shall be lost!"

Edward64

09-21-2006, 08:58 PM

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas told the U.N. General Assembly on Thursday that the planned national unity government will recognize Israel.
Palestinians agreed last week to replace the Hamas-led government with a unity government of Hamas and Abbas' more moderate Fatah faction.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14946254/

How did I missed this brewing?

Abbas seems willing to take chances for peace, hopefully he will turn out to be a Palestinian George Washington instead of a politician that sold out a people.

I don't understand why he would do this without first exacting some concessions/understanding with Israel. Or maybe they already have a secret agreement negotiated?

-Mojo Jojo-

09-21-2006, 09:31 PM

I don't understand why he would do this without first exacting some concessions/understanding with Israel. Or maybe they already have a secret agreement negotiated?

Abbas and Fatah already recognized Israel. They've been holding out on forming a unity government with Hamas until Hamas also recognized Israel. Apparently Hamas has now agreed to that...

Edward64

09-22-2006, 05:29 AM

The Palestinians’ ruling Hamas group will not join a planned coalition government if recognizing Israel is a condition, a close aide to Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas said Friday.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14946254/

Sorry, forget it. Back to the same old grind.

Flasch186

09-22-2006, 05:09 PM

and today Hezbollah thumbed their nose at the UN agreement they agreed to to stop the conflict and will not disarm. Imagine that. Biggles? Should we trust them again, next time?

Buccaneer

09-22-2006, 06:01 PM

Israel completed their pullout and ended the blockades. How come they haven't gotten the two prisoners back and how come Hezzbollah have/will not disarm?

st.cronin

09-22-2006, 07:25 PM

and today Hezbollah thumbed their nose at the UN agreement they agreed to to stop the conflict and will not disarm. Imagine that. Biggles? Should we trust them again, next time?

I don't know why you can't see that this is Israel's fault.

-Mojo Jojo-

09-22-2006, 09:35 PM

and today Hezbollah thumbed their nose at the UN agreement they agreed to to stop the conflict and will not disarm. Imagine that. Biggles? Should we trust them again, next time?

They're in violation of the UN decree, but Hezbollah never agreed to disarm...

Flasch186

09-22-2006, 10:23 PM

...yet they'll site UN doctrine and law when accusing Israel of warcrimes like using the cluster bombs in civilian areas, which, should be investigated by the UN and followed up on just like anything else should be. Neither side is immune from the laws that we all agree to. What I have noticed about this is what is good for the goose is NOT good for the gander in the eyes of Nasrallah.

Edward64

09-22-2006, 10:56 PM

-Mojo Jojo-

09-23-2006, 12:29 AM

Hamas vs Israel. I don't see any significant shifts in advantage, more or less the same status quo.

I agree the fighting didn't make much difference, but Hamas may be starting to feel the impact of having foreign aid cut off (it's been half a year now). As I noted earlier in this discussion, they were ready to deal on recognition of Israel at the beginning of this round of fighting, and might be again. I know they just bailed on Abbas, but Abbas must have had some reason to believe what he did. Most likely there is some internal conflict... I don't think they can hold out forever, recognition is not a popular enough political issue for them (i.e. most Palestinians appear to be willing to recognize Israel).

Hamas vs Fatah. I don't know.

Advantage Hamas. Before this fighting Abbas and Fatah were waiting for Hamas to come to them, and Hamas were the ones leading the charge for a unity government. Now, the reverse is true. (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525896546&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull) Abbas and Fatah have to make nice with Hamas to show their street cred. At least in the short term, fighting always helps the hawks, no matter how stupid or pointless it is.

Edward64

02-03-2007, 07:08 PM

Time for a post mortem analysis on the latest conflict?

Hezbollah = 1, Israel = 0
Hamas = 0, Israel = 1
Hamas = ?, Fatah = ?

Hezbollah vs Israel. Not militarily, but hard to argue that Hezbollah did not emerge stronger it this most recent conflict. The pro-West government has not been too vocal/public, not a good sign.

Hamas vs Israel. I don't see any significant shifts in advantage, more or less the same status quo.

Hamas vs Fatah. I don't know.

A 6+ month update just to see how things are shaping up.

Hezbollah = 1, Israel = 0
Hamas = 0, Israel = 1
Hamas = ?, Fatah = ?

Still no basic change to my Sept evaluation but some interesting things have happened.

Hezbollah was able to flex its power and have popular demonstrations in Lebanon against the pro-west government. The general in charge of the Israeli war resigned/fired, a tacit acknowledgement that Israel did not achieve its military goals. But Israel did get its international buffer zone and relative peace (haven't heard of any incidents). However, Hezbollah's influence seems to be as good as ever, if not increased.

Hamas and Fatah continue their fraticide even after 2 cease-fire agreements between the top leadership and Egyptian mediation (read the Egyptian colonel said Hamas broke the initial cease-fire).

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16940679/

Even if the leadership wants peace, it seems the lower minions find a way to break the cease fire, one way or another.

Unfortunately, even with new elections, I doubt the loser would respect the people's vote and the power struggle will continue. I know there would be alot of bloodshed, but it seems that one side or the other just needs to militarily overwhelm the other and impose its will on the loser ... then the Israelis will know who to negotiate with.

Raiders Army

02-03-2007, 08:52 PM

17 pages. Wowza.

Buccaneer

11-24-2007, 07:51 PM

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip — Hamas said Saturday it was shocked Arab countries have decided to attend next week's U.S.-backed Mideast peace summit and underlined its opposition with a threat to launch deadlier rocket attacks on Israel.

And there you have it.

Edward64

11-25-2007, 05:51 PM

Call me an optimist ... but I see the planets lining up ... this is the best chance in recent memory for some sort of peace between the 2 (Hamas excluded of course).

Buccaneer

11-28-2007, 06:58 PM

From Time.com, of all places

President Bush

He was the biggest surprise. His speech opening the conference was one of the best of his political career, certainly his finest on the Middle East. Discarding the hubris and fantasy of his early Iraq addresses, he asserted America's leadership in ending the region's core conflict through the creation of a Palestinian state. Bush pledged "to devote my effort during my time as President to do all I can," knowing that many in the room have been critical of his lack of any such commitment until now. Bush spoke of the promise — and obligations — of peace for both the Palestinians and the Israelis, and he demonstrated keen awareness of the risks of continuing the present stalemate. "If Palestinian reformers cannot deliver on this hopeful vision," he warned, "then the forces of extremism and terror will be strengthened, a generation of Palestinians could be lost to the extremists, and the Middle East will grow in despair." At last, Bush seems to get it, but whether he follows through remains open to question.

Winners were also Olmert and Abbas, and Rice.

Edward64

04-07-2008, 09:27 PM

Call me an optimist ... but I see the planets lining up ... this is the best chance in recent memory for some sort of peace between the 2 (Hamas excluded of course).

Okay, I was wrong. What a waste ... no significant movement anywhere.

Edward64

12-28-2008, 06:21 AM

Okay, I was wrong. What a waste ... no significant movement anywhere.

Sheesh. What a fu*king waste.

Air strikes on Gaza continue as deaths rise - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/12/28/gaza.israel.strikes/index.html)

Why can't Hamas stay content with their defacto government in the West Bank and keep their wads in their pants?
Why can't the Israeli's stop overreacting?
What the hell has Rice done the past 4 years?
Arafat, why didn't you take that opportunity 8 years ago?

ISiddiqui

12-28-2008, 09:27 AM

De facto government in Gaza, not the West Bank.

Buccaneer

12-28-2008, 10:22 AM

JonInMiddleGA

12-28-2008, 10:30 AM

Why can't the Israeli's stop overreacting?

They've exercised too much restraint for too long, which is why this mild response was necessary.

They live next to a den of rattlesnakes & from time to time you have to at least kill a few of them. Pity they haven't wiped out the entire nest.

Edward64

12-28-2008, 10:46 AM

What would be the appropriate level of response from Israel? Lob Russian-made mortars back at them?

Where was Rice? Where was anyone the past 1300 years? You think Clinton will do anything more than a few photo ops and the promise of a future agreement without violating Obama's pro-Israeli stance?

How about surgical strikes, targeted assasinations?

Bill got us close, did Bush try to close the deal? Nope, not willing to (this was before 9/11). So what did Rice do in the past 4 years in ME?

Edward64

12-28-2008, 10:49 AM

They've exercised too much restraint for too long, which is why this mild response was necessary.

They live next to a den of rattlesnakes & from time to time you have to at least kill a few of them. Pity they haven't wiped out the entire nest.
I don't disagree with your analogy about rattlesnakes and wiping out the nest. To kill/maim children is uncalled for. Sure they weren't specifically targeted but there was bound to be collateral damage with those strikes. Send in your animal control and wipe them out.

JonInMiddleGA

12-28-2008, 11:13 AM

I don't disagree with your analogy about rattlesnakes and wiping out the nest. To kill/maim children is uncalled for.

Occasionally there's a less harmful critter caught in the vicinity when you take out snakes. Shit happens. And let's be realistic, it's not as though there's never been the use of children as weapons in the region either.

Noop

12-28-2008, 11:38 AM

Reverse Terrorism.

ISiddiqui

12-28-2008, 11:39 AM

Israel's already tried that.

Oilers9911

12-28-2008, 12:52 PM

You poke the lion with a stick enough times and the lion is going to rip an arm off. That is what happened here. The collateral damage of children is a shame but Hamas should have thought of that before they started poking the lion again.

flere-imsaho

12-29-2008, 09:20 AM

They've exercised too much restraint for too long, which is why this mild response was necessary.

You may be interested to learn that you agree with Alan Dershowitz, writing in March. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/the-hamas-government-has-_b_91630.html)

Bill got us close, did Bush try to close the deal? Nope, not willing to (this was before 9/11). So what did Rice do in the past 4 years in ME?

Who knows?

Generally, there's two levels of diplomacy, the overt & public kind, and the backchannel kind. Since the Bush Administration has generally been disinclined to put serious effort into backchannel efforts, one must assume that the bulk of their efforts have been in the form of Rice's overt & public diplomacy. However, the problem with this approach is that ever since 2003 U.S. diplomacy in the region has been seriously hampered by the baggage saddled onto it by our Iraq misadventure.

So, while I'm sure Rice has been putting an honest effort in, it's like the meek 5'0" teacher telling two 17-year-old boys not to fight when you know, as soon as her back is turned, that they're going to try and knock each other out.

Contrary to popular opinion, I think the U.S. actually exercises a lot of control over Israel from the standpoint of getting them to exercise restraint. I think if the U.S. let them do their own thing, they'd be a lot more brutal in their responses than they are.

On the flipside, the U.S. obviously exercises very little control over Hamas because, well, the reason should be obvious.

So, no matter which administration is in power, you're not going to get Israel to back down (the best you can do is to convince them not to engage in wanton bloodshed on a regular basis) and you're not going to get Hamas to the negotiating table. In fact, it's in Hamas' best interest to provoke Israel even more, because it lends legitimacy (at least among their supporters) to their own actions).

I think the only avenue to "peace" would be to, in a very, very covert & backchannel manner, maneuver someone to the top of Hamas eventually who might be inclined to some sort of settlement. This would probably take forever and is pretty unlikely, but there you go. Otherwise, I think you're left to hope that eventually the Palestinian population en masse would reject Hamas and promote leaders inclined to a settlement, which also seems unlikely.

The other avenue everyone talks about is letting Israel engage in a "scorched-earth" policy which, although cathartic for the bloodthirsty, has still never been a successful strategy against terrorists/guerrillas/insurgents/etc....

You poke the lion with a stick enough times and the lion is going to rip an arm off. That is what happened here. The collateral damage of children is a shame but Hamas should have thought of that before they started poking the lion again.

