They can't be trusted, any more than if Israel said they would go along with the ceasefire, and some faction within Israel decided to attack Palestinians. That literally happens during every single ceasefire that has ever existed and lasted any significant amount of time since Hamas' takeover of Gaza. Also, according to these standards, the Abbas government should be in a permanent state of war with Israel. You seem to want to delve into the reasons both sides hate each other. That's not what I'm discussing. I'm discussing the ability of Hamas to live up to it's promises, when the political arm of it and the military arm seem to never know what the other is doing. And then Hamas has people like this for their spokesman: http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/ham.../04/id/586835/These people are literally insane, and can't really be negotiated with, with any degree of confidence. What you seem to want is for Hamas to be a more highly centralized dictatorial governance structure than it actually is and is capable of being and all of this despite the huge destruction of the Strip's infrastructure. It is unrealistic to expect things to be able to be 100% controlled right away. That's impossible, and such impossibilities are not limited to this conflict, it is a pretty standard characteristic of conflicts in general. And if you want me to start on the broader "living up to ceasefire promises" issue, then Israel performs just as badly in that department via historical ceasefires; only they do so under the venue of actually having strong control over its factions which makes the violations official state policy rather than an inability to control some fringe elements. Can you give some examples of Israel not living up to ceasefire agreements where the parties involved weren't tried in a transparent court of law? I can give several, both blatant violations, violations by third parties, and violations of what I would call the spirit of the ceasefire. 1.) Blatant violations largely surround the issue of border closure policies and the blockade. Every day that Israel closed the borders on humanitarian aid and civilian commercial flow, every day that it prevented Palestinians from fishing is a day that past ceasefires have been violated. That applies especially to Operation Cast Lead and is exactly the reason why Hamas didn't renew the ceasefire which led to the violence. 2.) Pricetag attacks are pretty common in the West Bank and have been on the rise. That represents third parties under Israeli jurisdiction engaging in acts of terrorism against Palestinians while ceasefires were in effect (the pricetag attacks are fairly regular). 3.) In terms of the spirit of the law. Israel routinely targets Hamas members (and members of other Gazan factions) in the West Bank during ceasefires with Hamas. When Hamas has complained in the past Israel's response has been "Our ceasefire only applies to Gaza." When you kill or arbitrarily arrest members of say the Palestinian Islamic Jihad's familial structure in the West Bank you shouldn't be surprised when Hamas' ability to coerce said organization into refraining from retaliating is somewhat compromised. I don't see any examples there. Also, 1) is not a ceasefire violation. 2) would be subject to what I described earlier with transparent trials and 3) is pretty straightforward. If a country agrees to a ceasefire with one party under specific terms, it doesn't affect other countries or other groups unless it's specifically part of the ceasefire. But I would like to browse through some examples if possible of the sort of blatant disregard for ceasefires such as the recent Hamas disaster. It absolutely is as the terms of many of the past ceasefires stipulate conditionals regarding the blockade. Saying it isn't a breach of past ceasefires seems to indicate a lack of familiarity of what all the past ceasefires entailed. |
|
|
|
Also, you didn't deal with the insane person Osama Hamdan and his comments. As I think you know, I find both parties to blame. But at this point, Hamas is a huge deterrent to anything being accomplished. Their comments are pretty much insane, and they don't even bother to agree that Israel has a right to exist. There really is no way for Israel to negotiate.
