• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

The most Valuable thing Israel gained from this war...

RichardE

Banned
Was deterrence.




Text


Jerusalem
Another war, another debate. When I was last in Israel in August 2006, the war against Hezbollah was just winding down and a great debate was starting. Who won? The results were equivocal enough that both Israel and Hezbollah could claim vindication. Although Hezbollah had lost 600 or so of its fighters, it could take heart from the fact that it managed to hit Israel with hundreds of rockets that killed 43 civilians and had managed to slow down the Israeli military juggernaut and kill 118 soldiers.

The intervening two and a half years in the murky Middle East have provided more evidence for both sides to support claims of victory. For Hezbollah, there is the fact that it has managed to fully rearm itself and is now believed to have more missiles than it did before the war with Israel. It has also managed to extend its sphere of control. After its armed spree in Beirut last year, it won veto power over the Lebanese government.

But there is also evidence that Hezbollah was surprised and caught off guard by the ferocity of Israel's retaliation for the kidnapping of its soldiers; senior Hezbollah leaders said as much. And though the recent hostilities between Israel and Hamas would have been the perfect opportunity for Hezbollah to renew hostilities while Israel was distracted, it declined to do so. When a few rockets were fired recently from southern Lebanon into northern Israel, Hezbollah officials rushed to reassure Israel that they were not responsible. This suggests
that Israel had managed to establish some degree of deterrence against this terror organization.

But that is not how most Israelis or most Arabs saw it. What they took away from the 2006 war was the perception that Hezbollah had stood up to Israel better than any previous adversary. Israelis lamented, and Arabs celebrated, that this was the first war Israel had not won, at least not decisively. Israel engaged in a collective soul-searching over what went wrong which led to the firing of the defense minister and the armed forces chief of staff and to the convening of a commission to draw lessons from what was widely seen as a bungled operation.

Since then, Israel has worked slowly and methodically to reestablish its deterrence. Two small steps in this process were the aerial bombing in September 2007 of a suspected Syrian nuclear reactor and the car bombing in February 2008 (widely believed to be the work of Mossad) that killed Hezbollah terrorist mastermind Imad Mugniyah in Damascus. A far bigger step occurred on December 27 when Israel launched what turned out to be a three-week onslaught into the Gaza Strip after Hamas dispensed with a six-month ceasefire and resumed firing rockets into southern Israel.

Hamas, like Hezbollah, survived the war not so much because of its military prowess but because of Israel's self-restraint. Destroying Hamas would mean high casualties among Palestinians (and possibly among Israeli soldiers). Even worse from the Israeli public's perspective, it would force Israel to resume the role of occupier that it gave up in Gaza in 2005, because no conceivable alternative--not the "international community," and not Fatah--could come into Gaza on short notice with any hope of displacing Hamas as the effective administration. Not wanting to run the Gaza Strip again and not wanting to experience the possible alternative of Somalia-style chaos on its southern border, Israel chose to fight a highly limited war against Hamas--more like a punitive expedition really.

The Israeli Air Force kicked off Operation Cast Lead at 11:30 A.M. on December 27 with a devastating series of strikes by 70 F-15 and F-16 fighter-bombers armed with satellite-guided Joint Direct Attack Munitions. Flying at 28,000 feet--too high to be seen--they hit over 100 targets including a police graduation ceremony that an oblivious Hamas was holding in the open air. Surprise was complete and the attack was devastating. An estimated 200 Hamas fighters died in the war's opening minutes. Over the next week Israeli aircraft hit hundreds more targets--not only Hamas commanders and fighters but also buildings where they have conducted their operations and launched the missiles that hit Israeli towns.

On January 3, after eight days of bombing, Israeli ground forces entered the fray. The offensive was conducted by one division, or about 10,000 soldiers. They quickly drove through the middle of the Gaza Strip all the way to the Mediterranean, isolating Gaza City to the north from the tunnels in the south that are used to smuggle in supplies from Egypt. Israeli forces then fought a war of attrition in the northern Gaza Strip for the next two weeks until Israel declared a ceasefire in the early morning hours of Sunday, January 18, to be followed 12 hours later by a Hamas ceasefire.

Naturally Hamas claimed total vindication. "God has granted us a great victory, not for one faction, or party, or area, but for our entire people," said Hamas prime minister Ismail Haniya. "We have stopped the aggression and the
enemy has failed to achieve any of its goals." But one doubts that even Haniya believes his own bombast.

Israeli operations, after all, killed some 1,300 Palestinians of whom at least 600 are definitely Hamas operatives--individuals Israel has identified by name. It is likely that the figure is considerably higher (perhaps as high as 1,000), but midway through the war Hamas stopped holding public funerals for its dead, thus making it harder to keep track of its losses. In addition, Israel eliminated hundreds of tunnels that are used to smuggle military materiel into the Gaza Strip, while destroying an estimated 1,200 rockets.