I honestly don't think Hamas cares who dies, even among Palestinians. In fact, to them the death of Palestinian children is a good thing, as it lends support to their cause against Israel.

ISiddiqui

12-29-2008, 09:27 AM

I feel Ezra Klein puts it well:

EzraKlein Archive | The American Prospect (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=12&year=2008&base_name=who_started_it)

WHO STARTED IT?

The Israeli Narrative: After the temporary ceasefire ended 10 days ago, Hamas began launching rockets into Southern Israel. This echoed not only Hamas's actions before the ceasefire, but Hezbollah's actions in the weeks leading to the 2006 war. The rockets may have proven harmless, but they posed a continuing threat and were, under any standard, an act of war by the sovereign government of a neighboring territory. Israel's attack on Gaza was a response to this provocation.

The Palestinian Narrative: For the past year or so, following Hamas's victory in the Gaza elections, Israel has sealed the border to Gaza, cutting off both humanitarian aid and commercial traffic. In June, a coalition of eight international non-profits released a report (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/12/myths_and_facts_about_the_real.html) demonstrating that conditions in Gaza were worse than at any point since 1967. 80 percent of the residents were now on food aid, more than 40 percent were unemployed, water and sewage systems were in collapse, and hospitals were suffering power shortages of up to 12 hours a day. The situation has only worsened. The U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA) has been unable (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/12/28/gaza.humanitarian/) to get needed medical supplies into Gaza for more than a year because of Israel's blockade on border crossings. It is this enforced poverty and immiseration that Hamas's rocket fire was a response to.

The point is simple: You can argue, as Israel is arguing, that their air strikes are a response to Hamas's missiles. But to the Palestinians, Hamas's missiles were a response to the blockade (under international law, a blockade is indeed an act of war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade)). Israel, of course, would argue that the blockade was a response to Hamas's past attacks. And Hamas would argue that past attacks were a response to Israel's unceasing oppression of the Palestinian people. And Israel would argue that...

The provocations and cassus belli travel as far back as anyone might care to trace. And whether you believe Israel, the Palestinians, or the international partitioners originally at fault, starting the clock on December 10th, when the ceasefire expired and Hamas's missiles crashed into the fields around Sderot, is merely an Israeli press strategy. This is the latest tactic in an ongoing struggle over land and freedom and security and money and politics and religion and elections and oppression. It did not begin with the rockets, and it will not end with this attack.

flere-imsaho

12-29-2008, 09:32 AM

Yep.

Mizzou B-ball fan

12-29-2008, 10:03 AM

The thought of the U.S or European powers negotiating peace in that region is on the same level as the financial institution bailout hoopla. At some point, shit happens. Stop trying to make short term gains by creating peace that is bound to fail. Let 'em fight it out, regardless of who is right. If there's any hint of intentional killing of civilians with the purpose of exterminating the other side, then you step in.

Dutch

12-29-2008, 10:15 AM

Yep.

Yep, what? Hamas should just continue it's rocket attacks and Israel should not respond?

Mizzou B-ball fan

12-29-2008, 10:19 AM

Yep, what? Hamas should just continue it's rocket attacks and Israel should not respond?

At some point, Hamas' leaders have to take some responsibility. Israel didn't put up a blockade because Hamas was egging their cars.

flere-imsaho

12-29-2008, 11:04 AM

Yep, what? Hamas should just continue it's rocket attacks and Israel should not respond?

Yep I agree with ISiddiqui's post.

Edit: Both sides are going to fight and there's precious little anyone else can do about it. To think otherwise is to ignore what, 1300 years of history now? More?

Additionally, although I'm sure majorities on both sides would actually prefer peace, there's a heavy disincentive to actually stand up and say so, since those who do tend to get killed. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzhak_Rabin)

Honestly, we'll have cold fusion before this conflict gets resolved. Come to think of it, we'll probably also have magical flying unicorns as well before these people stop fighting.

ISiddiqui

12-29-2008, 11:15 AM

At some point, Hamas' leaders have to take some responsibility. Israel didn't put up a blockade because Hamas was egging their cars.

Isreal should have done what the Brits did in Northern Ireland when they allowed Sinn Fein to rule. As soon as Hamas got elected, Isreal decided to throw up a blockade and what do you think is going to be the result of that? If even humanitarian aid can't get through, they are going to lash out. Should have at least allowed them to govern to see if they'd moderate as Sinn Fein did when they got into power.

This way solved nothing. And around and around it goes.

flere-imsaho

12-29-2008, 11:29 AM

Dutch

12-29-2008, 12:50 PM

Well, bear in mind that Sinn Fein ruled (rules) in a power-sharing agreement with the Unionists, and only did so after Gerry Adams did everything in his power to disassociate Sinn Fein from the Provisional IRA.

But I agree. It would have been interesting, at least, to, once Hamas got elected, suddenly have the Israeli government do a 180 and treat them as an actual state. Worst case scenario Hamas starts bombing Israel again and now Israel can say "Look, we sent an ambassador and everything! WTF?! This is no different from Egypt invading us!" and they've got a ton more legitimacy on their side.

Ligitimacy? Do you honestly think that is there for the taking if and only if Isreal makes all the right moves? In whose eyes? The western world? They already give Israel legitimacy. The Middle Eastern world? No way. Jews attacking Muslims because they are sovereign would make it even worse, not better. Keep in mind that the ultimate goal for the majority of the Middle East is to destroy Isreal. Not figure out ways to get along with them in a beat down of another Muslim state. Give the Muslims an inch and they will take a mile. Isreal simply hasn't the real estate to deal like you think they should.

Israel has a responsability to provide Palestinians a voice (either by giving them Isreali citizenship or by giving them their own state) but I'd caution you not to confuse the Palestinians terroristic ways as legitimate diplomacy that demands and deserves Isreal immediate attention.

And if getting Palestinians humanitarian aid is truly the issue of their rocket attacks, how is it possible that the Palestinians can get a hold of rockets and weapons so easily but not food and medicine? I wouldn't put too much stock in the Palestinian grief that they can't get anything in or out of their territory. I'd say they are pulling a fast one on the sympathetic international community.

JonInMiddleGA

12-29-2008, 12:54 PM

I'd say they are pulling a fast one on the sympathetic international community.

There's never really been a shortage of useful idiots nor people willing to make use of them.

ISiddiqui

12-29-2008, 01:01 PM

Ligitimacy? Do you honestly think that is there for the taking if and only if Isreal makes all the right moves? In whose eyes? The western world? They already give Israel legitimacy. The Middle Eastern world? No way.

Because Turkey and Egypt are what now?

Keep in mind that the ultimate goal for the majority of the Middle East is to destroy Isreal.

That's actually become a bargaining chip as the Saudi Arabia plan had showed (which was accepted by the Arab League, mind)

And if getting Palestinians humanitarian aid is truly the issue of their rocket attacks, how is it possible that the Palestinians can get a hold of rockets and weapons so easily but not food and medicine?

Rockets and weapons are far easier to get (since they are already there and have been for years) than medicine. I mean, these are groups who actually distribute the medicine in Gaza saying the Israelis are keeping them out, not Hamas.

I'd say they are pulling a fast one on the sympathetic international community.

I'd say the same thing with the Israelis but replace "international community" with "Americans".

Dutch

12-29-2008, 01:38 PM

ISiddiqui,

I did consider Egypt and Turkey when I made that comment. For convenience, "Middle East" is a broad brush to cover the majority and central figures in the conflict.

flere-imsaho

12-29-2008, 01:40 PM

Ligitimacy? Do you honestly think that is there for the taking if and only if Isreal makes all the right moves? In whose eyes? The western world? They already give Israel legitimacy. The Middle Eastern world? No way. Jews attacking Muslims because they are sovereign would make it even worse, not better. Keep in mind that the ultimate goal for the majority of the Middle East is to destroy Isreal. Not figure out ways to get along with them in a beat down of another Muslim state. Give the Muslims an inch and they will take a mile. Isreal simply hasn't the real estate to deal like you think they should.

Wow, that's a lot of vitriol, Dutch.

First, I said "more legitimacy" not "absolute legitimacy" which seems to be how you took it. Obviously Israel's cause is already legitimate to most of the Western world and this wouldn't change that, and Israel's cause is already illegitimate to most of the Muslim world and this wouldn't change that either.

But that isn't the point.

The point would be to gain some more legitimacy in the eyes of the states that waver. Like Turkey and Egypt, as ISiddiqui pointed out. It becomes yet another piece of evidence when sitting down to the table with other players in the region and attempting to convince them that Hamas are the real problem here.

And lastly, note that I said "it would be interesting if", not "this is what they should do".

ISiddiqui

12-29-2008, 01:44 PM

ISiddiqui,

I did consider Egypt and Turkey when I made that comment. For convenience, "Middle East" is a broad brush to cover the majority and central figures in the conflict.

As stated, legitimacy has become a bargaining chip now.

Saudi Arabia's Revived Plan For Middle East Peace (http://www.buzzle.com/articles/132180.html)

The grand bargain on offer in Riyadh is that the Arab world will give diplomatic recognition to Israel in return for a Palestinian state within the 1967 boundaries, with a capital in Jerusalem and with a "just solution" to the Palestinian refugee question. Israel would have to surrender the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem to the Palestinians and the Golan Heights to Syria.

The plan was formally announced at an Arab League summit in Beirut in March 2002, though it was floated earlier in an interview given by then Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah - now King Abdullah - to the New York Times columnist Tom Friedman, an exclusive that gave birth to a peace initiative.

Now, Isreal may not like that deal, but obviously, they are willing to negotiate with it (ie, no reason to legitimize Isreal for nothing).

Flasch186

12-29-2008, 02:13 PM

another thing to keep in mind is that the rest of the middle east LIKES that the Palestinians are kept in this state, on the border of Israel. Y'know if you look at history books its not as if the muslim countries treat the Palestinians well. anyways, theyre bait and the muslim world uses them as so. I do not agree with either side and ALSO agree that to just give Hamas legitimacy one night, identify their borders as a country and warn them of the consequences of state on state war. Then when a rocket is launched, perhaps you warn once, twice, but not thrice and the war is on. The middle eastern countries will likely join in but IMO theyre looking for a reason to do so anyways over the next 10 years.

flere-imsaho

12-29-2008, 02:48 PM

The middle eastern countries will likely join in but IMO theyre looking for a reason to do so anyways over the next 10 years.

I doubt it.

Any relatively sane head of state knows that if the Israeli Armed Forces don't immediately defeat them, the U.S. will come in and do so because if there's one thing the U.S. military does exceptionally well, it's defeat other formal Armed Forces.

I don't know of any head of state in that region currently insane/stupid enough to think otherwise (not even Iran - because Ahmadinejad isn't the real leader).

The Palestinian conflict is a proxy war for every Sunni state in the region. It allows Sunni states in general (and rich radical Sunni Hamas-backers in particular) to attack Israel without having to go to war with them (and inevitably losing). There's no rational reason for them to want to change that.

Flasch186

12-29-2008, 02:51 PM

hence my point if the palestinians are an identified governed state and then they continue to attack Israel, when israel attacks a recognized muslim state it will all blow up.

flere-imsaho

12-29-2008, 03:04 PM

I'm not sure what you're saying, Flasch.

If, at the start of this recent "ceasefire", Israel, as I suggested, said "OK Hamas, you're the government, Palestine is its own state, it's all good", put in immigration/border control, and otherwise did nothing hostile to Palestine, and then Hamas bombed Israel and then Israel attacked the "state" of Palestine, I don't think you'd see any other country intervene, militarily.

Any rational state in the region would see the situation as either a) Israel gained legitimacy for at least trying to let Hamas govern Gaza or b) neither gained legitimacy because it's still the same situation.

