Israel's End Game

[kaya'08]

I don't support Hamas, I just wanted to show you how both sides disregard the fact that there are far more innocent people in the conflict than instigators. You justify the killing of people in Gaza by equating them all to Hamas just as Hamas justifies the killing of Israelis by equating them all to the ID

Either way, Hamas has to go! Yes, innocent lives are being taken away...but not to say all operations against Hamas should stop. Israel should continue the attacks, but take into consideration the innocents in Gaza, which with much stupidity, they do not do so well....i think this is where ground soldiers liberating Gaza comes in. It would be far easier to conserve innocent lives if armies of men where sent into Gaza to take out the Hamas once and for all and end the headache instead of air strikes which naturally give rise to many innocent deaths.

 

[Ahmed Shaheen]

That made no sense. ... and yet bub brown-nosed it anyway!

How funny is that?

:rofl

like how always you do with all the ones who bitches you.

look at the first posts, thanked all the members for anything on anything :spin:

 

[Ahmed Shaheen]

I'll spell it out for you Vader.

**********DISCLAIMER***********
The following quote has been edited to explain to Vader a previously mentioned post. The underlined portions were edited by ME.




Do you see it now?

hh , awsome
I think he still hadnt got it .. :lol:

 

[Tashah]

Israel's excessive campaign is the problem.

Funny you didn't display the same hard-core attitude when rockets were falling on Israel cities and towns during the past month. Another case of selective righteousness.

 

[donsutherland1]

While I do not agree with Hamas's views, I don't agree that pounding them into oblivion is the answer either.

I disagree. Unfortunately, in the Middle East, fundamentalist elements i.e., Hamas, Hezbollah, etc., view any compromises or concessions by Israel as symptoms of Israeli weakness. Israel's unilateral withdrawal from south Lebanon (2000), its complete and unilateral disengagement from the Gaza Strip (2005), and its terminating its military operations against Hezbollah (2006) were pocketed and advertised as proof of Israeli weakness. The situations in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip later grew much worse. Hezbollah gained significant influence in Lebanon's government. Hamas seized control of the Gaza Strip.

Therefore, in my opinion, Israel cannot and should not accept a return to the status quo ante. If it does, Hamas will trumpet the decision as Israel's having yielded to Hamas rocketfire. Israel's ability to deter aggression will have eroded further. Hamas will grow even stronger in the Gaza Strip.

Instead, Israel should insist, at a minimum, that the terms of any ceasefire agreement contain the following provisions:

• Hamas explicitly recognizes Israel's right to exist.
• Hamas commits to abandoning violence.
• Hamas agrees to respect existing diplomatic agreements.
• Hamas allows for an international verification regime under which it returns the Gaza Strip to the Palestinian Authority and disarms.

The first three conditions are those set forth previously by the Madrid Quartet. The fourth would reverse Hamas' military seizure of the Gaza Strip and would also implement Hamas' commitment to abandon violence.

Should Hamas fail to accept such terms, Israel should maintain its military operations until Hamas' capabilities are significantly destroyed. Otherwise, it would undermine its own credibility, security, and ability to deter future acts of aggression. Given past experience, Israel should not accept a return to the status quo ante. To do so would put it in a worse position in the not-too-distant future, if past experience is representative (a highly likely scenario given the terrorist actors involved).

My guess is that Israel will be pressured in coming days to yield to a return to the status quo ante, particularly by the UN. Given the UN's failure to bring about Hezbollah's removal from South Lebanon and to end Syrian and Iranian weapons smuggling to Hezbollah, the UN is not in a credible position to make such demands, much less provide any meaningful assurances on Israel's security. Therefore, any return to the status quo ante should be a non-starter for Israel.

 

[WI Crippler]

To put it simply, there needs to be an end-game. The circular path taken in the past has proven to quite simply be ineffective. The removal of Hamas, from power, must be undertaken. Hamas has brought this suffering upon the good people of Palestine, by being the provacatuer once again. There was no reason, the cease fire could not have been extended. It always seems that a cease fire only serves to rearm Hamas and Hezbollah, rather than be any concrete steps towards peace and resolution between the sides. This time, there need not be a cease-fire IMO. What is needed, is the sound defeat of Hamas, whether it be by some of the points put forth by donsutherland or it be by their destruction. Other arab countries, and past resolution have shown that sustainable peace is achievable with Israel and Arab states. Saying the Palestinians are unable to achieve this with Israel is a cop-out and bull**** excuse. One side in this conflict has a proven history of working towards peaceful solutions(and achieving them), and holding up on their end of the bargain. The other does not. IMO, a reckoning day should be in store for the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah, as I doubt any sincerity on their parts to reach peaceful solutions with Israel.

