Israel: Operation Protective Edge

[Pedja]

http://d3dsacqprgcsqh.cloudfront.net/photo/aDw0VQd_700b_v2.jpg

[bryant.coleman]

Here is a nice proposal from the Newyorker.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/put-gaza-u-n-mandate

Make Gaza a UN territory, with the peacekeepers from UN. Hamas won't be able to launch any more rockets at Israel, and the IDF will not have to bother about the safety of border settlements.

[Rigon]

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=ClYwDzrTaEs

I assume this is not the norm? For Israels sake I hope not.

[sana8410]

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=ClYwDzrTaEs

I 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.

[sana8410]

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.

[Rigon]

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.?

[sana8410]

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.

[sana8410]

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.

[sana8410]

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.

[umair127]

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.?

Then you have other factions operating in Gaza that hate both Israel and Hamas. Your more Salafi / Al Qaeda style operations and operations based on family clan structures; examples being: the Armies of Monotheism and Jihad in Palestine, the Army of Islam, and the Swords of Truth.

Likewise you have such groups stationed in the Sinai in Egypt as well (example: Ansar Jerusalem).

Verbal agreements are usually given for short ceasefires like this. Larger ones can be signed.

The larger ones though generally consist of more than simply not firing at each other, mainly because Hamas requires it. They will usually say something about the blockade, its restrictions, and the opening of crossing, most specifically Rafah for use.

Usually when the larger ceasefires are violated, they are violated long before violence escalates; deals reached with Hamas in Gaza also haven't historically applied to Hamas members in the West Bank which is another large cause of friction.

[Rigon]

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?

[zolace]

It is largely Jihadi Salafi groups firing the rockets, groups that are actually opposed to Hamas, which is why it is easier to recognize the overzealous targeting of Hamas in the campaign. the same was true of their search for and accusations surrounding the missing students which third party groups claimed responsibility for, but which Netanyahu took the opportunity to blame on Hamas instead and used it as a justification to illegally harass and target Hamas affiliates.

Easy. Because these Salafist groups are operating because of either the incompetence of Hamas, or their weakness, and because of the acquiescence or support of the civilian population.
Collective responsibility merits collective punishment. Gaza's population supported Hamas, and acquiesces to, if not outright supports the Salafists. It makes absolute sense to hold them collectively responsible for allowing terrorists to operate amongst them.

There's never been a good example of an occupying force succeeding with a population-centric counter insurgency strategy. The most successful examples of crushing insurgencies, like Sri Lanka, involved a willingness to use violence and force to achieve victory.

You're contradicting yourself here, Salafists tend to hate the Muslim Brotherhood. Claiming that the Gazan population loves both the Salafists and Hamas doesn't make any sense. It's also dumb to assume that just because a group operates within a territory that 1.) the government likes them and 2.) that the population likes them. I'm pretty sure that the people who suffer from Mayi Mayi attacks in the DRC don't do so with smiles. Nor does it make sense to bomb government forces that are aligned against them if your goal is to see them destroyed. It's pretty dumb to bomb Kinshasa and kill their soldiers while asking them why they aren't able to kill off the M23 rebels.

Collective responsibility merits collective punishment. Gaza's population supported Hamas, and acquiesces to, if not outright supports the Salafists. It makes absolute sense to hold them collectively responsible for allowing terrorists to operate amongst them.

Of course using collective punishment like that in the Congo is stupid. It would be stupid to kill civilians in Herat or other non-Pashtun regions of Afghanistan in response to the Taliban’s insurgency for the same reason. In either case, they’re far removed from the conflict and don’t really have the ability to intervene.

In contrast, the Salafists are operating amongst civilians in Gaza. The civilians aren’t making any serious attempt to stop them and in all probability, are actively aiding them. If the M23 were getting support from particular villages, then it would make sense to target those civilians. Similarly, Pashtun villages that collaborate with insurgents should be demolished by carpet bombing. Gaza’s civilians must be taught to stop supporting people who attack Israel, so it makes sense to collectively punish them.

Personally, I’d be far less restrained than the Israelis were being if insurgents in some neighboring country were firing rockets at mine.

1.) You're still contradicting yourself when it comes to then notion of dual Palestinian support for both Hamas and Salafi organizations. The two are diametrically opposed to and hate one another. Suggesting that everyone in Gaza supports both is silly because that's not the kind of relationship that the Brotherhood has with Salafis. They don't even have the same goals; Salafis are against the idea of a Palestinian state and don't support working through government mechanisms in Gaza, so claiming that they support Hamas: a political governmental organization aiming to establish a Palestinian state, is more than a bit off.

2.) The notion of collective responsibility is the same exact justification that the Al Qassam brigade uses to justify launching rockets at Israeli civilians. Congratulations, you're a supporter of terrorism.

3.) The concept of collective responsibility in Gaza doesn't even make any sense seeing as how it ignores the fact that Hamas doesn't rule there with the direct consent of the people. They weren't elected overlords of Gaza and there was no referendum on rocket attacks. They seized Gaza by force after the civil conflict with Fatah. Even outside of this, the notion of collective responsibility and thus the oking of collective punishment is not recognized as valid or legal under either international law, or Israeli law.

1) So where do these Salafists derive support from? Mars? They use civilians as human shields and derive support, or at least acquiescence, of the civilian poulation. Why not hold the civilians responsible for failing to take action against them?

2) I'm aware of that. However, the only question of importance is how to engineer the outcome you want. If the Qassam brigades shoot rockets, or other non-state actors commit acts of terrorism, it's best to throw proportionality out the window and escalate violence to a level they can't match. State actors will have that advantage against non-state ones, and really ought to take advantage of it.