If, on the other hand, you're suggesting that something like the Saudi Arabia plan ISiddiqui linked is agreed upon, and then a while after that Israel invades the new "state" of Palestine then sure, you might see some other regional power get involved but, again, I doubt it, because: a) there's not a lot for them to gain and a ton for them to lose and b) to most, it'd just be a reversion to the status quo of 1946 to 2008 anyway.

Edit: Bear in mind it's actually a heck of a lot more favorable for Israel if other states get involved because, based on past performance, the most likely result is that Israel would expand their borders again. This would result in:

buffer territory for Israel
fighting potentially taking place outside of Israel's borders for once
yet another excuse to expel people from Israel/Palestine they don't want
a chance to topple neighboring governments they don't like
retribution through "accidental" bombing/destruction of, well, anything

It's important to understand that Israel don't need to convince neighboring states of the just nature of their cause. Or at least that's not their top priority. They need to convince the members of the U.N. Security Council not to scream and complain when they blow stuff up. Any chance they get to portray Hamas as unreasonable monsters, and as representatives of the Palestinian population, serves this cause.

Flasch186

12-29-2008, 03:05 PM

Chief Rum

12-30-2008, 02:21 AM

Hmm, this is an interesting discussion, but something I think that is not being considered is that, at this point, Palestine does not want one state. It wants two. Abbas and Hamas would almost kill each other before Israelis, and certainly would not welcome shared rule of a Palestinian state. My guess is Hamas would like to rule as sovereign over the Gaza strip alone, and Abbas in the West Bank, as it currently stands.

Dutch

12-30-2008, 03:43 AM

Wow, that's a lot of vitriol, Dutch.

First, I said "more legitimacy" not "absolute legitimacy" which seems to be how you took it.

And lastly, note that I said "it would be interesting if", not "this is what they should do".

We are not in court, relax. :)

I'm not sure what you're saying, Flasch.

If, at the start of this recent "ceasefire", Israel, as I suggested, said "OK Hamas, you're the government, Palestine is its own state, it's all good", put in immigration/border control, and otherwise did nothing hostile to Palestine, and then Hamas bombed Israel and then Israel attacked the "state" of Palestine, I don't think you'd see any other country intervene, militarily.

So what the Middle East really wants is just a Palestinian State and nothing else? Have you ever picked up a history book in your life or did you just start with the Associate Press and CNN?

Any rational state in the region would see the situation as either a) Israel gained legitimacy for at least trying to let Hamas govern Gaza or b) neither gained legitimacy because it's still the same situation.

So we have Egypt and Turkey..."as ISiddiqui pointed out"...

If, on the other hand, you're suggesting that something like the Saudi Arabia plan ISiddiqui linked is agreed upon, and then a while after that Israel invades the new "state" of Palestine then sure, you might see some other regional power get involved but, again, I doubt it, because: a) there's not a lot for them to gain and a ton for them to lose and b) to most, it'd just be a reversion to the status quo of 1946 to 2008 anyway.

You are thinking backwards again. Israel invading the "sovereign" state of Palestine because of uncontrollable terrorist attacks against Israel from Palestinian territory would not result in the Middle East agreeing with you. They would go even more beserk over it.

Edit: Bear in mind it's actually a heck of a lot more favorable for Israel if other states get involved because, based on past performance, the most likely result is that Israel would expand their borders again. This would result in:

Another reason for the Middle East to want Israel exterminated

Fixed.

It's important to understand that Israel don't need to convince neighboring states of the just nature of their cause. Or at least that's not their top priority. They need to convince the members of the U.N. Security Council not to scream and complain when they blow stuff up. Any chance they get to portray Hamas as unreasonable monsters, and as representatives of the Palestinian population, serves this cause.

The UN Security Council? You just shook the resolve of anti-semetic Muslims everywhere.

The bottom line. Liberals like flere get so out of whack everytime Israel defends itself. It's text-book liberal arm flailing. Israel has some warts, no doubt, but they are our friends and they follow international law about a billion times more closely than anything the Palestinians or their "allies" ever have. Justifying Palestinian terror rocket attacks by making it equal with an Israeli security fence that is trying to stop suicide bombers from encroaching on Israeli villages is typical liberal bullshit. It sounds nice, like ponies, but it's not reality and it makes shit worse, not better.

miked

12-30-2008, 06:48 AM

Why is this a liberal thing? I'm feeling mostly liberal and feel the opposite. Intelligent people can make these arguments without using the dirty liberal name-calling card.

gstelmack

12-30-2008, 07:58 AM

I love how when Hamas starts flinging rockets, not a peep, but as soon as Israel retaliates there are protests around the globe.

I still remember fondly my youthful days in the '80s when there would be public outcry that the Israelis returned fire on Palestinian protesters "throwing rocks". The news coverage always failed to point out that those rocks were being "thrown" by slings, a fairly deadly weapon in its own right (without the range of a rifle, true, but we're not talking peaceful protest here).

And lets all ask the Palestinian refugees in Jordan how they are holding up...

And I doubt that any peace plan that involves giving Syria back the Golan Heights after the invasion history is a serious peace plan.

But given that this is how Israel got itself formed in the first place, I'm not sure how likely peace is.

flere-imsaho

12-30-2008, 08:20 AM

We are not in court, relax. :)

No, you relax. :p

Seriously, though, your post is perhaps the most comprehensive misinterpretation of one of my posts I've seen to date. :D

So what the Middle East really wants is just a Palestinian State and nothing else?

No. How the heck did you get that conclusion out of what I wrote? Seriously, I want to know.

Have you ever picked up a history book in your life or did you just start with the Associate Press and CNN?

See, you post stuff like this and I have to assume you're otherwise having a bad day. Or you really hate me. :p

So we have Egypt and Turkey..."as ISiddiqui pointed out"...

Rational state actors in the Middle East are not limited to only Egypt and Turkey. Or do you disagree?

You are thinking backwards again. Israel invading the "sovereign" state of Palestine because of uncontrollable terrorist attacks against Israel from Palestinian territory would not result in the Middle East agreeing with you. They would go even more beserk over it.

Beserk enough to try to invade Israel again? Really?

Look, you're in the military. What do you think the likely American response to a formal state invasion of Israel by another Middle East country is likely to be? Even under a "liberal" like Barack Obama?

Is this really your argument?

Fixed.

Irrelevant. If another Middle Eastern country hates Israel enough to try to invade them again, they're going to hate them just as much once Israel beats them and expands their borders again.

The UN Security Council? You just shook the resolve of anti-semetic Muslims everywhere.

Did you even read what I wrote? Seriously, did you? Because you've completely misunderstood my point.

The bottom line. Liberals like flere get so out of whack everytime Israel defends itself. It's text-book liberal arm flailing. Israel has some warts, no doubt, but they are our friends and they follow international law about a billion times more closely than anything the Palestinians or their "allies" ever have. Justifying Palestinian terror rocket attacks by making it equal with an Israeli security fence that is trying to stop suicide bombers from encroaching on Israeli villages is typical liberal bullshit. It sounds nice, like ponies, but it's not reality and it makes shit worse, not better.

:eek:

Help me out here, people. Was my original post so poorly worded to necessitate this response?

ISiddiqui

12-30-2008, 08:21 AM

Why is this a liberal thing?

Apparently Senator Joe Libermann (D-Isreal) is anti-Isreali. Who knew?

Flasch186

12-30-2008, 09:10 AM

yeah, I lean left and Im not against Israel in this. BTW Hezbollah stated their support and the dominoes begin.

Dutch

12-30-2008, 12:40 PM

flere-imsaho

12-30-2008, 12:44 PM

But in this case, I think it's very unfair that you (and others) are singling out Israel by saying Palestine has a right to fire rockets at them because of some sort of weird belief that it is Isarel that is causing the perpetual state of war upon Palestinians and not the other way around.

But I haven't said this. Where have I said this?

Mizzou B-ball fan

12-30-2008, 01:08 PM

But I haven't said this. Where have I said this?

I think he's referring to when you said 'Yes' in response to that article posted earlier.

flere-imsaho

12-30-2008, 01:37 PM

I think he's referring to when you said 'Yes' in response to that article posted earlier.

Really? Because the article does not say:

Palestine has a right to fire rockets at them because of some sort of weird belief that it is Isarel that is causing the perpetual state of war upon Palestinians and not the other way around.

It does say:

The provocations and cassus belli travel as far back as anyone might care to trace. And whether you believe Israel, the Palestinians, or the international partitioners originally at fault, starting the clock on December 10th, when the ceasefire expired and Hamas's missiles crashed into the fields around Sderot, is merely an Israeli press strategy. This is the latest tactic in an ongoing struggle over land and freedom and security and money and politics and religion and elections and oppression. It did not begin with the rockets, and it will not end with this attack.

With which I agree. I read the article as blaming both sides and calling the conflict intractible, but Dutch has misconstrued this, and my subsequent posts, as being unambiguously pro-Israel.

flere-imsaho

12-30-2008, 01:45 PM

If you were fair, some of you might have asked Edward64, "Why is this a Condeleeza Rice thing?". It's all perspective, my friends. And it's easier to target the opposition than to be fair. I know that. Flere knows that. Israel knows that. And newsflash...the Palestinians know that too.

Explain to me how this is an attack on Rice:

Generally, there's two levels of diplomacy, the overt & public kind, and the backchannel kind. Since the Bush Administration has generally been disinclined to put serious effort into backchannel efforts, one must assume that the bulk of their efforts have been in the form of Rice's overt & public diplomacy. However, the problem with this approach is that ever since 2003 U.S. diplomacy in the region has been seriously hampered by the baggage saddled onto it by our Iraq misadventure.

So, while I'm sure Rice has been putting an honest effort in, it's like the meek 5'0" teacher telling two 17-year-old boys not to fight when you know, as soon as her back is turned, that they're going to try and knock each other out.

So, no matter which administration is in power, you're not going to get Israel to back down (the best you can do is to convince them not to engage in wanton bloodshed on a regular basis) and you're not going to get Hamas to the negotiating table. In fact, it's in Hamas' best interest to provoke Israel even more, because it lends legitimacy (at least among their supporters) to their own actions).

In fact, the third paragraph is my repudiation of the idea that this "failure" (if we can even call it that) is limited to this administration only.

So Dutch, have you simply misread everything I wrote, or did you let your bias against my political views misinterpret what I wrote for you?

RainMaker

12-30-2008, 02:53 PM

So we have two groups of people who each believe their fairy tale entitles them to certain parts of the globe. They are blowing each other up. Are there any losers in this scenario?

Dutch

12-30-2008, 03:15 PM

I think he's referring to when you said 'Yes' in response to that article posted earlier.

Right, "Yup" appeared to blanket the entire article which meant you would agree with everything, including a "blockade" (security fence/border checkpoints) being a "state of war" which means that Palestine has the right to "war" anytime they want.

Dutch

12-30-2008, 03:21 PM

Explain to me how this is an attack on Rice:

That's not the Edward64 post I was was referring to when I said it was Edward64's post that initiated the partisan crap. What you quote is your post, which I had no comment on (although I find it humorous when you said a part of the Bush admin was "overt and public" which has never been a liberal talking point).

flere-imsaho

12-30-2008, 04:07 PM

Right, "Yup" appeared to blanket the entire article which meant you would agree with everything, including a "blockade" (security fence/border checkpoints) being a "state of war" which means that Palestine has the right to "war" anytime they want.

C'mon Dutch. Don't be obtuse.

ISiddiqui posts, and I quote: "I feel Ezra Klein puts it well:" and quotes Klein. I respond (clearly to ISiddiqui) by saying "Yep." Klein's article is clearly, as summarized in its final paragraph, not an effort to show one side as right or wrong, but an explanation of why this is simply the latest salvo in a conflict that's lasted forever, and will last forever (apologies for the potential hyperbole). That's the way I read it, and that's the sentiment with which I agree.