It is true that Hamas managed to keep firing short-range rockets into Israel, but they caused scant casualties. More important, Hamas did not manage to produce dramatic images of burned-out Israeli tanks or captured Israeli soldiers. There was no major setback this time to compare with Hezbollah's ability to cripple an Israeli warship in 2006 with a sophisticated cruise missile. Israeli units skillfully bypassed or blew up the various improvised explosive devices that Hamas had installed to block an invasion. In most cases, rather than risk soldiers in booby-trapped houses, the Israelis leveled the empty structures with tank blasts or with armored D-9 bulldozers. Electronic jamming was so effective that many residents of southern Israel complained that their garage door openers weren't working. Such tactics proved highly effective. Only 10 Israeli soldiers died in the war and half of them were victims of "friendly fire."

In contrast to the halting, ham-handed operations against Hezbollah, this time the Israel Defense Forces appeared well-prepared and purposeful. They had learned the lessons of 2006, especially about the need for closer cooperation between the ground and air forces.

What they did not manage to do, because it was never their purpose, was to finish off Hamas for good. Israeli officials did not publicly announce that they were willing to leave Hamas in power, because they wanted to keep their enemies off balance, but that was the reality under-lying Operation Cast Lead. As a result, there is little doubt that Hamas, like Hezbollah, will rise from the rubble to emerge as strong as ever--and probably stronger.

Some Israeli officials express hope that the Palestinian Authority led by Mahmoud Abbas can reenter Gaza on the back of the trucks that will be bringing in reconstruction supplies. Fat chance. Hamas used the war to reassert its control in Gaza by killing, wounding, or torturing at least 100 Fatah officials who were accused of "collaboration" with Israel. All indications are that the Palestinian Authority's close association with Israel has only further damaged its already eroded standing among residents of both Gaza and the West Bank, while Hamas has claimed even more firmly for itself the mantle of "resistance movement" against the hated "Zionist entity."

Hamas's friends in Iran, moreover, already have considerable experience in helping its clients rebuild after an Israeli war. They helped Hezbollah do such a good job of reconstruction in 2006 that Hassan Nasrallah's hold on southern Lebanon was actually strengthened. The same thing is likely to happen in Gaza no matter how hard outside donors try to route assistance outside of Hamas channels. Given the degree of Hamas control in Gaza, it is in a perfect position to claim credit for any reconstruction that occurs and to blame whatever does not happen on Israel. "I'm not very optimistic in our ability to cope with reconstruction as well as the Iranians do," a retired Israeli general admitted to a group of visiting military analysts organized by the American Jewish Committee.

The only faint hope of hindering Hamas in the future rests in Egypt's presumed ability to close off tunnels running from its territory into Gaza. Israel only agreed to suspend Cast Lead after Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak gave vague assurances that he would move against the smugglers and after outgoing Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice pledged that the United States would offer equally unspecified assistance in this endeavor. All these pledges are likely to prove as hollow as the promises by the United Nations and European Union in 2006 to prevent the rearming of Hezbollah.

The Americans and Europeans simply do not have any way of stopping an elaborate smuggling network that runs via the sea from Iran to Sudan and from there overland to Egypt and finally under the ground into the Gaza Strip. The smuggling routes are under the control of Sinai Bedouin, while the Gaza tunnels are privately owned by various Palestinian clans and entrepreneurs and licensed by Hamas, which taxes their activities. This is a big business, since smuggled goods include not only weapons but everything from food to drugs. The smugglers offer big payoffs to Egyptian soldiers to look the other way.

Mubarak has had little incentive to stop this lucrative operation. What does he care if Hamas kills Israelis? Better that, from his perspective, than that they should unite with their Muslim Brotherhood compatriots to fight his own regime. In any case, the Sinai is not fully under the control of Egypt's sclerotic government. The Bedouin are an independent force who can express their displeasure with Cairo by staging bombings, as they have done repeatedly, at Sinai beach resorts, thus hurting Egypt's lucrative tourist trade. It is hard to see why the current war between Israel and Hamas should lead Mubarak to change his hardheaded geopolitical calculus by tangling with either Hamas or its Bedouin business partners.

Hamas will rearm and prepare to fight another day. Although it lost at least 600 fighters, it still has more than 10,000 left. It has accrued prestige that will allow it to mount an even stronger challenge to the decrepit Fatah bosses of the West Bank. Mahmoud Abbas's term as president of the Palestinian Authority expired earlier this year but he dares not call another election for fear that Hamas would win. "If the IDF leaves the West Bank, Hamas will take over in five minutes," says Khaled Abu Toameh, the Jerusalem Post's fearless Palestinian correspondent. "Hamas continues to be as strong as ever."