 

[Truth Detector]

I disagree. Unfortunately, in the Middle East, fundamentalist elements i.e., Hamas, Hezbollah, etc., view any compromises or concessions by Israel as symptoms of Israeli weakness. Israel's unilateral withdrawal from south Lebanon (2000), its complete and unilateral disengagement from the Gaza Strip (2005), and its terminating its military operations against Hezbollah (2006) were pocketed and advertised as proof of Israeli weakness. The situations in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip later grew much worse. Hezbollah gained significant influence in Lebanon's government. Hamas seized control of the Gaza Strip.

Therefore, in my opinion, Israel cannot and should not accept a return to the status quo ante. If it does, Hamas will trumpet the decision as Israel's having yielded to Hamas rocketfire. Israel's ability to deter aggression will have eroded further. Hamas will grow even stronger in the Gaza Strip.

Instead, Israel should insist, at a minimum, that the terms of any ceasefire agreement contain the following provisions:

• Hamas explicitly recognizes Israel's right to exist.
• Hamas commits to abandoning violence.
• Hamas agrees to respect existing diplomatic agreements.
• Hamas allows for an international verification regime under which it returns the Gaza Strip to the Palestinian Authority and disarms.

The first three conditions are those set forth previously by the Madrid Quartet. The second would reverse Hamas' military seizure of the Gaza Strip and would also implement Hamas' commitment to abandon violence.

Should Hamas fail to accept such terms, Israel should maintain its military operations until Hamas' capabilities are significantly destroyed. Otherwise, it would undermine its own credibility, security, and ability to deter future acts of aggression. Given past experience, Israel should not accept a return to the status quo ante. To do so would put it in a worse position in the not-too-distant future, if past experience is representative (a highly likely scenario given the terrorist actors involved).

My guess is that Israel will be pressured in coming days to yield to a return to the status quo ante, particularly by the UN. Given the UN's failure to bring about Hezbollah's removal from South Lebanon and to end Syrian and Iranian weapons smuggling to Hezbollah, the UN is not in a credible position to make such demands, much less provide any meaningful assurances on Israel's security. Therefore, any return to the status quo ante should be a non-starter for Israel.

One of your best posts Don; this hits the proverbial nail on the head. Kudos to you for this one.

 

[Vader]

hh , awsome
I think he still hadnt got it .. :lol:

No, I just don't agree to it.

Israel does not send bomb-laden teens into Gaza to blow themselves up for god.

Palestine does exactly that.

Therefore his idiotic comparsion is nothing more than mindless liberal prattle.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Contrary to popular neo-con believe, they do bring terms to the table and will not only settle for the total destruction of Israel. Its great that you can find someone to make such boasts, but the fact is Israel cannot agree to the terms because a minority of their people have settled and refuse to relocate. Until Israel can make the concessions necessary to unite Palestine, there will be no peace.

Wrong. Until Hamas stops attacking Israel, there will be no peace.

Palestine is an impoverished land without law. Hamas is not some highly organized terrorist organization like you think. They are a bunch of teenager bullies. As soon as the non-militant people of Gaza see an opportunity for change that does not involve standing up to Hamas and Israel at the same time they will take it.

And they've had plenty of opportunities during cease fires...and they have done nothing.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I'll spell it out for you Vader.

**********DISCLAIMER***********
The following quote has been edited to explain to Vader a previously mentioned post. The underlined portions were edited by ME.

I would say Hamas is sick of Israels' bull****.

Israels' terrorist asses are about to get what they deserve.

There cannot be peace in Gaza until Israel is destroyed.

Do you see it now?

Vader was right. Since your edit is completely incorrect, it makes no sense.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Israel has made great compromises to the West Bank and I believe we can all agree that the lack of attacks coming from that area are to be attributed to those. Gaza is a fragment of Palestine that has been isolated for way too long. Hamas or another equivalent organization will fester there until it is able to function within the larger state of Palestine.

Hamas created this situation by separating itself from the West Bank.

Israel fought and won its land, it is now suffering the consequences of those occupations (both past and present). It is ridiculous to claim that Israeli did not start the conflict as the history of it dates back to Israel's creation.

It is ridiculous to claim that Israel created this conflict...unless one's knowledge of history is skewed or lacking. The Palestinians are suffering the consequences of refusing to acknowledge Israel's existence, cease attacking Israel, and choosing to fight rather than setting up their government. They will continue to suffer these consequences until they choose to do these three things.