Which is what makes Israel not being a partner for peace with Abbas and instead breathing life into Hamas all the more frustrating. I would love nothing more than to see Hamas politically marginalized and eventually dismantled, Israeli policy isn't conducive to that though. This is just rhetoric. I suspect Israel would be willing to engage in peace talks with anyone that agrees that Israel actually exists. Aslong as Palestinians elect Hamas, it's kind of pointless to expect Israel to negotiate with people only negotiating in bad faith. Hamas' is really a catch-all term that we use for the organization. Hamas technically is a civil service and political organization and network. It's militant wing (what most people probably think of when they say Hamas) are the Al Qassam Brigades. 90% of Hamas (the entire umbrella) is rooted in non-militant activities; everything from the running of soup kitchens, to sports teams, to schools, charities, community centers, etc. Being a member of / employed by Hamas doesn't mean that you are automatically a militant. You are saying Hamas is not really a militant group while also saying they have the militant wing that is causing the problems. You can't have it both ways. Hamas isn't one or the other it is both. Trying to tell me that employees at a Hamas run soup kitchen should be considered militants is somewhat ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Sana,Alphy, what's the deal with this? A similar dispute over casualty figures occurred during Israel’s “Operation Cast Lead” in the Gaza Strip in January 2009. The Israelis contended that the majority of the fatalities were combatants; the Palestinians claimed they were civilians. The media and international organizations tended to side with the Palestinians. The UN’s own investigatory commission headed by Richard Goldstone, which produced the Goldstone Report, cited PCHR’s figures along with other Palestinian groups providing similar figures. Over a year later, after the news media had moved on, Hamas Interior Minister Fathi Hammad enumerated Hamas fatalities at 600 to 700, a figure close to the Israeli estimate of 709 and about three times higher than the figure of 236 combatants provided by PCHR in 2009 and cited in the Goldstone Report. Initially, playing to the international audience, it was important for Hamas to reinforce the image of Israel’s military action as indiscriminate and disproportionate by emphasizing the high number of civilians and low number of Hamas combatants among the fatalities. However, later on, Hamas had to deal with the flip side of the issue: that Hamas’s own constituency, the Gazan population, felt they had been abandoned by the Hamas government, which had made no effort to shelter them. http://time.com/3035937/gaza-israel-...an-casualties/Hamas' is really a catch-all term that we use for the organization. Hamas technically is a civil service and political organization and network. It's militant wing (what most people probably think of when they say Hamas) are the Al Qassam Brigades. 90% of Hamas (the entire umbrella) is rooted in non-militant activities; everything from the running of soup kitchens, to sports teams, to schools, charities, community centers, etc. Being a member of / employed by Hamas doesn't mean that you are automatically a militant. sooooo.... what are the numbers we believe? Like I said before, death statistics are always difficult to calculate in the best of times. I tend to go with the UN figures since they tend to be a little more conservative. During Operation Cast Lead Israel declared anything Hamas a legitimate target, so when Israel calculates its figures it is likely to classify all civilian employees of Hamas as simply "militants" without making the distinction between someone from the Al Qassam Brigades and someone who was say a Hamas soccer coach or political activist. |
|
|
|
Sana,Alphy, what's the deal with this? A similar dispute over casualty figures occurred during Israel’s “Operation Cast Lead” in the Gaza Strip in January 2009. The Israelis contended that the majority of the fatalities were combatants; the Palestinians claimed they were civilians. The media and international organizations tended to side with the Palestinians. The UN’s own investigatory commission headed by Richard Goldstone, which produced the Goldstone Report, cited PCHR’s figures along with other Palestinian groups providing similar figures. Over a year later, after the news media had moved on, Hamas Interior Minister Fathi Hammad enumerated Hamas fatalities at 600 to 700, a figure close to the Israeli estimate of 709 and about three times higher than the figure of 236 combatants provided by PCHR in 2009 and cited in the Goldstone Report. Initially, playing to the international audience, it was important for Hamas to reinforce the image of Israel’s military action as indiscriminate and disproportionate by emphasizing the high number of civilians and low number of Hamas combatants among the fatalities. However, later on, Hamas had to deal with the flip side of the issue: that Hamas’s own constituency, the Gazan population, felt they had been abandoned by the Hamas government, which had made no effort to shelter them. http://time.com/3035937/gaza-israel-...an-casualties/Hamas' is really a catch-all term that we use for the organization. Hamas technically is a civil service and political organization and network. It's militant wing (what most people probably think of when they say Hamas) are the Al Qassam Brigades. 90% of Hamas (the entire umbrella) is rooted in non-militant activities; everything from the running of soup kitchens, to sports teams, to schools, charities, community centers, etc. Being a member of / employed by Hamas doesn't mean that you are automatically a militant. |
|
|
|
Also, you didn't deal with the insane person Osama Hamdan and his comments. As I think you know, I find both parties to blame. But at this point, Hamas is a huge deterrent to anything being accomplished. Their comments are pretty much insane, and they don't even bother to agree that Israel has a right to exist. There really is no way for Israel to negotiate.