Part of Hamas's strength derives, paradoxically, from its claims to victimhood. Somewhat at odds with its boasts of "victory" was its rush to showcase all the suffering caused by the Israeli offensive. Hamas, like Hezbollah, is skillfully directing the attention of the news media at the damage caused by Israel, while diverting attention from the reason for that damage--Hamas's habit of hiding among civilians. Israel made every possible effort to avoid collateral damage. It made hundreds of thousands of phone calls and dropped hundreds of thousands of leaflets warning residents of Gaza to leave areas that were about to be targeted. When the Israeli Air Force detected Palestinian civilians atop buildings, it dropped tiny bombs designed to cause little damage. Only when the civilians had cleared off did the air force drop larger munitions that flattened the structure. It is hard to see how Israel could have been more sparing in its application of firepower unless it were willing to limit its response to a symbolic, ineffectual strike that would effectively give Hamas a free pass to rocket its territory with impunity.

This is a hard case to make, however, because there are no scenes of destruction in Israel to compare with those in the Gaza Strip. I got to see part of the explanation for this disparity on a trip to Sderot, the Israeli town of 23,000 inhabitants that adjoins the Gaza Strip and has been the main target for Hamas rockets. Hundreds of rockets have fallen on the city in the past eight years. During that period, Sderot has never enjoyed more than four days in a row without being under fire. But most of the rockets are homemade Qassams that have a short range and a small warhead. (Hamas is stockpiling longer-range, more destructive Grad rockets that can reach major cities like Ashkelon and Ashdod, but thankfully it does not have many of those yet.)

Numerous impact points could be seen around Sderot, including slight damage all around an elementary school. To guard against this danger Israel has developed an elaborate civil defense system centered around ubiquitous concrete shelters. Complex radar systems, some attached to giant balloons floating above Gaza City, instantly detect missile launchings and calculate trajectories. "Code red" warnings are then relayed to the target area via loudspeakers, radio, and television. That gives civilians 15 to 20 seconds to take cover. Through constant practice, most do so. Thus they survive, physically at least, though the mental toll of living under nonstop bombardment, especially for children, must be severe.

When critics of Israel complain about the supposed "disproportionality" of its response, they are, in effect, penalizing Israel for the success of its civil defense efforts, while letting Hamas off the hook for not making any similar effort to protect the population of Gaza. Instead of sheltering civilians, Hamas uses them as human shields. Its bunkers are reserved for its own high command.

But that is how the game is played in the Middle East, and once again Hamas will reap a public-relations windfall while Israel will be castigated as a human-rights abuser. The Israeli public seems to have accepted such slander as the price of battling those who would destroy it. Their support for the war effort remained overwhelming throughout.

If there is any complaint in Israel it is not that the offensive was too barbaric but that it was too restrained. Israeli soldiers, in particular, grumbled when they were pulled out of Gaza without having killed as many Hamas fighters as they would have liked. (Apparently Hamas adopted a strategy of not letting most of its militants engage in frontal attacks on Israeli forces that likely would have led to their demise.) But the outgoing government, led by lame duck Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, thought it had done as much damage as it could without inflicting unacceptable civilian casualties. And it was determined to end the offensive in advance of Israel's February 10 elections and, just as important, the inauguration of Barack Obama on January 20. (Israeli leaders did not want to begin their relationship with the new American president while they were in the midst of a war that he might feel compelled to criticize.)

It may not have been as satisfying as winning the enemy's unconditional surrender, but the Gaza war nevertheless can be counted as a victory for Israel. A highly limited and attenuated victory, to be sure, but one that nevertheless restored Israelis' self-confidence and Arabs' fear of provoking Israel, both of which had been badly damaged by the inconclusive 2006 conflict with Hezbollah. Many Israeli officials expressed to us the expectation that after this war Israel's enemies will view it as a "crazy animal" that they cannot afford to bait. "Hamas will think again, not 17 times but 17 million times, before they shoot the next bullet at us," an Israeli government official told us, although a retired general suggested that more incursions will be necessary to keep Hamas from mounting fresh attacks.

Most Israelis are under no illusion that they have won a lasting peace or anything more than the chance to get on with their lives for a few more years before they have to fight another war. They know that on the horizon looms the ultimate threat--a nuclear Iran. But for now what the Israel Defense Forces have accomplished is good enough for a disillusioned public that has come to believe that neither confrontation nor appeasement can produce a lasting victory against Palestinian terrorists.

In Washington, there is talk of "solving" the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. In Tel Aviv and Jerusalem there is resignation that the problem has no solution, at least not in the foreseeable future. "Israelis," says Labor party candidate Einat Wilf, "have found comfort in disillusionment--comfort in not expecting too much." <?><p> Max Boot is the Jeane J. Kirkpatrick senior fellow in national security studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, a contributing editor to THE WEEKLY STANDARD, and author, most recently, of War Made New: Technology, Warfare, and the Course of History, 1500 to Today (Gotham, 2006).