 

[donsutherland1]

Thanks, TD. One thing I accidentally omitted but should be included would be Hamas' release of Cpl. Shalit. Hamas should not be permitted to continue holding Cpl. Shalit hostage.

 

[shiznit770]

Hamas created this situation by separating itself from the West Bank.

It is ridiculous to claim that Israel created this conflict...unless one's knowledge of history is skewed or lacking. The Palestinians are suffering the consequences of refusing to acknowledge Israel's existence, cease attacking Israel, and choosing to fight rather than setting up their government. They will continue to suffer these consequences until they choose to do these three things.

Wait, you think Hamas is the reason Palestine is geographically fragmented?

The reason is Israel occupies a little more each time the Palestinians attacked. They've slowly taken most of Palestine and until several years ago some of Lebanon. It should be obvious to anyone who's looked at a map that Palestine will never become a functioning state without geographical concessions by Israel.

You continue to claim my knowledge of history is skewed or lacking, yet you do nothing to clarify your point. By insisting that there can be no peace unless Hamas stops its attack you become a hypocrite. The situation is more than a case of one country attacking another and anyone who knows even a little about the history would agree.

 

[Australianlibertarian]

Very simple. If you don't want to be attacked by Israel, stop firing rockets INDISCRIMINATELY at civilian areas and stop breaking cease fire agreements.

Secondly the UN needs to get into the real world. If nations have the legal power under the United Nations charter to defend themselves, then through implication this means that force will be used. No ifs no buts. The reality of such a law, means that in certain circumstances defensive military actions or outright war is legal.

If this is so, then the UN must accept that civilian casualties are inevitable. How can 'proportionality' be applied to targets that are specific? The accidental deaths of civilians are a consequence of the strikes in Gaza, not the purpose. Thus the concept of proportionality only makes sense if Israel were to carpet bomb Gaza, then the question becomes, what is proportional force?

Really the United Nations should be asking whether or not Israel's actions are appropriate and adapted to the goals of the Israeli military. I would argue that the use of smart bombs, implies a conscious effort to minimize civilian casualties and to maximize the efficacy of the mission, and therefore Israel's actions tick the appropriate and adapted boxes.......

This kind of warfare is in complete contrast to the tactics of Hamas; that are designed to maximize civilian casualties and make no attempt to target military installations or personel.

Consequently the General Assembly of the UN, and the Security Council, need to uphold the notion of the right to self defense. Secondly, the UN needs to understand that war is bloody but necessary means of achieving peace. Thirdly Israel's tactics may have caused civilian casualties, but in context Israels use of force is designed to minimize casualties and is not inherently targeting civilians.

Now lets' compare Israel's actions to the bombing of Germany or Japan by the Allies.......

The UN needs to get some context, and stop bending over backwards to Arabs that fail to protest when Katusha rockets are raining down over Israel, or when suicide bombers with ferment relish slaughter Israeli civilians .

Goodbye Hamas. :violin

 

[shiznit770]

If this is so, then the UN must accept that civilian casualties are inevitable. How can 'proportionality' be applied to targets that are specific? The accidental deaths of civilians are a consequence of the strikes in Gaza, not the purpose. Thus the concept of proportionality only makes sense if Israel were to carpet bomb Gaza, then the question becomes, what is proportional force?

Really the United Nations should be asking whether or not Israel's actions are appropriate and adapted to the goals of the Israeli military. I would argue that the use of smart bombs, implies a conscious effort to minimize civilian casualties and to maximize the efficacy of the mission, and therefore Israel's actions tick the appropriate and adapted boxes.......

This kind of warfare is in complete contrast to the tactics of Hamas; that are designed to maximize civilian casualties and make no attempt to target military installations or personel.

Consequently the General Assembly of the UN, and the Security Council, need to uphold the notion of the right to self defense. Secondly, the UN needs to understand that war is bloody but necessary means of achieving peace. Thirdly Israel's tactics may have caused civilian casualties, but in context Israels use of force is designed to minimize casualties and is not inherently targeting civilians.

Now lets' compare Israel's actions to the bombing of Germany or Japan by the Allies.......

The UN needs to get some context, and stop bending over backwards to Arabs that fail to protest when Katusha rockets are raining down over Israel, or when suicide bombers with ferment relish slaughter Israeli civilians .