Which is what makes Israel not being a partner for peace with Abbas and instead breathing life into Hamas all the more frustrating. I would love nothing more than to see Hamas politically marginalized and eventually dismantled, Israeli policy isn't conducive to that though. |
|
|
|
They can't be trusted, any more than if Israel said they would go along with the ceasefire, and some faction within Israel decided to attack Palestinians. That literally happens during every single ceasefire that has ever existed and lasted any significant amount of time since Hamas' takeover of Gaza. Also, according to these standards, the Abbas government should be in a permanent state of war with Israel. You seem to want to delve into the reasons both sides hate each other. That's not what I'm discussing. I'm discussing the ability of Hamas to live up to it's promises, when the political arm of it and the military arm seem to never know what the other is doing. And then Hamas has people like this for their spokesman: http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/ham.../04/id/586835/These people are literally insane, and can't really be negotiated with, with any degree of confidence. What you seem to want is for Hamas to be a more highly centralized dictatorial governance structure than it actually is and is capable of being and all of this despite the huge destruction of the Strip's infrastructure. It is unrealistic to expect things to be able to be 100% controlled right away. That's impossible, and such impossibilities are not limited to this conflict, it is a pretty standard characteristic of conflicts in general. And if you want me to start on the broader "living up to ceasefire promises" issue, then Israel performs just as badly in that department via historical ceasefires; only they do so under the venue of actually having strong control over its factions which makes the violations official state policy rather than an inability to control some fringe elements. Can you give some examples of Israel not living up to ceasefire agreements where the parties involved weren't tried in a transparent court of law? I can give several, both blatant violations, violations by third parties, and violations of what I would call the spirit of the ceasefire. 1.) Blatant violations largely surround the issue of border closure policies and the blockade. Every day that Israel closed the borders on humanitarian aid and civilian commercial flow, every day that it prevented Palestinians from fishing is a day that past ceasefires have been violated. That applies especially to Operation Cast Lead and is exactly the reason why Hamas didn't renew the ceasefire which led to the violence. 2.) Pricetag attacks are pretty common in the West Bank and have been on the rise. That represents third parties under Israeli jurisdiction engaging in acts of terrorism against Palestinians while ceasefires were in effect (the pricetag attacks are fairly regular). 3.) In terms of the spirit of the law. Israel routinely targets Hamas members (and members of other Gazan factions) in the West Bank during ceasefires with Hamas. When Hamas has complained in the past Israel's response has been "Our ceasefire only applies to Gaza." When you kill or arbitrarily arrest members of say the Palestinian Islamic Jihad's familial structure in the West Bank you shouldn't be surprised when Hamas' ability to coerce said organization into refraining from retaliating is somewhat compromised. |
|
|
|
They can't be trusted, any more than if Israel said they would go along with the ceasefire, and some faction within Israel decided to attack Palestinians. That literally happens during every single ceasefire that has ever existed and lasted any significant amount of time since Hamas' takeover of Gaza. Also, according to these standards, the Abbas government should be in a permanent state of war with Israel. You seem to want to delve into the reasons both sides hate each other. That's not what I'm discussing. I'm discussing the ability of Hamas to live up to it's promises, when the political arm of it and the military arm seem to never know what the other is doing. And then Hamas has people like this for their spokesman: http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/ham.../04/id/586835/These people are literally insane, and can't really be negotiated with, with any degree of confidence. What you seem to want is for Hamas to be a more highly centralized dictatorial governance structure than it actually is and is capable of being and all of this despite the huge destruction of the Strip's infrastructure. It is unrealistic to expect things to be able to be 100% controlled right away. That's impossible, and such impossibilities are not limited to this conflict, it is a pretty standard characteristic of conflicts in general. And if you want me to start on the broader "living up to ceasefire promises" issue, then Israel performs just as badly in that department via historical ceasefires; only they do so under the venue of actually having strong control over its factions which makes the violations official state policy rather than an inability to control some fringe elements. |
|
|
|