As with Hezbollah who even though can will not attack Israel, we should see the same thing with Hamas. Already there leadership is split with those in Gaza not wanting anymore attacks, knowing what retaliation awaits ( another midnight bombing that kills 200 of there men?). As sad as this war was, with the gain of deterrence hopefully Israel can build on this and begin to gain favor among the Gaza people, and the people of Hamas will realise how futile there ideology and goal of "destroying Israel" is.
 
All you did was cut the grass. It will continue to grow. I thought you were all about going in there for the final solution? now it seems the leaders are weak and won't do what was needed.
 
Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
All you did was cut the grass. It will continue to grow. I thought you were all about going in there for the final solution? now it seems the leaders are weak and won't do what was needed.

I never wanted to kill every Palestine, but Israel did not strike fast enough and did not kill the Hamas leaders in Syria and Lebanon. The entire point of this war was to keep Israel safe. It worked on the border with Lebanon, it worked in the north and it will work now in Gaza. I would prefer as I am sure many would that you could kill every single Hamas individual, but the cost of civilians death would be too high. I notice you didn't comment on the article, there are threads that have made for opinions of the war in general to comment in, and CC asks that you make general comments there. This thread is specifically in regards to this op piece.
 
Statistically speaking, Israel won the battle or "war". What the officials in Israel refuse to realize is that by mowing down 1300 civilians, wounding thousands more, and basically sticking up its middle finger to the UN, Israel has a tarnished image not only among Palestinians but among the countries around the world. What Israel did in Gaza the Palestinians will NEVER forget, and it will only fuel radicalism, and confrontations are going to absolutely continue. In my opinion, Israel lost because there could be no winner to a situation that they put themselves in.
 
Originally posted by: brownzilla786
Statistically speaking, Israel won the battle or "war". What the officials in Israel refuse to realize is that by mowing down 1300 civilians, wounding thousands more, and basically sticking up its middle finger to the UN, Israel has a tarnished image not only among Palestinians but among the countries around the world. What Israel did in Gaza the Palestinians will NEVER forget, and it will only fuel radicalism, and confrontations are going to absolutely continue. In my opinion, Israel lost because there could be no winner to a situation that they put themselves in.

Spineless cowards who either can't or refuse to acknowledge the evil that is Hamas and other radical muslim groups is what is standing between peace in the middle east.

 
Originally posted by: brownzilla786
Statistically speaking, Israel won the battle or "war". What the officials in Israel refuse to realize is that by mowing down 1300 civilians, wounding thousands more, and basically sticking up its middle finger to the UN, Israel has a tarnished image not only among Palestinians but among the countries around the world. What Israel did in Gaza the Palestinians will NEVER forget, and it will only fuel radicalism, and confrontations are going to absolutely continue. In my opinion, Israel lost because there could be no winner to a situation that they put themselves in.

No.. wait.. WAIT... This was tit for the tat... so... Israel thinks they are all even now.. and everyone can just shake hands and go forward

You understand.... This was a DEFENSIVE RESPONSE... so... no REaction is ALLOWED FROM friends and family members of murdered palestinians
 
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: brownzilla786
Statistically speaking, Israel won the battle or "war". What the officials in Israel refuse to realize is that by mowing down 1300 civilians, wounding thousands more, and basically sticking up its middle finger to the UN, Israel has a tarnished image not only among Palestinians but among the countries around the world. What Israel did in Gaza the Palestinians will NEVER forget, and it will only fuel radicalism, and confrontations are going to absolutely continue. In my opinion, Israel lost because there could be no winner to a situation that they put themselves in.

No.. wait.. WAIT... This was tit for the tat... so... Israel thinks they are all even now.. and everyone can just shake hands and go forward

You understand.... This was a DEFENSIVE RESPONSE... so... no REaction is ALLOWED FROM friends and family members of murdered palestinians

Please take your trolling to the major gaza/Israel thread, this thread is for the discussion of the article and the implications of its ideas.
 
Originally posted by: brownzilla786
Statistically speaking, Israel won the battle or "war". What the officials in Israel refuse to realize is that by mowing down 1300 civilians, wounding thousands more, and basically sticking up its middle finger to the UN, Israel has a tarnished image not only among Palestinians but among the countries around the world. What Israel did in Gaza the Palestinians will NEVER forget, and it will only fuel radicalism, and confrontations are going to absolutely continue. In my opinion, Israel lost because there could be no winner to a situation that they put themselves in.

Well, to be honest, would that lack of an offensive in this case change the UN's perception of israel outside of the first world countries? Probably not in my opinion. The Palestinians wouldn't think any different of Israel, whether this offensive occured or not, unless Israel allowed or promoted the standard of living in Gaza.
 