Proportionality is only one piece of the puzzle. The greater question is whether the attacks have a realistic opportunity to bring about peace. The answer is a resounding No. Proportionality is important because these attacks are not designed to suddenly bring peace, they are done to give the Israeli people a sense of justice in the form of vengeance.

The bombings of cities in WWII had the realistic effect of disrupting the enemy's industrial capabilities, leading to an end to the war. Most people can justify the death of civilians if it leads towards peace.

 

[Australianlibertarian]

Excellent, and I'm sure that most Israelis and non-Israelis can see that the destruction of Hamas will bring about peace.

There you go, a just war.

 

[rhinefire]

If Isreal does not dedicate itself to the total destruction of Hamas now then it will have to fight it forever. Shame on Palestinians everywhere for allowing the rise of such an organized body of terror to exist. Death to Hamas! Long live Isreal!

 

[bhkad]

If Isreal does not dedicate itself to the total destruction of Hamas now then it will have to fight it forever. Shame on Palestinians everywhere for allowing the rise of such an organized body of terror to exist. Death to Hamas! Long live Isreal!

Hamas gained power by being the alternative to the more corrupt and ineffective previous leadership. They could get things done for the people.

Think of them as the way many of us think of the Democrats being able and willing to redistribute the wealth to give handouts to the people.

Before we totally pile on the Palestinians for electing Hamas think of how America made a similar choice in November.

We voted in the "warm fuzzy" without concerning ourselves with the down side of that choice.

 

[shiznit770]

Hamas gained power by being the alternative to the more corrupt and ineffective previous leadership. They could get things done for the people.

Think of them as the way many of us think of the Democrats being able and willing to redistribute the wealth to give handouts to the people.

Before we totally pile on the Palestinians for electing Hamas think of how America made a similar choice in November.

We voted in the "warm fuzzy" without concerning ourselves with the down side of that choice.

Comparing terrorists to Democrats, that's not at all pathetically partisan of you... If you think redistributing wealth is "similar" to terrorism you need serious help.

 

[WI Crippler]

Before we totally pile on the Palestinians for electing Hamas think of how America made a similar choice in November.

I'm not a big fan of democrats but this is ridiculous.

Moving on though, I think its not a far stretch that if we were to wave a magic wand, and Hamas ceased to exist, there would be a good chance for peace between Palestinians and Israel and a two state solution would come to fruition.

Sometimes, in working on avionics systems, one bad part can make other parts unable to function, even though there is fundamentally nothing wrong with the other part. This is what Hamas has done to the Palestinians. The bad part needs to be removed, and since our proverbial magic wand does not exist, the bad part must be taken out with manual labor., i.e. getting your hands dirty.

 

[bhkad]

I'm not a big fan of democrats but this is ridiculous.

Moving on though, I think its not a far stretch that if we were to wave a magic wand, and Hamas ceased to exist, there would be a good chance for peace between Palestinians and Israel and a two state solution would come to fruition.

Sometimes, in working on avionics systems, one bad part can make other parts unable to function, even though there is fundamentally nothing wrong with the other part. This is what Hamas has done to the Palestinians. The bad part needs to be removed, and since our proverbial magic wand does not exist, the bad part must be taken out with manual labor., i.e. getting your hands dirty.

We have two separate and different paradigms. That is what you no doubt believe I am comparing. I'm not. I'm saying that I think Hamas may be the political party the Palestinian people voted for because they saw it as being able to deliver more and better goods and services to the people. And in that way they compare to Democrats who America perceives as being better able and willing to alleviate their problems as well as the government's problems.

It is a fitting comparison within their paradigm.

When I saw this article I was shocked. Terrorist apologists and news agencies love to justify and legitimize existence of Hamas through Hamas’ public programs for Palestinian society. These groups claim that Hamas is not a terrorist group. Many in news organization especially in Europe tries to justify having relation with Hamas because of their social programs and their hospitals. I bet this helps their position.

Gaza's Islamic Hamas rulers ordered striking doctors to shut down their private clinics on Monday, in a challenge to Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas that threatened to deepen hardship in the long-suffering territory.

The faceoff has largely paralyzed Gaza's medical system, putting it at the mercy of the rivalry between Hamas and Abbas' Fatah movement. Hamas seized control of Gaza in June after routing Fatah forces, while Abbas formed a new government in the West Bank. Hospital doctors across Gaza launched a work slowdown earlier this month to protest the arrest of a prominent physician allied with Fatah.

On orders from Abbas' West Bank government, which pays their salaries, most curtailed their daytime hospital schedule to three hours a day, receiving patients afterward in expensive private clinics. Hamas struck back Monday by ordering the immediate shutdown of the clinics.