3) The idea is more to deter civilians and punish them for not taking action against the terrorists operating amongst them. I'm completely aware of the fact that it's not consistent with international law, but think that's secondary to defeating this kind of radicalism.

They derive support from small cells and specific families. Trying to tie them directly to the rest of the population and then justify targeting said civilian population because of ethnic ties is dumb. It would be like saying that Syria should bomb all ethnic Russian civilians (or that the Russian government should) simply because there are ethnic Russians that engage in terrorist attacks in Russia and who are fighting jihad in Syria.

The "ethnic Russians" are almost entirely Chechens and other Caucasian peoples. Collective punishment has to apply to a meaningful collective group.

If they derive support from specific families, perhaps it would be reasonable for Israeli forces to burn down or demolish the homes belonging to relatives of Salafist insurgents?

[zolace]

2) I'm aware of that. However, the only question of importance is how to engineer the outcome you want. If the Qassam brigades shoot rockets, or other non-state actors commit acts of terrorism, it's best to throw proportionality out the window and escalate violence to a level they can't match. State actors will have that advantage against non-state ones, and really ought to take advantage of it.

I highly doubt that the outcome a state wants is reflected in global isolation or in a failed state status.

3) The idea is more to deter civilians and punish them for not taking action against the terrorists operating amongst them. I'm completely aware of the fact that it's not consistent with international law, but think that's secondary to defeating this kind of radicalism.

So then you believe that you should be targeted then? Afterall if you are in Moscow then you live in a country where you allow terrorist groups to exist and carry out attacks. So you must be supporting them right?

Russia systematically demolished Grozny, killing thousands of civilians. The West shrugged. Just because you fight a really aggressive campaign against terrorists doesn't automatically mean international isolation.

[zolace]

So then you believe that you should be targeted then? Afterall if you are in Moscow then you live in a country where you allow terrorist groups to exist and carry out attacks. So you must be supporting them right?

Of course not. It doesn't make sense to target groups that provide no material support for insurgents. For instance, if one wished to practice collective punishment in Iraq, why would you target the Kurds since they clearly OPPOSE the insurgency? Targetting the Sunnis in Iraq, Pashtuns in Afghanistan, or Chechens in Russia makes absolute sense. Doing the same for the Kurds, Hazara, or ethnic Russians does not.

[sana8410]

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.

[zolace]

We did? The only collective punishment I can recall in the Congo was Mobutu's alliance with the Hutu groups, along with stoking inter-ethnic conflict against the Banyamulenge Tutsis as a play to preserve his power. That backfired horribly when the Banyamulenge aligned with Rwanda and formed the basis of the force that tossed Mobutu out. In any case, it's a really bad example since a lot of the "collective punishment" in the Eastern Congo is just random violence by militias.

Then you don't remember the DR Congo conflict very well. All sides engaged in such tactics, including the professional armies of Mobutu himself, and the armies of Rwanda, Uganda, and Burundi, along with their direct proxies, and I can assure you that a lot of the violence from them wasn't simply "random violence" but was very targeted along ethnic lines.

(Totally random, and irrelevant aside, are you really describing Mobutu's forces as professional? )
Aside from the Banyamulenge being targeted by the FDLR and Mobutu's government, and a continuation of violence against Tutsis by remnants of the Interahamwe, and Rwandan massacres of Hutu refugees? Those are the only examples of truly ethnically targeted violence committed towards a particular end in the Congo that I can think of.

I don't like using the Congo as an example of much of anything when it comes to modern war. It's only a modern conflict in terms of the weapons. In terms of its dynamics, it was an anachronism that played out like the 30 Years War, with limited true military clashes and lots of civilian deaths caused by rampaging and pillaging military forces.

[zolace]

So is Hamas too incompetent to stop the rockets, or does it just not care?

Is Russia too incompetent to prevent a thousand Chechens from streaming into Syria to wage Jihad or does it just not care? Should we blame Russia for the activities of Chechens in Ukraine too?

The Rwandans also have nowhere near enough power to really control the Congo in the same way the Israelis could deal with Gaza.

To the same extent as Israel in Gaza? No, but they had a large professional and well experienced army.

The Assad administration is winning, and was essentially forced to use those tactics anyway since he had no realistic alternative except surrender.

Interesting how you had to ignore the Sudan and Iraq examples.

No more than the British or French are for their citizens going to Syria to fight. Lots of the Chechens had fled Russia in the period immediately after the active combat phases of the Second Chechen war, or had escaped Russian mopping up operations and fled into the more inaccessible parts of the Caucasus. Lots of them hide out in the Pankisi gorge in Georgia, so if anything, it makes more sense for Russia to bomb Georgia again for failing to do something about it.

[boumalo]

Few facts :

-Most Israeli don't support their government actions like the British, French or Americans don't support most wars made by their politicians

-Israel is stronger than Palestine since its economy is extremely more advanced, they received money from oversea and their armee is quite strong but they are actually weak in a long term perspective because a lot of people hate them, especially from countries around them

-All countries would protect the surrounding of a their city if they were bombed daily, at least hope so

-Hamas is the worst for Palestine

-Reports on what is happening in Palestine is not facts, including the number of innocent civil casualties

[zolace]

To the same extent as Israel in Gaza? No, but they had a large professional and well experienced army.

Rwanda is a nation of 12 million. The Congo has 78 million inhabitants. There's also no measurable material difference in terms of equipment, though the Rwandans are FAR more professional. It simply isn't possible for a relatively small nation to occupy a big one, especially an infrastructure clusterfuck like the Congo.

Israel, on the other hand, has enormous reserves of heavy conventional arms which inhabitants of Gaza have no access to. Israel possesses the capability to systematically flatten Gaza and overwhelm its defenders like Russia did in Grozny.

[Rigon]

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.