Originally posted by: brownzilla786
Statistically speaking, Israel won the battle or "war". What the officials in Israel refuse to realize is that by mowing down 1300 civilians, wounding thousands more, and basically sticking up its middle finger to the UN, Israel has a tarnished image not only among Palestinians but among the countries around the world. What Israel did in Gaza the Palestinians will NEVER forget, and it will only fuel radicalism, and confrontations are going to absolutely continue. In my opinion, Israel lost because there could be no winner to a situation that they put themselves in.



:roll:

The radicals in the Islamic world wanted Israel destroyed before the war, they still do now. Nothing has changed.
 
Originally posted by: RichardE
I never wanted to kill every Palestine, but Israel did not strike fast enough and did not kill the Hamas leaders in Syria and Lebanon. The entire point of this war was to keep Israel safe. It worked on the border with Lebanon, it worked in the north and it will work now in Gaza. I would prefer as I am sure many would that you could kill every single Hamas individual, but the cost of civilians death would be too high. I notice you didn't comment on the article, there are threads that have made for opinions of the war in general to comment in, and CC asks that you make general comments there. This thread is specifically in regards to this op piece.

Actually my comment to the original article was "All you did was cut the grass. It will continue to grow" And by your own logic you should of placed this in the gaza thread as it has your opinion, but its a good thing all of this was discussed over in personal forum issues and worked out so people could post and discuss new articles on this subject without censorship, so you're good to go :thumbsup: But don't expect to be the judge dread on what is opinion and what is fact, that's kind of retarded. From what I understand people can't start threads based on opinion without a news article to go along with it not that they can't have an opinion at all. Whats the point of even posting if one can't have an opinion?
 
Originally posted by: brownzilla786
In my opinion, Israel lost because there could be no winner to a situation that they put themselves in.

Wait dude Richard doesn't want opinion in this thread. You have to take your opinions to the mega black hole opinion thread where nobody will read them.
 
Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
Originally posted by: brownzilla786
In my opinion, Israel lost because there could be no winner to a situation that they put themselves in.

Wait dude Richard doesn't want opinion in this thread. You have to take your opinions to the mega black hole opinion thread where nobody will read them.

I'm just trying not go let this be locked by it turning into a us versus them thread. You done trolling?
 
Originally posted by: RichardE
I'm just trying not go let this be locked by it turning into a us versus them thread. You done trolling?

Hey as long as your done saying nobody can have an opinion lets discuss the article. Israel should of kept killing like you said before and gotten it over with for good. Now your 100 year war just became a 200 year war.
 
I think they basically told the world, "if you want to mess with Israel, you will be stopped even if you are cowards and hide among citizens and use them to try and defend yourself."
 
Yeah, because Israel's attempts to attack and deter the militant groups arrayed against them has worked so well in the past.
 
Israel will never build much favor among Palestinians until Israel accepts Palestine's right to exist, until then all Israel can do is bribe factors like Fatah to be their goons while further engaging the rest of the the Palestinian population. Beliefs to the contrary are based on a backpack full lies, some of the more notable ones being outline by a former national director of the American Jewish Congress and of the Synagogue Council of America, here:

Israel?s Lies

Henry Siegman

Western governments and most of the Western media have accepted a number of Israeli claims justifying the military assault on Gaza: that Hamas consistently violated the six-month truce that Israel observed and then refused to extend it; that Israel therefore had no choice but to destroy Hamas?s capacity to launch missiles into Israeli towns; that Hamas is a terrorist organisation, part of a global jihadi network; and that Israel has acted not only in its own defence but on behalf of an international struggle by Western democracies against this network.

I am not aware of a single major American newspaper, radio station or TV channel whose coverage of the assault on Gaza questions this version of events. Criticism of Israel?s actions, if any (and there has been none from the Bush administration), has focused instead on whether the IDF?s carnage is proportional to the threat it sought to counter, and whether it is taking adequate measures to prevent civilian casualties.

Middle East peacemaking has been smothered in deceptive euphemisms, so let me state bluntly that each of these claims is a lie. Israel, not Hamas, violated the truce: Hamas undertook to stop firing rockets into Israel; in return, Israel was to ease its throttlehold on Gaza. In fact, during the truce, it tightened it further. This was confirmed not only by every neutral international observer and NGO on the scene but by Brigadier General (Res.) Shmuel Zakai, a former commander of the IDF?s Gaza Division. In an interview in Ha?aretz on 22 December, he accused Israel?s government of having made a ?central error? during the tahdiyeh, the six-month period of relative truce, by failing ?to take advantage of the calm to improve, rather than markedly worsen, the economic plight of the Palestinians of the Strip . . . When you create a tahdiyeh, and the economic pressure on the Strip continues,? General Zakai said, ?it is obvious that Hamas will try to reach an improved tahdiyeh, and that their way to achieve this is resumed Qassam fire . . . You cannot just land blows, leave the Palestinians in Gaza in the economic distress they?re in, and expect that Hamas will just sit around and do nothing.?