Honestly, I thought I clarified a few posts later. Guess not, though.

Still, your subsequent posts seemed hell-bent on making me into some sort of Hamas sympathizer. For reference, I agree with Dershowitz's assessment (albeit on a different conflict) that I posted two years ago (http://osatwork.com/fofc/showpost.php?p=1203905&postcount=493).

That's not the Edward64 post I was was referring to when I said it was Edward64's post that initiated the partisan crap. What you quote is your post, which I had no comment on (although I find it humorous when you said a part of the Bush admin was "overt and public" which has never been a liberal talking point).

Well, OK then. You don't appear to have read that post either.

Noop

12-30-2008, 06:03 PM

I am sure they knew they were aiming at Americans.

http://jewishcrimenetwork.com/?p=2342

lungs

12-30-2008, 06:12 PM

If you blame Israel for anything you hate Jews and are no better than a Nazi.

Is it not possible to have the belief that both sides are fucked up? It's like two dogs fighting. You don't pour water on only one to end the fight, you pour water on both of them.

Unfortunately it'll take a lot more than a few rockets and a few air strikes before we pour some water on both of them. This perpetual state of warfare will never end unless they go at it really good.

If you aren't to thrilled with the idea of the whole Middle East blowing its lid, these little spitting matches between Hamas and Israel are as good as it's going to get.

Same with India and Pakistan, but in different ways.

Noop

12-30-2008, 06:20 PM

Why doesn't the U.N. just annex some land from Israel and give it the Palestinian people?

Edward64

12-30-2008, 07:07 PM

That's not the Edward64 post I was was referring to when I said it was Edward64's post that initiated the partisan crap. What you quote is your post, which I had no comment on (although I find it humorous when you said a part of the Bush admin was "overt and public" which has never been a liberal talking point).

Sorry, I thought I worded it carefully ... specifically not to be partisan.

Sheesh. What a fu*king waste.

Air strikes on Gaza continue as deaths rise - CNN.com

Why can't Hamas stay content with their defacto government in the West Bank and keep their wads in their pants?
Why can't the Israeli's stop overreacting?
What the hell has Rice done the past 4 years?
Arafat, why didn't you take that opportunity 8 years ago?

See above...

I blamed Hamas (okay, I should have said Gaza but an honest mistake).
I blamed Israel.
I blamed US (it was really a question)
I blamed Fatah.

miked

12-30-2008, 07:11 PM

I am sure they knew they were aiming at Americans.

http://jewishcrimenetwork.com/?p=2342

As an Atlantan from her district, let me be the first to wish her good riddance. She's a human rights activist like I'm a professional baseball player. I'm glad you're getting your newsfeed from such a distinguished site.

miked

12-30-2008, 07:14 PM

Why doesn't the U.N. just annex some land from Israel and give it the Palestinian people?

They tried 60 years ago and the "Palestinians" were offered 2x their current land by Jordan and Egypt and other Arab countries to leave and let them annihilate the Jews. Not that I agree with annexation or anything, I'm just reminding you the history so you don't get too one-sided.

ISiddiqui

12-30-2008, 07:17 PM

Why doesn't the U.N. just annex some land from Israel and give it the Palestinian people?

:D

ISiddiqui

12-30-2008, 07:19 PM

They tried 60 years ago and the "Palestinians" were offered 2x their current land by Jordan and Egypt and other Arab countries to leave and let them annihilate the Jews. Not that I agree with annexation or anything, I'm just reminding you the history so you don't get too one-sided.

It sounded like a joke from Noop to me. You know the opposite of the UN resolution creating Isreal.

miked

12-30-2008, 07:20 PM

I understand it may have been a joke, but judging from the link and content of his previous post, I think it's fairly clear where he's coming from...unless of course he was linking that site in jest, it which case I'll gladly put my foot in my mouth and then somewhere else.

Noop

12-30-2008, 07:28 PM

It sounded like a joke from Noop to me. You know the opposite of the UN resolution creating Isreal.

:withstupid:

Edward64

12-30-2008, 07:50 PM

Dutch

12-31-2008, 04:46 AM

Sorry, I thought I worded it carefully ... specifically not to be partisan.

See above...

I blamed Hamas (okay, I should have said Gaza but an honest mistake).
I blamed Israel.
I blamed US (it was really a question)
I blamed Fatah.

You blamed the Bush Admin and blamed Arafat for not taking Clinton's deal. That set the tone. I wish the Palestinians had taken the deal that was worked out by Clinton. But to slam the Bush Admin is poor revisionism of what happened. In 2001, the Bush Admin stated that their goal was to work on Palestinian Statehood, but as you know, a massive and wicked Palestinian daily suicide bombing campaign against Israeli civilians started up almost immediately afterward. Followed up by Isreali security fences which led to more violence. The death of Arafat and the incoming thug Hamas terror organization as the head of the Palestinian people was Palestine taking the wrong steps to show they were serious about their own statehood.

There is blame to go around, but we cannot confuse big picture with the current situation, which is what is happening here in this thread.

Big Picture: Palestinians and their allies need to work a strong public diplomatic effort. Israel needs to answer the generations long question of "Taxation without Representation" that has been imposed on the Palestinian people.

But in the current situation, if Hamas is firing missiles at Israel for 2 months straight, what is Israel supposed to do? I disagree that when Isarel fights back that we should then pounce on them for the big picture issues.

Edward64

12-31-2008, 06:32 AM

You blamed the Bush Admin and blamed Arafat for not taking Clinton's deal. That set the tone. I wish the Palestinians had taken the deal that was worked out by Clinton. But to slam the Bush Admin is poor revisionism of what happened.
Not quite. I never blamed the Bush Admin for not taking Clinton's deal. However, I did ask the legitimate question what has Rice done for the ME situation since she took over and would stress again, this was in the context of placing blame on all 4 players, not just Bush/Rice.

In 2001, the Bush Admin stated that their goal was to work on Palestinian Statehood, but as you know, a massive and wicked Palestinian daily suicide bombing campaign against Israeli civilians started up almost immediately afterward. Followed up by Isreali security fences which led to more violence. The death of Arafat and the incoming thug Hamas terror organization as the head of the Palestinian people was Palestine taking the wrong steps to show they were serious about their own statehood.
I'll have to check the news back 8 years but my perspective is the Bush Admin had a laissez fair, hands off policy on resolving the ME situation. This hands off policy was changed somewhat after 9/11.

There is blame to go around, but we cannot confuse big picture with the current situation, which is what is happening here in this thread.

Big Picture: Palestinians and their allies need to work a strong public diplomatic effort. Israel needs to answer the generations long question of "Taxation without Representation" that has been imposed on the Palestinian people.
Okay, I can agree with this statement.

But in the current situation, if Hamas is firing missiles at Israel for 2 months straight, what is Israel supposed to do? I disagree that when Isarel fights back that we should then pounce on them for the big picture issues.
I think 2 months misrepresents the situation. Please state your source, my understanding is that the rockets started after the ceasefire ended which was 2 weeks or so ago. If it has been 2 months, I will concede the point to you.

My concern is not that Israel is pouncing back. It was what I viewed as an overreaction in the response.

In retrospect, I will concede there seems to be minimal civilian deaths and can concede that collateral damage does occur. This is in the context of Israel preparing for a ground assault and it makes sense to me they would soften up the targets which is justifiable to me. If Israel was just bombing without a ground assault, the collateral damage would have seemed meaningless to me.

Dutch

12-31-2008, 07:14 AM

A tenuous six-month truce between the Hamas government in Gaza and Israel expired Friday. Under the Egyptian-brokered deal, Hamas agreed to end militant attacks on Israel from Gaza, and Israel agreed to halt raids inside the territory and ease its blockade on humanitarian goods.

In reality, the truce started to break down two months ago. Rocket attacks by militants became more frequent, and Israel resumed airstrikes inside Gaza (http://topics.edition.cnn.com/topics/gaza_strip).

Palestinian militant killed in Israeli airstrike - CNN.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/12/20/israel.gaza.attacks/?eref=rss_latest)

I might be mis-reading this, it's not clear, but this is where I started believing this was going on much longer.

Dutch

12-31-2008, 07:22 AM

My concern is not that Israel is pouncing back. It was what I viewed as an overreaction in the response.

In retrospect, I will concede there seems to be minimal civilian deaths and can concede that collateral damage does occur. This is in the context of Israel preparing for a ground assault and it makes sense to me they would soften up the targets which is justifiable to me. If Israel was just bombing without a ground assault, the collateral damage would have seemed meaningless to me.

Fair enough, I understand the concern.

Unfortunately, I will suggest that rocket attacks from Palestinian territory into Israel-proper is not designed to defeat Israel either. But it has the intended effect...it's hope is that Israel defends itself, so the Palestinian leadership can say, "Look at us! Poor us. Please send money, food, medicine (and more weapons) now."

And it works like a charm and we shouldn't let it.

Ronnie Dobbs2

12-31-2008, 08:15 AM

flere-imsaho

12-31-2008, 09:04 AM

Unfortunately, I will suggest that rocket attacks from Palestinian territory into Israel-proper is not designed to defeat Israel either. But it has the intended effect...it's hope is that Israel defends itself, so the Palestinian leadership can say, "Look at us! Poor us. Please send money, food, medicine (and more weapons) now."

And it works like a charm and we shouldn't let it.

Quite. In fact, as I posted on Page 17:

So, no matter which administration is in power, you're not going to get Israel to back down (the best you can do is to convince them not to engage in wanton bloodshed on a regular basis) and you're not going to get Hamas to the negotiating table. In fact, it's in Hamas' best interest to provoke Israel even more, because it lends legitimacy (at least among their supporters) to their own actions).

I honestly don't think Hamas cares who dies, even among Palestinians. In fact, to them the death of Palestinian children is a good thing, as it lends support to their cause against Israel.

Note that when I say "lends support to their cause against Israel" I mean largely in the eyes of their radical Sunni backers across the Middle East, which is the other audience they're playing to aside from the hand-wringers on the world stage to which you refer.

The amusing thing about this whole exchange, Dutch, is that you & I actually agree on these points. I hoped you would come to realize this during the exchange, but you seem determined to let your dislike of my other political views color your analysis.

flere-imsaho

12-31-2008, 09:12 AM

Going meta for a moment....

And as for friendship with you, Flere, c'mon man, you know I don't hate you. I don't care about you one way or the other.

One thing I like about FOFC is that in spite of the convoluted arguments we all tend to get into, there's no one I really hate here, no matter how diametrically opposed our worldviews are. I do care about all of you one way or the other. I might rail against your political views, but if anyone posts about tough times, or personal issues or triumphs, I'll respond with support. Even for JiMGA, with whom I'm probably most diametrically opposed.

On another note, I'd like to congratulate Edward64 for his attempts to keep this thread relatively on-topic over the years. It's clearly taken a lot of work, and not always been successful, but it's been a much more thoughtful thread than I expected when it was first posted.

flere-imsaho

12-31-2008, 09:19 AM

Israel needs to answer the generations long question of "Taxation without Representation" that has been imposed on the Palestinian people.

I think that's the whole point of the "Two State Solution", though. Israel would never allow Palestinians to be Israelis and have a vote in Israeli affairs because, at its heart, Israel is a Jewish state, end of story. So it's solved by giving Palestinians their own state which is, in itself, a huge concession by Israel (speaking historically, looking from 1946 onwards).

Fighter of Foo

12-31-2008, 09:37 AM

The death of Arafat and the incoming thug Hamas terror organization as the head of the Palestinian people was Palestine taking the wrong steps to show they were serious about their own statehood.