okay so both sides agree to getting an independent monitor to administer the ceasefire on the the countdown to the ceasefire the monitor says ... "right you lot, no shooting after the count of three, - one ... two ... bang - ah someone shot me in the ass, - now stop that you bunch of feckin' hooligans" And the shelling of Rafah (which has killed up to 40), but yes it is over. It is hard to tell which militant group broke it this time, but it was likely a Palestinian one rather than the IDF. I find this a bit disingenuous. Does it matter which group broke it, other than for internal finger pointing at this point? Yes. All Palestinian armed groups are hardly unified, and treating them as such is tactically and politically a misstep. It's like failing to realize (or more likely not caring) about the divide between Hamas and its armed wing and not giving them enough time to bring the armed wing in line back for the first ceasefire which could have avoided the entire ground incursion. But the problem is that Hamas "guaranteed" the ceasefire. If they are unable to do that, they shouldn't be saying they can. It makes their words worthless. They can't be trusted, any more than if Israel said they would go along with the ceasefire, and some faction within Israel decided to attack Palestinians. Trying to point fingers does nothing for the main issue, which is trustworthiness. Israel has been striking every security provision aspect of Hamas that they can and you think that they should be able to perfectly control, not only other militant factions, but Salafi Jihadis as well when far less devastated states can't even do that? You can say all this, but in fact if Hamas is willing to offer/accept a ceasefire, then they need to be able to enforce it on their side. They have proven incapable of doing that. I'm not particularly aware of Israel starting an attack during an existing ceasefire. Pricetag attacks by settlers are pretty common in the West Bank (and have even made the DoS' list of terrorist activities) as is the deliberate targeting of Hamas persons for arbitrary arrest and detention during ceasefires (once again, in the West Bank). Israel has not only failed to significantly curb these attacks, but generally speaking impunity rules the day in them. |
|
|
|
They can't be trusted, any more than if Israel said they would go along with the ceasefire, and some faction within Israel decided to attack Palestinians. That literally happens during every single ceasefire that has ever existed and lasted any significant amount of time since Hamas' takeover of Gaza. Also, according to these standards, the Abbas government should be in a permanent state of war with Israel. |
|
|
|
okay so both sides agree to getting an independent monitor to administer the ceasefire on the the countdown to the ceasefire the monitor says ... "right you lot, no shooting after the count of three, - one ... two ... bang - ah someone shot me in the ass, - now stop that you bunch of feckin' hooligans" And the shelling of Rafah (which has killed up to 40), but yes it is over. It is hard to tell which militant group broke it this time, but it was likely a Palestinian one rather than the IDF. I find this a bit disingenuous. Does it matter which group broke it, other than for internal finger pointing at this point? Yes. All Palestinian armed groups are hardly unified, and treating them as such is tactically and politically a misstep. It's like failing to realize (or more likely not caring) about the divide between Hamas and its armed wing and not giving them enough time to bring the armed wing in line back for the first ceasefire which could have avoided the entire ground incursion. But the problem is that Hamas "guaranteed" the ceasefire. If they are unable to do that, they shouldn't be saying they can. It makes their words worthless. They can't be trusted, any more than if Israel said they would go along with the ceasefire, and some faction within Israel decided to attack Palestinians. Trying to point fingers does nothing for the main issue, which is trustworthiness. Israel has been striking every security provision aspect of Hamas that they can and you think that they should be able to perfectly control, not only other militant factions, but Salafi Jihadis as well when far less devastated states can't even do that? |
|
|
|
|
Perhaps what you don't see that you are making a fool of yourself in the process by continuing to enable him. Almost like making cruel fun of the mentally/intellectually challenged.
It's beneath you.
|
|
|
|
I'm seeing to what lengths zolace will go to avoid accepting the obvious conclusion that people don't need religion whatsoever to have good morals, be happy, love their families, lead productive lives, love, etc etc etc.
You've made your point many time over. Everyone knows zolace will never accept facts or "obvious conclusions" that prove him wrong. zolace has never been correct in anything he posts, and proving him wrong has never stopped him for posting garbage in a lame attempt to avoid the fact that he is wrong. he is way beyond foolish pride, or stubborn, out-right pig-headedness. He's just plain stupid. |
|
|
|
okay so both sides agree to getting an independent monitor to administer the ceasefire on the the countdown to the ceasefire the monitor says ... "right you lot, no shooting after the count of three, - one ... two ... bang - ah someone shot me in the ass, - now stop that you bunch of feckin' hooligans" And the shelling of Rafah (which has killed up to 40), but yes it is over. It is hard to tell which militant group broke it this time, but it was likely a Palestinian one rather than the IDF. I find this a bit disingenuous. Does it matter which group broke it, other than for internal finger pointing at this point? Yes. All Palestinian armed groups are hardly unified, and treating them as such is tactically and politically a misstep. It's like failing to realize (or more likely not caring) about the divide between Hamas and its armed wing and not giving them enough time to bring the armed wing in line back for the first ceasefire which could have avoided the entire ground incursion. |
|
|
|
can someone (ie. sana) explain to me how these ceasefires work, who on both sides is involved, who sets the terms, is something signed, etc.?