The truce, which began in June last year and was due for renewal in December, required both parties to refrain from violent action against the other. Hamas had to cease its rocket assaults and prevent the firing of rockets by other groups such as Islamic Jihad (even Israel?s intelligence agencies acknowledged this had been implemented with surprising effectiveness), and Israel had to put a stop to its targeted assassinations and military incursions. This understanding was seriously violated on 4 November, when the IDF entered Gaza and killed six members of Hamas. Hamas responded by launching Qassam rockets and Grad missiles. Even so, it offered to extend the truce, but only on condition that Israel ended its blockade. Israel refused. It could have met its obligation to protect its citizens by agreeing to ease the blockade, but it didn?t even try. It cannot be said that Israel launched its assault to protect its citizens from rockets. It did so to protect its right to continue the strangulation of Gaza?s population.

Everyone seems to have forgotten that Hamas declared an end to suicide bombings and rocket fire when it decided to join the Palestinian political process, and largely stuck to it for more than a year. Bush publicly welcomed that decision, citing it as an example of the success of his campaign for democracy in the Middle East. (He had no other success to point to.) When Hamas unexpectedly won the election, Israel and the US immediately sought to delegitimise the result and embraced Mahmoud Abbas, the head of Fatah, who until then had been dismissed by Israel?s leaders as a ?plucked chicken?. They armed and trained his security forces to overthrow Hamas; and when Hamas ? brutally, to be sure ? pre-empted this violent attempt to reverse the result of the first honest democratic election in the modern Middle East, Israel and the Bush administration imposed the blockade.

Israel seeks to counter these indisputable facts by maintaining that in withdrawing Israeli settlements from Gaza in 2005, Ariel Sharon gave Hamas the chance to set out on the path to statehood, a chance it refused to take; instead, it transformed Gaza into a launching-pad for firing missiles at Israel?s civilian population. The charge is a lie twice over. First, for all its failings, Hamas brought to Gaza a level of law and order unknown in recent years, and did so without the large sums of money that donors showered on the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority. It eliminated the violent gangs and warlords who terrorised Gaza under Fatah?s rule. Non-observant Muslims, Christians and other minorities have more religious freedom under Hamas rule than they would have in Saudi Arabia, for example, or under many other Arab regimes.

The greater lie is that Sharon?s withdrawal from Gaza was intended as a prelude to further withdrawals and a peace agreement. This is how Sharon?s senior adviser Dov Weisglass, who was also his chief negotiator with the Americans, described the withdrawal from Gaza, in an interview with Ha?aretz in August 2004:

What I effectively agreed to with the Americans was that part of the settlements [i.e. the major settlement blocks on the West Bank] would not be dealt with at all, and the rest will not be dealt with until the Palestinians turn into Finns . . . The significance [of the agreement with the US] is the freezing of the political process. And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state and you prevent a discussion about the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package that is called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed from our agenda indefinitely. And all this with [President Bush?s] authority and permission . . . and the ratification of both houses of Congress.

Do the Israelis and Americans think that Palestinians don?t read the Israeli papers, or that when they saw what was happening on the West Bank they couldn?t figure out for themselves what Sharon was up to?

Israel?s government would like the world to believe that Hamas launched its Qassam rockets because that is what terrorists do and Hamas is a generic terrorist group. In fact, Hamas is no more a ?terror organisation? (Israel?s preferred term) than the Zionist movement was during its struggle for a Jewish homeland. In the late 1930s and 1940s, parties within the Zionist movement resorted to terrorist activities for strategic reasons. According to Benny Morris, it was the Irgun that first targeted civilians. He writes in Righteous Victims that an upsurge of Arab terrorism in 1937 ?triggered a wave of Irgun bombings against Arab crowds and buses, introducing a new dimension to the conflict?. He also documents atrocities committed during the 1948-49 war by the IDF, admitting in a 2004 interview, published in Ha?aretz, that material released by Israel?s Ministry of Defence showed that ?there were far more Israeli acts of massacre than I had previously thought . . . In the months of April-May 1948, units of the Haganah were given operational orders that stated explicitly that they were to uproot the villagers, expel them, and destroy the villages themselves.? In a number of Palestinian villages and towns the IDF carried out organised executions of civilians. Asked by Ha?aretz whether he condemned the ethnic cleansing, Morris replied that he did not:

A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population. It was necessary to cleanse the hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads. It was necessary to cleanse the villages from which our convoys and our settlements were fired on.

In other words, when Jews target and kill innocent civilians to advance their national struggle, they are patriots. When their adversaries do so, they are terrorists.

It is too easy to describe Hamas simply as a ?terror organisation?. It is a religious nationalist movement that resorts to terrorism, as the Zionist movement did during its struggle for statehood, in the mistaken belief that it is the only way to end an oppressive occupation and bring about a Palestinian state. While Hamas?s ideology formally calls for that state to be established on the ruins of the state of Israel, this doesn?t determine Hamas?s actual policies today any more than the same declaration in the PLO charter determined Fatah?s actions.