Didn't Palestine have an election and Hamas was the party that was elected?

Fighter of Foo

12-31-2008, 09:41 AM

But in the current situation, if Hamas is firing missiles at Israel for 2 months straight, what is Israel supposed to do? I disagree that when Isarel fights back that we should then pounce on them for the big picture issues.

If Israel is blockading Gaza and essentially holding the people that live there hostage, what are the Palestinians supposed to do? I disagree that when Palestinians fight back that we should then pounce on them for the big picture issues.

Mizzou B-ball fan

12-31-2008, 10:09 AM

If Israel is blockading Gaza and essentially holding the people that live there hostage, what are the Palestinians supposed to do?

It's quite simple really. They talk with the Israeli government, tell them that they no longer seek the destruction of Israel per their charter, and start an open negotiation where both sides agree to a cease fire and more open relations. They then prove their willingness to work together by ceasing all rocket attacks.

But we're all aware that Hamas won't agree to all of those conditions, so the war will continue.

Fighter of Foo

12-31-2008, 10:21 AM

It's quite simple really. They talk with the Israeli government, tell them that they no longer seek the destruction of Israel per their charter, and start an open negotiation where both sides agree to a cease fire and more open relations. They then prove their willingness to work together by ceasing all rocket attacks.

But we're all aware that Hamas won't agree to all of those conditions, so the war will continue.

Why doesn't Israel talk with the Hamas government, tell them that they no longer seek the destruction of Hamas per their actions, and start an open negotiation where both sides agree to a cease fire and more open relations??? They then prove their willingness to work together by ceasing all attacks.

I'm guessing it's because we're all aware that Israel won't agree to all of those conditions, so the war will continue.

Mizzou B-ball fan

12-31-2008, 10:26 AM

Why doesn't Israel talk with the Hamas government, tell them that they no longer seek the destruction of Hamas per their actions, and start an open negotiation where both sides agree to a cease fire and more open relations??? They then prove their willingness to work together by ceasing all attacks.

I'm guessing it's because we're all aware that Israel won't agree to all of those conditions, so the war will continue.

Israel is an officially recognized state. Hamas is currently recognized by many countries as a terrorist group. I don't think there's any question who needs to be the one to make the concilliatory steps in this situation. Using your circular logic that you mention above is the reason the current situation exists.

flere-imsaho

12-31-2008, 10:37 AM

I think it's difficult to ask Israel to take the first step towards Hamas when Hamas have consistently shown little interest in conciliation and in fact have a clear and vested interest in prolonging violence against Israel.

Dutch

12-31-2008, 10:38 AM

Didn't Palestine have an election and Hamas was the party that was elected?

Obviously. And my point is that the Palestinian people took the wrong step here with regards to statehood. Nobody takes Hamas seriously at the political level and Hamas' disdain for the international processes and insistance in their use of thuggery and terror completely overshadow any good they might do at the ground level.

And what have we learned about Hamas? They are having trouble acquiring humanitarian aid and food...but easily can get rockets, bombs, and suicide bombers.

Let's face it, the Palestinian people chose poorly.

flere-imsaho

12-31-2008, 10:43 AM

Mizzou B-ball fan

12-31-2008, 10:45 AM

flere-imsaho

12-31-2008, 10:48 AM

Sounds like the current choices for governor of Illinois. Where's a third party when you need one?

Did you just call the Illinois GOP a bunch of terrorists? :p

Mizzou B-ball fan

12-31-2008, 10:58 AM

Did you just call the Illinois GOP a bunch of terrorists? :p

Might as well. Tomorrow's a holiday. I feel frisky.

Klinglerware

12-31-2008, 12:25 PM

I think that's the whole point of the "Two State Solution", though. Israel would never allow Palestinians to be Israelis and have a vote in Israeli affairs because, at its heart, Israel is a Jewish state, end of story. So it's solved by giving Palestinians their own state which is, in itself, a huge concession by Israel (speaking historically, looking from 1946 onwards).

Although the idea that Israel is a 'Jewish state above all' is an idea that is increasingly debated within Israel itself. The current reality is that Israel is a multicultural state. This is not just a result of the Arab minority population who never left, but also due to the influx of non-Jews who have emigrated to Israel in the past 20 years (especially from Eastern Europe). I think that I read somewhere that, these days, the majority of immigrants aren't even Jewish. This is a reality that Israel can't ignore, regardless of the Palestinian issue.

lungs

12-31-2008, 12:38 PM

If Hamas were to recognize Israel's right to exist, would Israel recognize Hamas as the rightful government of the Gaza Strip?

I tend to sympathize with the Palestinians to some extent, but they need to get over themselves and realize that Israel ain't going away. Likewise, the hardcore Jews (Orthodox? I'm not up on Judaism) need to realize that they aren't going to create some utopian Jew-land free of any non-Jew.

What is it with extreme stubbornness and that side of the world? Emphasis on extreme.

ISiddiqui

12-31-2008, 01:05 PM

I always thought that election was more a reaction against Fatah's corruption and absolute inability to govern than any real affinity for Hamas. Of course, when those are your only two options, you're kind of screwed.

That and Hamas was really the only political party interested in helping the people out. Hamas would build schools while Fatah would take international aid and use it to stuff crony's pockets. The problem with a lot of the Mid East is that those who aren't corrupt are fundies. The "who you know" system has been the primary system for centuries and its a bit difficult to change.

miked

12-31-2008, 02:10 PM

That and Hamas was really the only political party interested in helping the people out. Hamas would build schools while Fatah would take international aid and use it to stuff crony's pockets. The problem with a lot of the Mid East is that those who aren't corrupt are fundies. The "who you know" system has been the primary system for centuries and its a bit difficult to change.

Well, you do leave out what Hamas was teaching in those schools, but I guess at least they were building them.

Noop

12-31-2008, 02:50 PM

How is that any different then what any school teaches?

Chief Rum

12-31-2008, 03:02 PM

How is that any different then what any school teaches?

I don't think schools in most Christian places tell their students that to be a good Christian, you have to convert or kill all Muslims. ;)

Noop

12-31-2008, 03:17 PM

I don't think schools in most Christian places tell their students that to be a good Christian, you have to convert or kill all Muslims. ;)

Crusades?

Ronnie Dobbs2

12-31-2008, 03:20 PM

Hopefully we have advanced in the last 900 years where that is no longer necessary to teach. Hopefully other religions will similarly advance at some point.

Noop

12-31-2008, 03:24 PM

Hopefully we have advanced in the last 900 years where that is no longer necessary to teach. Hopefully other religions will similarly advance at some point.

Hope got a man elected so anything is possible.

Ronnie Dobbs2

12-31-2008, 03:28 PM

I think you might have missed my point, which is that Christianity has evolved since the Crusades where they no longer teach that killing other faiths is Gods will.

Noop

12-31-2008, 03:54 PM

I think you might have missed my point, which is that Christianity has evolved since the Crusades where they no longer teach that killing other faiths is Gods will.

I don't think Christianity has come very far to be honest. However for the sake of not trying to kick the hornets nest I will not press the issue.

Ronnie Dobbs2

12-31-2008, 04:00 PM

Klinglerware

12-31-2008, 04:14 PM

Heh, heh, Central City Dump.

Why on earth would you need to go until you were 18?

Ronnie Dobbs2

12-31-2008, 04:36 PM

It had switched over to youth group at that point, but the idea is similar.

Edward64

12-31-2008, 09:51 PM

Going meta for a moment....
On another note, I'd like to congratulate Edward64 for his attempts to keep this thread relatively on-topic over the years. It's clearly taken a lot of work, and not always been successful, but it's been a much more thoughtful thread than I expected when it was first posted.
Hey, thanks.

Edward64

12-31-2008, 09:55 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan
It's quite simple really. They talk with the Israeli government, tell them that they no longer seek the destruction of Israel per their charter, and start an open negotiation where both sides agree to a cease fire and more open relations. They then prove their willingness to work together by ceasing all rocket attacks.

But we're all aware that Hamas won't agree to all of those conditions, so the war will continue.

Why doesn't Israel talk with the Hamas government, tell them that they no longer seek the destruction of Hamas per their actions, and start an open negotiation where both sides agree to a cease fire and more open relations??? They then prove their willingness to work together by ceasing all attacks.

I'm guessing it's because we're all aware that Israel won't agree to all of those conditions, so the war will continue.
Its pretty obvious to me that Mizzou is more on target. Hamas has always been the more belligerent and Fatah the more moderate (more so recently).

Edward64

12-31-2008, 10:03 PM

I always thought that election was more a reaction against Fatah's corruption and absolute inability to govern than any real affinity for Hamas. Of course, when those are your only two options, you're kind of screwed.
I believe this is true but I have also heard that Hamas treated the people better in terms of assistance/welfare etc. All in all, I do believe it was a fair election and the Palestinians picked Hamas, for better or worse.

EDIT: sorry, I see there have already been posts on Hamas credibility.

Edward64

12-31-2008, 10:08 PM

If Hamas were to recognize Israel's right to exist, would Israel recognize Hamas as the rightful government of the Gaza Strip?

In all honesty, I don't think Israel would. However, if Hamas were to recognize Israel's right to exist and stop terrorist acts, Israel would certainly stop retalitory attacks against Hamas and let Fatah/Hamas work things out between themselves.

It doesn't look to me as if Fatah/Hamas can work things out. Maybe there will be a defacto West Bank government that Israel can live peacefully with and a Gaza government will continue to be contentious.

Edward64

12-31-2008, 10:14 PM

I'll kick it.

I grew up Roman Catholic and am non-practicing now. While I was educated publicly, I did go to CCD weekly until I was 18. I don't ever remember being taught that anyone was evil, or that anyone should be hated, let alone that God wanted me to kill anyone.

To me, that means Christianity has come quite far since the Crusades you mention.

I agree. I also grew up Roman Catholic and am non-practicing now. I went to church, catholic schools etc. and don't ever remember "being taught that anyone was evil, or that anyone should be hated, let alone that God wanted me to kill anyone".

Christianity has definitely gone beyond the Crusades.

Edward64

12-31-2008, 10:17 PM

Hope got a man elected so anything is possible.
As I've been told several times by a client ... hope is not a management strategy.:)

Edward64

01-03-2009, 12:04 PM

Some of my thoughts in no particular order on ME news over the past several days ...

Fox around Sat noon had guests that say it looks as if the Israelis are going in soon. Forget the phrase but essentially the IDF has bombed all the targets they wanted and the next step is the ground incursion.

Son of a Hamas leader has converted to Christianity and lives in the US. Saw clips of him carrying a surfboard and surfing. Sat 10pm EST on Fox, should be interesting.

Two different Palestinian spokesmen on Fox and CNN. They are not smooth presenters, babbled and didn't know when to stop. If Hamas ever wants to present itself as coherent they need to have different spokesmen and/or media training. This was something I noticed with Fatah during the Arafat days ... I believe their spokesmen have gotten better.

Hamas spokesman calling out Obama. This was either very stupid or they are just playing to the Arab world and don't really care about a relationship with the US. Its probably both. I wonder if they use US lobbying firms.

Assassination of a Hamas leader along with some family. I hate deaths of children (they truly are innocent aren't they) but damn, what was that guy doing with his family after 4+ days after the bombings started?

lighthousekeeper

01-03-2009, 01:45 PM

Assassination of a Hamas leader along with some family. I hate deaths of children (they truly are innocent aren't they) but damn, what was that guy doing with his family after 4+ days after the bombings started?

Where do you want him to go, Aspen? They're all trapped in Gaza with no place to escape. If was was trapped and knowing death was probably in my short term future, I'd absolutely be with my family too.