Doctors who do not comply will be fired, and clinics will also be scrutinized to ensure they are properly registered and licensed, Hamas officials said. "We are not going to play with the health sector," said Khaled Radi, a spokesman for the former Hamas-run health ministry.
​

The Light At the end of the Tunnel: Hamas’ “Social Programs”

No one would really think I am calling Democrats terrorists, would they?

 

[bhkad]

Comparing terrorists to Democrats, that's not at all pathetically partisan of you... If you think redistributing wealth is "similar" to terrorism you need serious help.

Reminder to self: It never hurts to underestimate the level at which the readership functions.

Provision of social welfare and education

Hamas is particularly popular among Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, though it also has a following in the West Bank, and to a lesser extent in other Middle Eastern countries. Since its formation in 1987, Hamas has conducted numerous social, political, and military actions.

Its popularity stems in part from its welfare and social services to Palestinians in the occupied territories, including school and hospital construction. The group devotes much of its estimated $70 million annual budget to an extensive social services network, running many relief and education programs, and funds schools, orphanages, mosques, healthcare clinics, soup kitchens, and sports leagues. According to the Israeli scholar Reuven Paz "approximately 90 percent of the organization's work is in social, welfare, cultural, and educational activities".[79]

Hamas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I suppose I must also say that I am not defending Hamas' terrorist activities nor am I saying that American Democrats are terrorists.

I am explaining how it is that the Palestinian people might have voted in such a party. They focused on the "feel good" aspects of Hamas without placing too much importance on how Hamas' positions might negatively impact their lives.

Americans voted in a Marxist President because he has promised the equivalent of a 'chicken in every pot' without regard for how his tax increases to pay for his spending and giveaway programs might negatively affect our economy.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Wait, you think Hamas is the reason Palestine is geographically fragmented?

Never said that. Politically fragmented is what I meant.

The reason is Israel occupies a little more each time the Palestinians attacked. They've slowly taken most of Palestine and until several years ago some of Lebanon. It should be obvious to anyone who's looked at a map that Palestine will never become a functioning state without geographical concessions by Israel.

Irrelevant. It would be obvious to anyone who has followed the situation that Palestine will never become a functioning state if the continue to attack their neighbor, Israel, especially when their neighbor is far more powerful than they are.

You continue to claim my knowledge of history is skewed or lacking, yet you do nothing to clarify your point. By insisting that there can be no peace unless Hamas stops its attack you become a hypocrite. The situation is more than a case of one country attacking another and anyone who knows even a little about the history would agree.

Nope. This statement above, proves that your knowledge of history is skewed or lacking. As I said in another thread, and I'll paraphrase, Israel does not bomb anyone that is not bombing/attacking them. They bomb Gaza because they are. Very basic concept.

 

[Jakers]

If Isreal does not dedicate itself to the total destruction of Hamas now then it will have to fight it forever. Shame on Palestinians everywhere for allowing the rise of such an organized body of terror to exist. Death to Hamas! Long live Isreal!

As a newbie, allow me to ask you in what manner, politically and/or ethically, your sentiments differ from those who applauded the Nazi, "final solution to the Jewish Problem'"?

Further to that, let me add, how do the defensive actions [homemade rockets, kamikaze human bombs, etc.], differ from what Jews did in their heroic defence of the Warsaw Ghetto?

 

[shiznit770]

Never said that. Politically fragmented is what I meant.

So you believe the Political schism in no way corresponds to the Israeli created fragmented territories? I'm not saying the geographic situation created Hamas, but it certainly can be agreed to be a strong factor.

Irrelevant. It would be obvious to anyone who has followed the situation that Palestine will never become a functioning state if the continue to attack their neighbor, Israel, especially when their neighbor is far more powerful than they are.

If you can not see Palestine as anything more than a aggressor then there is no point continuing debate. Such simplistic analysis may be adequate for you, but I think I and many others would rather discuss the other factors behind the situation.

Nope. This statement above, proves that your knowledge of history is skewed or lacking. As I said in another thread, and I'll paraphrase, Israel does not bomb anyone that is not bombing/attacking them. They bomb Gaza because they are. Very basic concept.

I'll acknowledge that my historical knowledge is not perfect or comprehensive on the area, it would take years of research to even speak of the area with some confidence. As such I am continuously seeking out information, regardless of how much or little it confirms/contradicts my current view.

You have proven nothing to me except that you would rather insult my knowledge and trivialize the issue than face difficult questions.