These are not the conclusions of an apologist for Hamas but the opinions of the former head of Mossad and Sharon?s national security adviser, Ephraim Halevy. The Hamas leadership has undergone a change ?right under our very noses?, Halevy wrote recently in Yedioth Ahronoth, by recognising that ?its ideological goal is not attainable and will not be in the foreseeable future.? It is now ready and willing to see the establishment of a Palestinian state within the temporary borders of 1967. Halevy noted that while Hamas has not said how ?temporary? those borders would be, ?they know that the moment a Palestinian state is established with their co-operation, they will be obligated to change the rules of the game: they will have to adopt a path that could lead them far from their original ideological goals.? In an earlier article, Halevy also pointed out the absurdity of linking Hamas to al-Qaida.

In the eyes of al-Qaida, the members of Hamas are perceived as heretics due to their stated desire to participate, even indirectly, in processes of any understandings or agreements with Israel. [The Hamas political bureau chief, Khaled] Mashal?s declaration diametrically contradicts al-Qaida?s approach, and provides Israel with an opportunity, perhaps a historic one, to leverage it for the better.

Why then are Israel?s leaders so determined to destroy Hamas? Because they believe that its leadership, unlike that of Fatah, cannot be intimidated into accepting a peace accord that establishes a Palestinian ?state? made up of territorially disconnected entities over which Israel would be able to retain permanent control. Control of the West Bank has been the unwavering objective of Israel?s military, intelligence and political elites since the end of the Six-Day War.[*] They believe that Hamas would not permit such a cantonisation of Palestinian territory, no matter how long the occupation continues. They may be wrong about Abbas and his superannuated cohorts, but they are entirely right about Hamas.

Middle East observers wonder whether Israel?s assault on Hamas will succeed in destroying the organisation or expelling it from Gaza. This is an irrelevant question. If Israel plans to keep control over any future Palestinian entity, it will never find a Palestinian partner, and even if it succeeds in dismantling Hamas, the movement will in time be replaced by a far more radical Palestinian opposition.

If Barack Obama picks a seasoned Middle East envoy who clings to the idea that outsiders should not present their own proposals for a just and sustainable peace agreement, much less press the parties to accept it, but instead leave them to work out their differences, he will assure a future Palestinian resistance far more extreme than Hamas ? one likely to be allied with al-Qaida. For the US, Europe and most of the rest of the world, this would be the worst possible outcome. Perhaps some Israelis, including the settler leadership, believe it would serve their purposes, since it would provide the government with a compelling pretext to hold on to all of Palestine. But this is a delusion that would bring about the end of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.

Anthony Cordesman, one of the most reliable military analysts of the Middle East, and a friend of Israel, argued in a 9 January report for the Center for Strategic and International Studies that the tactical advantages of continuing the operation in Gaza were outweighed by the strategic cost ? and were probably no greater than any gains Israel may have made early in the war in selective strikes on key Hamas facilities. ?Has Israel somehow blundered into a steadily escalating war without a clear strategic goal, or at least one it can credibly achieve?? he asks. ?Will Israel end in empowering an enemy in political terms that it defeated in tactical terms? Will Israel?s actions seriously damage the US position in the region, any hope of peace, as well as moderate Arab regimes and voices in the process? To be blunt, the answer so far seems to be yes.? Cordesman concludes that ?any leader can take a tough stand and claim that tactical gains are a meaningful victory. If this is all that Olmert, Livni and Barak have for an answer, then they have disgraced themselves and damaged their country and their friends.?

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n02/sieg01_.html
 
You do realize that both sides are fervently trying to spin the outcome of the conflict to their favor, right?
 
It is too easy to describe Hamas simply as a ?terror organisation?. It is a religious nationalist movement that resorts to terrorism, as the Zionist movement did during its struggle for statehood, in the mistaken belief that it is the only way to end an oppressive occupation and bring about a Palestinian state

Zionists were attacked after the UN declared a two state solution, this author neglects the history of the Arabs running Jews off there farms in the 20's and 30's.

Israel seeks to counter these indisputable facts by maintaining that in withdrawing Israeli settlements from Gaza in 2005, Ariel Sharon gave Hamas the chance to set out on the path to statehood, a chance it refused to take; instead, it transformed Gaza into a launching-pad for firing missiles at Israel?s civilian population. The charge is a lie twice over. First, for all its failings, Hamas brought to Gaza a level of law and order unknown in recent years, and did so without the large sums of money that donors showered on the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority. It eliminated the violent gangs and warlords who terrorised Gaza under Fatah?s rule. Non-observant Muslims, Christians and other minorities have more religious freedom under Hamas rule than they would have in Saudi Arabia, for example, or under many other Arab regimes.