It really depends on the ceasefire in question. We also have to keep in mind that there are more than two groups involved here as well. the IDF and Hamas are not the only main actors (in fact most of the rockets and mortars fired in the run up to the operation were not fired by Hamas). Hamas is the strongest of a number of militant Palestinian factions in Gaza, and it has (by far) the largest social service provision network which makes it the most resilient as well. There are other major militant actors though, both in the form of Palestinian nationalist fighting militias like Al-Quds (a militant branch of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad movement), the Abdullah Azzam Brigade (the Gaza branch), and the Popular Resistance committee and its militia branches. Then you also have discord and disagreement between Hamas (the political wing) and its militant wing the Al Qassam Brigade. Hamas may agree to a ceasefire, but can't get its Al Qassam Brigades or other military factions on board. This is what happened with the first proposed Egyptian ceasefire. Hamas said yes, Al Qassam said no. Usually Hamas can get Al Qassam to march to its tune given a little time (since officially it controls it), but that wasn't given in the window of the ceasefire. |
|
|
|
|
And the shelling of Rafah (which has killed up to 40), but yes it is over. It is hard to tell which militant group broke it this time, but it was likely a Palestinian one rather than the IDF.
|
|
|
|
|
Such a tactic can only exist in the short run while fighting continues. Once it stops, such tactics cannot endure. that's why post-fighting reporting is so important.
Also of note: Just because someone who is Hamas or works for them dies, doesn't make that person a militant or terrorist. 90% of Hamas' operations have nothing to do with violence and rest in civil service provision. Labeling the local soup kitchen chef as a terrorist because he is employed by Hamas is more than a bit disingenuous. That was over pretty much as soon as it was announced.
|
|
|
|
According to UN figures, around 900 of the fatalities are men.
I'll leave you to decide if they were "mostly civilians" as is claimed.
Consider three things:
1) Hamas put out an instructional video telling palestinians that every death should be described as a "civilian casualty"
2) Hamas controls everything in Gaza including the Health Ministry
3) Hamas 'clears' their dead from scenes.
After Cast Lead in 2009, they claimed 46 dead.
It was only about 6 months later that they owned up to 600-700 dead. They had lied to the media and the UN.
1.) That isn't accurate 2.) Women are more likely to stay inside on a regular basis so they are caught in the open less. 3.) It isn't a crime to be a man, your attempted logic has no legal standing. Talk to the UN. Even AlJazeera reported these figures. Sure. All 900 men were innocently going about their day. Given the points I made coupled with the fact that the IDF confirmed 400 terrorist hits about a week ago (they can name a fair few of them) it would indicate to me that the greater proportion of that 900 are combatants. I get and read daily briefings from the UN. According to their actual figures (as of August 1st) just over 2/3rds of all deaths have been civilian. The 106 UN buildings that they've hit aren't "terrorist hits" try again. |
|
|
|
Or Israel could actually be a partner for peace and live up to their peace plan promises and thus marginalize Hamas politically to the point of making them irrelevant. But that will never happen since Netanyahu isn't interested in a two state solution at all and never has been. Hard to do when you are fighting people like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClYwDzrTaEsI assume this is not the norm? For Israels sake I hope not. It's hard because Israel can't build a coalition government without relying on conservative king maker parties that don't want a two state solution. Even if Netanyahu were to announce the halting of settlement expansion tomorrow and a discussion on 67 for the West Bank only while keeping Hamas in Gaza under lock down his government would still collapse as the conservative parties withdrew their support. Even the Likud party charter of Netanyahu's party rejects the idea of a two state solution and advocates permanent occupation. |
|
|
|
|
I can only re-tell my own experiences. Last November I felt a kick in my stomach. I thought it was for me. Last month my father passed. And yeah, the few times that I was kicked in the back I always got screwed shortly thereafter.
|
|
|
|
|
that's why I'm saying these things are undefined. if these aren't outright subjective, they are near impossible to nail down, just because each one has about a million complex factors that goes into it, and of course you have to deal with lots of unknowns. even worse, because of that, it's easy to lie about it.
and then the risk/reward profile is also subjective. if israel for instance says, 99% chance we won't hit the hospital, that means that 1 out of every 100 times they will kill lots of civilians. what is the exact risk/reward profile that constitutes a war crime. even 99.9% means 1 out of every 1000. how many missiles has israel fired? some crazy amount.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