Dutch

01-03-2009, 02:00 PM

Where do you want him to go, Aspen? They're all trapped in Gaza with no place to escape. If was was trapped and knowing death was probably in my short term future, I'd absolutely be with my family too.

I would not have my family next to me if I picked a fight with Israel.

Chief Rum

01-03-2009, 02:25 PM

Where do you want him to go, Aspen? They're all trapped in Gaza with no place to escape. If was was trapped and knowing death was probably in my short term future, I'd absolutely be with my family too.

Key term being "my". He knew he would probably be killed. His family could have lived though.

flere-imsaho

01-03-2009, 02:44 PM

As far as I'm concerned, that's Hamas' modus operandi: if you're going to get killed in conflict in Israel, make sure you position yourself amongst the civilian population in a way that the Israelis will have no choice but to also kill a lot of innocents, especially children. That way, people hate Israel. Mission accomplished.

Flasch186

01-03-2009, 03:33 PM

true true

lighthousekeeper

01-03-2009, 03:53 PM

Flasch186

01-03-2009, 04:03 PM

might be

Ryan S

01-03-2009, 04:29 PM

Key term being "my". He knew he would probably be killed. His family could have lived though.

These people do not think like us. If they are killed, it benefits their cause if their family dies with them, as this will strengthen anti-Israeli feeling.

Chief Rum

01-03-2009, 05:47 PM

These people do not think like us. If they are killed, it benefits their cause if their family dies with them, as this will strengthen anti-Israeli feeling.

Yeah, I know. Doesn't mean I have to say "yeah, that's okay, cuz that's just you being you, Abdul. What a great guy you are!"

lighthousekeeper

01-03-2009, 06:43 PM

These people do not think like us.

lolz. how do 'we' think, again?

Flasch186

01-03-2009, 07:16 PM

generally, Id say, on the whole, we'd send our loved ones away if we knew an explosion would engulf ourselves and anyone within 100 feet of us. On the whole.

Calis

01-03-2009, 07:27 PM

generally, Id say, on the whole, we'd send our loved ones away if we knew an explosion would engulf ourselves and anyone within 100 feet of us. On the whole.

Generally on the whole I'd say we'd get the hell out of there ourselves. :)

Edward64

01-03-2009, 07:28 PM

Hmmm, I guess I'm making some assumptions that maybe I'm wrong about:

Assumption 1: Gaza is only a few square miles in size, blockaded and essentially barricaded in - which means that there's really not too much distance that any target can put between himself and innocents.

Wiki says 1.4m people live in Gaza Strip which is 139 sq miles. Just for reference, Wiki says Manhattan is 1.6m people in 23 sq miles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan S
These people do not think like us.
lolz. how do 'we' think, again?

I think this is a fair question, not sure how to answer it. I could not see myself participating in this though ...
Bodies of Hamas leader's children paraded as group promises 'painful' revenge for their deaths | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1104296/Bodies-Hamas-leaders-children-paraded-group-promises-painful-revenge-deaths.html)
The bodies of a senior Hamas leader's small children were today ghoulishly paraded through the streets of Gaza as the group pledged to avenge their deaths.

Nizar Rayan, his four wives and 10 of his children were all killed by in an Israeli air strike on his home after he ignored warnings they should go into hiding.

In grisly scenes, mourners held up the bloodied bodies of the children to the cameras in a clear attempt to blacken Israel's name and highlight its brutality.

Graphic images showed the young children's uncovered faces as the victims were carried by thousands of angry Hamas supporters during the funeral procession.

Edward64

01-03-2009, 07:40 PM

Generally on the whole I'd say we'd get the hell out of there ourselves. :)
Yes, I agree but on a more serious question ...

Can people living in Gaza that wish to leave and resettle somewhere do it? I know I've heard of refugee camps in Jordan (and probably Egypt) which is not appealing but can a family that basically says "screw it, I want to live somewhere else in peace with a job" go somewhere in the ME with relative ease?

I suspect the answer for the masses is no. And therefore, most are really landlocked in Gaza (and West Bank).

Dutch

01-04-2009, 05:09 AM

Yes, I agree but on a more serious question ...

Can people living in Gaza that wish to leave and resettle somewhere do it? I know I've heard of refugee camps in Jordan (and probably Egypt) which is not appealing but can a family that basically says "screw it, I want to live somewhere else in peace with a job" go somewhere in the ME with relative ease?

I suspect the answer for the masses is no. And therefore, most are really landlocked in Gaza (and West Bank).

True, they are stuck there. Egypt has a security fence and blocked all border checkpoints to restrict any movement of the Palestinian refugees (but lets be honest, it's primarily there to stop militia and terrorist movements), and obviously the well publicized Israeli security fence that forces the Hamas to use rockets instead of suicide bombers is the only other option for refugees and that would only open up to Palestinians if the Israeli's are ready to quit and give up their land.

Problem is...the Palestinians elected Hamas and did not protest the hundreds of rockets that their own leadership was firing into Israel even during the "cease-fire".

So I seriously doubt many of them really want to leave. A democratically elected government can be protested right?

Flasch186

01-04-2009, 09:15 AM

and I'll follow that up by saying most of the countries in the ME want the Palestinians to stay in gaza to keep rattling Israel's cage and not to live in peace next door.

Edward64

01-04-2009, 09:26 AM

and I'll follow that up by saying most of the countries in the ME want the Palestinians to stay in gaza to keep rattling Israel's cage and not to live in peace next door.
Although this may have been the truth years ago, I think this an extreme position. The only 2 countries that I can see wanting this are Syria and Iran. Iraq (now), Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the other gulf states probably value stability.

I think even Syria is willing to do peace. Say what you want about Assad Jr. but he is a secularist and just want Golan and project his power in Lebanon.

Edward64

01-04-2009, 09:30 AM

Problem is...the Palestinians elected Hamas and did not protest the hundreds of rockets that their own leadership was firing into Israel even during the "cease-fire".
Just a note on this. CNN reported that it was Israel that killed 6 Hamas members in Nov during the cease fire period. I'm sure the Israeli's can justify this (ex. they were planning an attack) but short of them being on Israeli land (ex. on the other side of the fence), I would say that Israel broke the cease fire first.

So I seriously doubt many of them really want to leave. A democratically elected government can be protested right?
I actually think if you were to give them a choice, the masses would choose to leave. Give them a country that welcomes them and gives them a leg up initially, they can live in peace, work at a job, give their children an opportunity to suceed and the majority will choose this.

I wish it was as simple as the US saying all who want to live in peace, com'on over and we'll help you out. The problem, of course, is our perception (and probably valid) that we would be inviting some terrorists over.

Flasch186

01-04-2009, 10:32 AM

Just a note on this. CNN reported that it was Israel that killed 6 Hamas members in Nov during the cease fire period. I'm sure the Israeli's can justify this (ex. they were planning an attack) but short of them being on Israeli land (ex. on the other side of the fence), I would say that Israel broke the cease fire first.

I actually think if you were to give them a choice, the masses would choose to leave. Give them a country that welcomes them and gives them a leg up initially, they can live in peace, work at a job, give their children an opportunity to suceed and the majority will choose this.

I wish it was as simple as the US saying all who want to live in peace, com'on over and we'll help you out. The problem, of course, is our perception (and probably valid) that we would be inviting some terrorists over.

not one rocket from gaza into israel during the cease fire? mmmk, bear in mind that Im not for either side and Im Jewish. If the rockets stopped today and Hamas said we believe israel has a right to exist and were willing to negotiate on a border it would all end immediately. I dont think that's a lot to ask for AND I think the Palestinians deserve a home country. If you want to counter that that is what they want and it contains Israel than you might as well not enter this thread anymore <shrug>

Flasch186

01-04-2009, 10:33 AM

Although this may have been the truth years ago, I think this an extreme position. The only 2 countries that I can see wanting this are Syria and Iran. Iraq (now), Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the other gulf states probably value stability.

I think even Syria is willing to do peace. Say what you want about Assad Jr. but he is a secularist and just want Golan and project his power in Lebanon.

....and since we disagree on this and cant prove it we might as well not debate it.

jeff061

01-04-2009, 11:22 AM

I agree. I also grew up Roman Catholic and am non-practicing now. I went to church, catholic schools etc. and don't ever remember "being taught that anyone was evil, or that anyone should be hated, let alone that God wanted me to kill anyone".

Christianity has definitely gone beyond the Crusades.

This is because there is no one to fight and we are not really being pressured. It's not about religion coming a long way, but the people in power. This amounts to humanity itself, which certainly has not come a long way. It's just adapted slightly to a smaller more connected world.

If America had a close, real and superior threat people in power would be using every tool at their disposal to create a nation of motivated warriors, religion most definitely being one of them.

Don't kid yourself.

Edward64

01-04-2009, 02:03 PM

not one rocket from gaza into israel during the cease fire? mmmk, bear in mind that Im not for either side and Im Jewish. If the rockets stopped today and Hamas said we believe israel has a right to exist and were willing to negotiate on a border it would all end immediately. I dont think that's a lot to ask for AND I think the Palestinians deserve a home country. If you want to counter that that is what they want and it contains Israel than you might as well not enter this thread anymore <shrug>

Not sure I understand your last sentence. Specific to who broke the most recent ceasefire first, here are some different POV links. Arguments on both sides. Although I do not know how valid it is, there is a wiki that lists the attacks. The "best answer" reponse is pretty interesting.
Who broke the ceasefire? Both Israel and Palestine say other side did? - Yahoo! Answers (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081227161912AAPuKlW)

There are western sources (CNN, NYTimes, UK The Guardian etc) have articles claiming Israel broke the truce with the Nov attacks.

Edward64

01-04-2009, 02:09 PM

This is because there is no one to fight and we are not really being pressured. It's not about religion coming a long way, but the people in power. This amounts to humanity itself, which certainly has not come a long way. It's just adapted slightly to a smaller more connected world.

If America had a close, real and superior threat people in power would be using every tool at their disposal to create a nation of motivated warriors, religion most definitely being one of them.

Don't kid yourself.
The discussion topic is Christianity circa the Crusades and now. I could go through the research and lists all the differences but it might be more helpful for you to post 1 or 2 main points on how you believe Christianity has not progressed past the Crusades?

Dutch

01-04-2009, 02:28 PM

If America had a close, real and superior threat people in power would be using every tool at their disposal to create a nation of motivated warriors, religion most definitely being one of them.

Don't kid yourself.

You mean like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union? I don't understand what you are referring to? The US Army?

jeff061

01-04-2009, 02:30 PM

If you get granular and look at it from a lower level, of course it has.

But from a high level, if the need arises it would be used to turn devout believers against their enemies. It's easy for a lot of people to look down on Muslims and the violence it's used to support, but the middle east has been in a far different situation than Europe or America for a long time now.

jeff061

01-04-2009, 02:32 PM

You mean like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union? I don't understand what you are referring to? The US Army?

I don't understand your point. I'm not touting anti-religion, thats just the discussion here(well not really I've off topic'd it, sorry I'm done after this). If there are better ways to get the masses to follow than religion, those will be used more.

Dutch

01-04-2009, 02:37 PM

Not sure I understand your last sentence. Specific to who broke the most recent ceasefire first, here are some different POV links. Arguments on both sides. Although I do not know how valid it is, there is a wiki that lists the attacks. The "best answer" reponse is pretty interesting.
Who broke the ceasefire? Both Israel and Palestine say other side did? - Yahoo! Answers (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081227161912AAPuKlW)

There are western sources (CNN, NYTimes, UK The Guardian etc) have articles claiming Israel broke the truce with the Nov attacks.

Rocket fire from Fatah is still rocket fire from the Palestinian territory. It doesn't really matter who was shooting them. The cease-fire is between Israel and the Palestinian territories. Firing those rockets broke the cease-fire. Failure to take action against those firing the missiles is what resulted in Israel taking action.