Thats like saying "We'll, sitting in a Saudi Arabia prison is better than an Iran prison because they won't torture you as much" Lipstick on a pig


Israel?s government would like the world to believe that Hamas launched its Qassam rockets because that is what terrorists do and Hamas is a generic terrorist group. In fact, Hamas is no more a ?terror organisation? (Israel?s preferred term) than the Zionist movement was during its struggle for a Jewish homeland. In the late 1930s and 1940s, parties within the Zionist movement resorted to terrorist activities for strategic reasons.

Again the Author ignores the Arabs torching of Jews homes and killing of Jews during this time period that was the main reason for the increasing popularity of the Zionist movement in the same nature as "black power" was happening in America due to African American oppression.



A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population. It was necessary to cleanse the hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads. It was necessary to cleanse the villages from which our convoys and our settlements were fired on.

In other words, when Jews target and kill innocent civilians to advance their national struggle, they are patriots. When their adversaries do so, they are terrorists.

The author ignores that Arab nations told the Arabs to leave due to what the Arab nation said would be a "ethnic cleansing of the Jews that would rival Europe"

Why then are Israel?s leaders so determined to destroy Hamas? Because they believe that its leadership, unlike that of Fatah, cannot be intimidated into accepting a peace accord that establishes a Palestinian ?state? made up of territorially disconnected entities over which Israel would be able to retain permanent control. Control of the West Bank has been the unwavering objective of Israel?s military, intelligence and political elites since the end of the Six-Day War.[*] They believe that Hamas would not permit such a cantonisation of Palestinian territory, no matter how long the occupation continues. They may be wrong about Abbas and his superannuated cohorts, but they are entirely right about Hamas.

The last offer of peace had a combined proper two state solution.


Israel recognizes the rights of Palestinians to exist, if it did not it would not have offered a two state solution multiple times, it is Hamas who does not offer the right to exist to Israel.
 
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: brownzilla786
Statistically speaking, Israel won the battle or "war". What the officials in Israel refuse to realize is that by mowing down 1300 civilians, wounding thousands more, and basically sticking up its middle finger to the UN, Israel has a tarnished image not only among Palestinians but among the countries around the world. What Israel did in Gaza the Palestinians will NEVER forget, and it will only fuel radicalism, and confrontations are going to absolutely continue. In my opinion, Israel lost because there could be no winner to a situation that they put themselves in.



:roll:

The radicals in the Islamic world wanted Israel destroyed before the war, they still do now. Nothing has changed.

Yes it is true that no matter what, some people will want Israel off the map. But that number could have been a small minority. With the thousands dead and thousands more wounded, how could you possibly steer a Palestinian who lost a son, daughter,brother, wife, etc. against radical actions. The war with Gaza only added fuel to the fire.
 
Originally posted by: brownzilla786
Yes it is true that no matter what, some people will want Israel off the map. But that number could have been a small minority. With the thousands dead and thousands more wounded, how could you possibly steer a Palestinian who lost a son, daughter,brother, wife, etc. against radical actions. The war with Gaza only added fuel to the fire.

Then it's time to extinguish the fire. Permanently.
 
They sure showed those innocent civilians a thing or two. That will teach them to go about their daily business in the future.
 
It would be a great day when a comet falls from the sky and wipes that whole area out. Killing off the jews, chrisitans, muslims, ect in the whole forsaken middle east.
 
Originally posted by: ICRS
It would be a great day when a comet falls from the sky and wipes that whole area out. Killing off the jews, chrisitans, muslims, ect in the whole forsaken middle east.

Actually, a comet would pretty much wipe out the whole planet. Mutual genocide would be far better, because we could watch the horror from the comfort of our homes.
 
Originally posted by: her209
You do realize that both sides are fervently trying to spin the outcome of the conflict to their favor, right?
Having studied this conflict for nearly a decade, I am quite aware of where all the spin is coming from, pushing favor for continuing Israel's conquest over Palestine. Best I can tell, most just simply perpetuate the spin subconsciously, out of an inability to face reality, such as RichardE and the Weekly standard types who wrote the article he posted.

Do you not realize there is a reality behind all this spin? Here is a documentary takes a close look at the reality of the conflict:

http://video.google.com/videop...9454859593416473&hl=en

That documentary was challenged by hordes of brainwashed Israel fanatifcs like, and vindicated though in British courts.
 
Originally posted by: theflyingpig
Originally posted by: ICRS
It would be a great day when a comet falls from the sky and wipes that whole area out. Killing off the jews, chrisitans, muslims, ect in the whole forsaken middle east.

Actually, a comet would pretty much wipe out the whole planet. Mutual genocide would be far better, because we could watch the horror from the comfort of our homes.

A small comet like the one that destroyed tunguska
 
Back
Top