If I'm not mistaken, everytime Palestine shoots a rocket at Israel, the Israeli's start an air-raid drill and the local populations must take cover. Palestine can have a handful of terrorists fire one rocket and keep an entire village or region awake for hours in the middle of the night. Over and over again, during a cease-fire? Eventually, I'd guess the people would want their government to take action.

Fighter of Foo

01-06-2009, 02:31 PM

Rocket fire from Fatah is still rocket fire from the Palestinian territory. It doesn't really matter who was shooting them. The cease-fire is between Israel and the Palestinian territories. Firing those rockets broke the cease-fire. Failure to take action against those firing the missiles is what resulted in Israel taking action.

If I'm not mistaken, everytime Palestine shoots a rocket at Israel, the Israeli's start an air-raid drill and the local populations must take cover. Palestine can have a handful of terrorists fire one rocket and keep an entire village or region awake for hours in the middle of the night. Over and over again, during a cease-fire? Eventually, I'd guess the people would want their government to take action.

And anyone can easily make the argument that the near complete embargo precipitated the rocket firing into Israel. Considering Gaza's residents were having difficulty obtaining basic necessities, "Eventually, I'd guess the people would want their government to take action.."

Not that the Israeli army is acting like a terrorist organization (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/06/gaza-israel-death-un) or anything...

"The civilian death toll in Gaza increased dramatically today, with reports of more than 40 Palestinians killed after missiles exploded outside a UN School where hundreds of people were sheltering from the continuing Israeli offensive.

Two Israeli tank shells struck the school in Jabaliya refugee camp, spraying shrapnel on people inside and outside the building, according to news agency reports.

The medical director of the hospital in Jabaliya told the Guardian 41 bodies had been brought in so far and more could be on the way. Reuters journalists filmed bodies scattered on the ground amid pools of blood and torn shoes and clothes. In addition to the dead, several dozen people were wounded, hospital officials said. The Israeli military said it was looking into the reports.

A United Nations official in Gaza said the school was clearly marked with a UN flag and its location had been reported to Israeli authorities. John Ging, director of operations in Gaza for UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, said that three artillery shells landed at the perimeter of the school where 350 people were taking shelter. "Of course it was entirely inevitable if artillery shells landed in that area there would be a high number of casualties," he said."

Ronnie Dobbs2

01-06-2009, 02:43 PM

Fighter of Foo

01-06-2009, 02:50 PM

Would you think there's a chance that school is being used to launch attacks on Israel? If so, how should they handle it? Why are people hiding in a spot that is likely to be hit as attacks originate from there?
:banghead:

A United Nations official in Gaza said the school was clearly marked with a UN flag and its location had been reported to Israeli authorities.

Ronnie Dobbs2

01-06-2009, 03:01 PM

Bang your head all you want, I'm not sure how that answers my questions.

Fighter of Foo

01-06-2009, 03:16 PM

So the UN shelter is bombing Israel? Is that what you're suggesting?

Ronnie Dobbs2

01-06-2009, 03:29 PM

No, I'm suggesting that the UN has no idea of the reality on the ground. The IDF at least believes that that school was the origin of rocket attacks.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zmXXUOs27lI&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zmXXUOs27lI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

This video is from 2007.

I have no way to know whether the IDF is lying through their teeth or what have you, but personally I am more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt than Hamas based on prior activities. And the thought that attacks would originate from a location like this wouldn't surprise me in the least.

ISiddiqui

01-06-2009, 06:08 PM

whether the IDF is lying through their teeth

That'd be my view of it.

Edward64

01-06-2009, 08:10 PM

That'd be my view of it.

Isiddiqui and FoF, I don't recall if you have an opinion on this but how would you characterize the deliberate bombing of Israeli civilian gathering places (buses, restaurants) in the past by Hamas?

Have you condemned those acts against civilians, and if not, why?

Edward64

01-06-2009, 08:11 PM

No, I'm suggesting that the UN has no idea of the reality on the ground. The IDF at least believes that that school was the origin of rocket attacks.

This video is from 2007.

I have no way to know whether the IDF is lying through their teeth or what have you, but personally I am more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt than Hamas based on prior activities. And the thought that attacks would originate from a location like this wouldn't surprise me in the least.
Sorry, I played that video twice and i still don't see the mortar attack. However, I would not put it beyond Hamas to use a school to attack from.

Ronnie Dobbs2

01-06-2009, 08:16 PM

At 1:12 you can clearly see something coming out of the circled area that the guy keeps running to and away from. Whether its from the UN school that the IDF claims, I can't say.

edit: Also 1:32.

molson

01-07-2009, 01:55 AM

So the UN shelter is bombing Israel? Is that what you're suggesting?

Because clearly, Hamas has NEVER risked the lives of their civilians in such a manner as to invite attacks on schools, civilian neighborhoods.

Israel dealing with this nonsense generation after generation is just silly. They should annex the West Bank and Gaza (and grant full citizenship to those that want it), and give autonomy back only to the extent that the terrorists deserve it. Show some muscle and there might actually be peace. No other legitimate country would tolerate this stuff. No other country would consider itself bound by peace accords when facing constant attacks.

Instead, everyone seems to be content with generations of bloodshed, and pointless analysis over who was "right" any given time. Israel is a sovereign nation - if they face attacks from an outside entity, they're "correct" in destroying that entity, even with collateral damage.

Mizzou B-ball fan

01-07-2009, 07:31 AM

Because clearly, Hamas has NEVER risked the lives of their civilians in such a manner as to invite attacks on schools, civilian neighborhoods.

Israel dealing with this nonsense generation after generation is just silly. They should annex the West Bank and Gaza (and grant full citizenship to those that want it), and give autonomy back only to the extent that the terrorists deserve it. Show some muscle and there might actually be peace. No other legitimate country would tolerate this stuff. No other country would consider itself bound by peace accords when facing constant attacks.

Instead, everyone seems to be content with generations of bloodshed, and pointless analysis over who was "right" any given time. Israel is a sovereign nation - if they face attacks from an outside entity, they're "correct" in destroying that entity, even with collateral damage.

:+1:

Fighter of Foo

01-07-2009, 08:12 AM

Instead, everyone seems to be content with generations of bloodshed, and pointless analysis over who was "right" any given time. Israel is a sovereign nation - if they face attacks from an outside entity, they're "correct" in destroying that entity, even with collateral damage.

So you're a supporter of terrorism. Thanks for clearing that up for us.

jeff061

01-07-2009, 08:13 AM

So you're a supporter of terrorism. Thanks for clearing that up for us.

For real?

Fighter of Foo

01-07-2009, 08:17 AM

Isiddiqui and FoF, I don't recall if you have an opinion on this but how would you characterize the deliberate bombing of Israeli civilian gathering places (buses, restaurants) in the past by Hamas?

Have you condemned those acts against civilians, and if not, why?

Could you try and make the question a little more loaded? ;)

I'll quote extensively from this morning's Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-palestine) editorial.

"To be sure, Hamas is not an entirely innocent party in this conflict. Denied the fruit of its electoral victory and confronted with an unscrupulous adversary, it has resorted to the weapon of the weak - terror. Militants from Hamas and Islamic Jihad kept launching Qassam rocket attacks against Israeli settlements near the border with Gaza until Egypt brokered a six-month ceasefire last June. The damage caused by these primitive rockets is minimal but the psychological impact is immense, prompting the public to demand protection from its government. Under the circumstances, Israel had the right to act in self-defence but its response to the pinpricks of rocket attacks was totally disproportionate. The figures speak for themselves. In the three years after the withdrawal from Gaza, 11 Israelis were killed by rocket fire. On the other hand, in 2005-7 alone, the IDF killed 1,290 Palestinians in Gaza, including 222 children.

Whatever the numbers, killing civilians is wrong. This rule applies to Israel as much as it does to Hamas, but Israel's entire record is one of unbridled and unremitting brutality towards the inhabitants of Gaza. Israel also maintained the blockade of Gaza after the ceasefire came into force which, in the view of the Hamas leaders, amounted to a violation of the agreement. During the ceasefire, Israel prevented any exports from leaving the strip in clear violation of a 2005 accord, leading to a sharp drop in employment opportunities. Officially, 49.1% of the population is unemployed. At the same time, Israel restricted drastically the number of trucks carrying food, fuel, cooking-gas canisters, spare parts for water and sanitation plants, and medical supplies to Gaza. It is difficult to see how starving and freezing the civilians of Gaza could protect the people on the Israeli side of the border. But even if it did, it would still be immoral, a form of collective punishment that is strictly forbidden by international humanitarian law....

This brief review of Israel's record over the past four decades makes it difficult to resist the conclusion that it has become a rogue state with "an utterly unscrupulous set of leaders". A rogue state habitually violates international law, possesses weapons of mass destruction and practises terrorism - the use of violence against civilians for political purposes. Israel fulfils all of these three criteria; the cap fits and it must wear it. Israel's real aim is not peaceful coexistence with its Palestinian neighbours but military domination."

molson

01-07-2009, 08:17 AM

So you're a supporter of terrorism. Thanks for clearing that up for us.

No if you read my post, I actually said they could destroy the terrorists.

But no, you're right, the current strategy is working just great.

What would you do if you were Israel? Nothing? Or attack only clearly military installations? I think Hamas would quickly figure out a way around that....They figured out their way around that years ago.

I think you're living in a fantasy world. If it were possible for Israel to destroy only those adults who actually brought them harm through their own hands, I guarantee you they would. Do you disagree? Do you think Israel has the option of eliminating all threats to it, but just chooses to kill civilians for fun?

Fighter of Foo

01-07-2009, 08:18 AM

Where?

jeff061

01-07-2009, 08:20 AM

Fighter of Foo lives in some fantasy world apparently. Really. Targeting civilians is wrong, this is what Hamas does. Civilian casualties is unfortunate but necessary or Hamas could terrorize Israel with zero repercussions.

molson

01-07-2009, 08:22 AM

Israel's real aim is not peaceful coexistence with its Palestinian neighbours but military domination."

If this was Israel's aim, this would all be over now. It SHOULD be it's aim, because clearly their neighbors will accept nothing less than destruction of one party or the other, but they're still playing politics, which will cost lives for generations to come.

Fighter of Foo

01-07-2009, 08:42 AM

No if you read my post, I actually said they could destroy the terrorists.

But no, you're right, the current strategy is working just great.

What would you do if you were Israel? Nothing? Or attack only clearly military installations? I think Hamas would quickly figure out a way around that....They figured out their way around that years ago.

I think you're living in a fantasy world. If it were possible for Israel to destroy only those adults who actually brought them harm through their own hands, I guarantee you they would. Do you disagree? Do you think Israel has the option of eliminating all threats to it, but just chooses to kill civilians for fun?

I'd start by not antagonizing a couple of million people who I'm not exactly on the best terms with.

Again,

Israel also maintained the blockade of Gaza after the ceasefire came into force which, in the view of the Hamas leaders, amounted to a violation of the agreement. During the ceasefire, Israel prevented any exports from leaving the strip in clear violation of a 2005 accord, leading to a sharp drop in employment opportunities. Officially, 49.1% of the population is unemployed. At the same time, Israel restricted drastically the number of trucks carrying food, fuel, cooking-gas canisters, spare parts for water and sanitation plants, and medical supplies to Gaza.

If this happened to you, what would be your response?

In the three years after the withdrawal from Gaza, 11 Israelis were killed by rocket fire. On the other hand, in 2005-7 alone, the IDF killed 1,290 Palestinians in Gaza, including 222 children.

Fantasy land huh?

molson

01-07-2009, 08:52 AM

Still waiting to here what your solution would be.

The ratio of casualties, though titled one way (which you help, artificially, by including all Palestinian deaths, and only those Israelis killed by rocket fire), makes perfect sense considering the nature of the war.

You would think the Palestinians would be more willing to play ball, and not continously flare up the violence, when they know that even a restrained Israel results in far heavier casualties on their side. Nope, they could care less about that. They don't have the same respect for human life. 1 dead jew is WORTH 100 dead of their own, including children and civilians. They're barbaric, plain and simple. Not all of them of course, and Israel should offer citizenship to those who want it. Give them that choice, that opportunity to save their children (most won't take it, they don't give a shit about their children's lives, they'd rather have them die just so people like you turn against Israel). The rest should be destroyed into unconditional surrender on Israel's terms.

miked

01-07-2009, 08:54 AM

I'd start by not antagonizing a couple of million people who I'm not exactly on the best terms with.

Again,

Israel also maintained the blockade of Gaza after the ceasefire came into force which, in the view of the Hamas leaders, amounted to a violation of the agreement. During the ceasefire, Israel prevented any exports from leaving the strip in clear violation of a 2005 accord, leading to a sharp drop in employment opportunities. Officially, 49.1% of the population is unemployed. At the same time, Israel restricted drastically the number of trucks carrying food, fuel, cooking-gas canisters, spare parts for water and sanitation plants, and medical supplies to Gaza.

If this happened to you, what would be your response?

In the three years after the withdrawal from Gaza, 11 Israelis were killed by rocket fire. On the other hand, in 2005-7 alone, the IDF killed 1,290 Palestinians in Gaza, including 222 children.

Fantasy land huh?

So the solution if you think you are being blockaded illegally I guess is to fire 30 rockets a day at your neighbor. All while the people who voted you to lead them are starving. Sounds like a good strategery. I think you fail to realize that most of the world views Hamas as a terrorist organization, similar to the Taliban. Just because they are in charge doesn't mean people always have the deal with them peacefully.

It sucks that civilians are caught up in this, but that is the choice of Hamas. If they really cared for Palestinian freedom more than Israeli destruction, some sort of peaceful status probably could have been reached, like the West Bank, which has been out of the terror news for a little while. If Israel's goal were to dominate the region militarily and take over, it would have been done years ago.

Maybe Israel should say "pretty please" and maybe even add some "cherries on top" or something.

Fighter of Foo

01-07-2009, 09:02 AM

So the solution if you think you are being blockaded illegally I guess is to fire 30 rockets a day at your neighbor. All while the people who voted you to lead them are starving. Sounds like a good strategery.

Um, they live in the middle of a desert. Israel decides whether they let food & supplies in or not.

Let's see. These people have lots of guns and missles but no food. What the fuck do you think their response is going to be?

Fighter of Foo

01-07-2009, 09:05 AM

It sucks that civilians are caught up in this, but that is the choice of Hamas. If they really cared for Palestinian freedom more than Israeli destruction, some sort of peaceful status probably could have been reached, like the West Bank, which has been out of the terror news for a little while. If Israel's goal were to dominate the region militarily and take over, it would have been done years ago.

Maybe Israel should say "pretty please" and maybe even add some "cherries on top" or something.

This is my favorite response, because as the stronger country, Israel has much more power to take this action:

It sucks that civilians are caught up in this, but that is the choice of Israel. If they really cared for Israeli freedom more than Hamas destruction, some sort of peaceful status probably could have been reached, like the West Bank, which has been out of the terror news for a little while. If Hamas's goal were to dominate the region militarily and take over, it would have been done years ago.

Maybe Hamas should say "pretty please" and maybe even add some "cherries on top" or something.

miked

01-07-2009, 09:05 AM

Um, they live in the middle of a desert. Israel decides whether they let food & supplies in or not.

Let's see. These people have lots of guns and missles but no food. What the fuck do you think their response is going to be?

Well, I guess that makes it cool then. Sorry, I thought maybe instead of their "government" smuggling in weapons on a daily basis they could perhaps arrange for some food and supplies to be sent in. Other countries have lots of desert and they seem to get food and supplies. What about Egypt, you know, one of the countries that decades ago promised the people the world if they would move out of the way so Israelis could be wiped out.

Nah, it couldn't quite possibly be complicated.

Klinglerware

01-07-2009, 09:13 AM

They should annex the West Bank and Gaza (and grant full citizenship to those that want it)

I agree with you, but Israel doesn't. When Israel occupied these territories, full citizenship and democratic representation was never going to be on the table. Why?

Annexation with full rights solves the multiculturalism vs Jewish state question once and for all. If Israel were to annex West Bank and Gaza, Israel will basically have to choose between being a Jewish state or a true democracy, since this would cause the percentage of Jewish voters (who are already fractured politically) to shrink considerably.

Due to demographics, Israel may have to make this choice eventually (as the proportion of non-Jews in Israel is increasing)--but annexation would force this painful debate much earlier...

Fighter of Foo

01-07-2009, 09:21 AM

You would think the Palestinians would be more willing to play ball, and not continously flare up the violence, when they know that even a restrained Israel results in far heavier casualties on their side. Nope, they could care less about that. They don't have the same respect for human life. 1 dead jew is WORTH 100 dead of their own, including children and civilians. They're barbaric, plain and simple.

You would think the Israelis would be more willing to play ball, and not continously flare up the violence, when they know that even a restrained Gaza attack results in far heavier casualties on their side. Nope, they could care less about that. They don't have the same respect for human life. 1 dead terrorist is WORTH 100 dead children and civilians. They're barbaric, plain and simple.

We can do this all day because the arguments you make work both ways. Which is my point.

Ronnie Dobbs2

01-07-2009, 09:25 AM

Except that quite a few of your "switched" arguments make no sense at all.

"If Hamas's goal were to dominate the region militarily and take over, it would have been done years ago."

"You would think the Israelis would be more willing to play ball, and not continously flare up the violence, when they know that even a restrained Gaza attack results in far heavier casualties on their side."

And these are important points, because they point to some level of restraint being shown by Israel (even if fear of international response, rather than morality, is the driving factor) as well as the thought process by the Hamas leadership, where civilian casualties provide them with international political currency and are thus part of the overall strategy.

Fighter of Foo

01-07-2009, 09:37 AM

Ronnie Dobbs2

01-07-2009, 09:38 AM

You continue to argue points that I'm not making.

flere-imsaho

01-07-2009, 10:05 AM

If Hamas's goal were to dominate the region militarily and take over, it would have been done years ago.

I doubt that, unless you're suggesting that the only reason the Muslim Brotherhood (of which Hamas is a wing) hasn't taken over the region yet is because they haven't bothered to.

SportsDino

01-07-2009, 10:35 AM

I find it completely ironic that we completely steamrolled two countries in the last half decade or so, ostensibly over the actions of a couple dozen jerks among millions, and then feel justified in criticizing Israel which has constant attacks.

If this was happening to the U.S. we all know Gaza would be a barren parking lot by now. If this was any time except after 1945 Israel would have long ago blown the surrounding territory to nothing and assembled their own state through force. It is the artificial self-righteousness of modern times that keeps this in the current state, that natural result throughout most of human history is that either Israel would conquer a bunch of land, or the Arab countries would have conquered Israel (and likely excluded Palestine from the celebration), or a stalemate would end up where they beat on each other for a while and decide that internal needs outweigh the value of a war they can't win. There is also peace, but that usually takes some people with real character to get that far, most of history is devoid of such folk.

Noop

01-07-2009, 10:42 AM

I still say they should annex the west bank and gaza; and just create a Palestine state. My main problem with the whole creation of Israel is that they were given their country oppose to doing what civilizations have done before them and conquered.

Fighter of Foo

01-08-2009, 03:45 PM

No, I'm suggesting that the UN has no idea of the reality on the ground. The IDF at least believes that that school was the origin of rocket attacks.

I have no way to know whether the IDF is lying through their teeth or what have you, but personally I am more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt than Hamas based on prior activities. And the thought that attacks would originate from a location like this wouldn't surprise me in the least.

Good questions (http://www.juancole.com/2009/01/al-fakhoura-school-bombed-42-killed.html) about this:

"It was a school. It was flying a UN flag. The UN had given the Israeli military the coordinates. People were seeking refuge there from Israeli air strikes and military operations. If it were true, as the Israelis now charge after the fact, that the building was being used for mortar attacks on the Israeli army, the why in the world would anyone in their right minds stay there. It would be like playing golf in a lightning storm, and Gazans are not stupid about war. Second, how come dead soldiers didn't come out of the building?"

Way to commit murder & create more terrorists Israel. Good job. Us Americans have taught you well. :(

Chief Rum

01-08-2009, 08:19 PM

Second, how come dead soldiers didn't come out of the building?

I'm not trying to make this into anything funny or anything, but was I the only one who read this line and thought, "Well, cuz they're dead of course!"

Okay, back to your regularly scheduled arguing.

JonInMiddleGA

01-08-2009, 09:52 PM

simply state that peace would be the best option

If that were a realistic option you might have a point there, but there's as realistic a chance of wishing for unicorns to swoop down on a Skittles Rainbow & deliver each resident of the region the deed to their own personal island.

Marc Vaughan

01-08-2009, 09:56 PM

If that were a realistic option you might have a point there, but there's as realistic a chance of wishing for unicorns to swoop down on a Skittles Rainbow & deliver each resident of the region the deed to their own personal island.

The same was said of the situation in Northern Ireland back in the days of the IRA. However thats now receeding slowly into history ... and things are much more peaceful there these days.

(apologies - if anyone wonders where the 'quote' came from deleted the post I did about 10 seconds after putting it up as I try my best to avoid these discussions, wasn't anything particularly enlightening - just suggesting that rather than take sides in a discussion about a situation with limited information about it and opponents who have both done bad things it'd be better to just state that peace would be the best thing regardless of which party started that approach.)

Edward64

01-11-2009, 09:13 PM

Some misc info on the ground level tactics being employed by both sides.

A Gaza War Full of Traps and Trickery - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/world/middleeast/11hamas.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1)

Interviews last week with senior Israeli intelligence and military officers, both active and retired, as well as with military experts and residents of Gaza itself, made it clear that the battle, waged among civilians and between enemies who had long prepared for this fight, is now a slow, nasty business of asymmetrical urban warfare. Gaza’s civilians, who cannot flee because the borders are closed, are “the meat in the sandwich,” as one United Nations worker said, requesting anonymity.

It is also clear that both sides are evolving tactics to the new battlefield, then adjusting them quickly.

Another interesting article from Washington Post on April 4, 2008 which seems to have predicted the Gaza war by the end of the Bush term.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/06/AR2008040601662.html

But officials portray Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Ehud Barak as having little interest in a deal with Hamas. They acknowledge that a suspension of attacks by both sides might make the ongoing peace talks easier -- and that the outbreak of an all-out conflict would almost certainly kill the Annapolis process. Yet, increasingly Israeli officials see the confrontation in Gaza with Hamas as more important in strategic terms than the talks with moderate Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. The view in Jerusalem, as more than one official put it to me, is that there is no alternative to a military collision with Hamas in Gaza, probably before the end of the Bush administration.

The grim Israeli view is driven to a large degree by what officials say is the massive and continuing smuggling of weapons into Gaza, sponsored by Iran and tacitly allowed by Egypt, which despite considerable pressure from Washington shrinks from actions that might trigger its own confrontation with Hamas. Hamas is building hardened bunker systems and stockpiling missiles in imitation of the infrastructure built in southern Lebanon by the Iranian-backed Hezbollah movement. The Israelis say hundreds of Hamas militants have traveled to Iran for training in targeting and firing Grad missiles, Iran's version of the old Soviet Katyusha.