Israel: Operation Protective Edge

[zolace]

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

I've discussed Iraq already. Saddam actually successfully used collective punishment and violence-based strategies to crush the Shiite insurgency. It took the most powerful military force in the world to dislodge him from power, so I'd hardly say that it proves collective punishment doesn't work.

Sudan I can see as a fairly good counterexample, but again, the factions it faced were closer to parity in terms of power relative to the government in Khartoum. Hamas doesn't have any serious conventional response to Israeli forces in the same way the JEM or SPLA did.

[zolace]

Russia in Chechnya was able to use thermobaric bombs on civilian targets, shoot civilians into mass graves, and use home demolitions without any serious international repercussions.

And the Caucasus remain unstable to this day, and likewise the russian government is nowhere near able to exert as much influence in the region as the Untied States government is able to exert on every part of its country.

Not denying that. But it's essentially an act of empire building to keep the Caucasus as part of Russia, so I'd say it's rather different from comparing an internal conflict within the US to an internal conflict between Russia and Chechnya.

[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.

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?

[zolace]

You're forgetting that we used the gassing of the Kurds as justification to damage his regime from afar and then used it in part to drum up support to kill him (which we did). Once again, you seem to be living in a fantasy world where there are no internal or external reactions to mass abuses.

Which became a justification long after the fact, and only after he decided to invade Kuwait. The official US government view was that the Halabja poison gas attacks were the work of Iran. Totally understandable considering that he was essentially an American proxy during the Iran-Iraq war. If he hadn't invaded Kuwait, the US wasn't going to attack him for it.

Or take Hafez Assad. He was able to butcher 20-40,000 civilians in Hama for supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, using tanks and artillery to systematically flatten areas that harbored anti-regime forces. Nothing happened to him and the Soviet Union continued to support him.

The truth is nations react to human rights abuses when they find it in their interests to do so. That's why America was perfectly happy to secretly supply the Nicaraguan Contras, or indirectly support Pol Pot's insurgency against the Vietnamese-backed Cambodian government, but intervened when Iraq seized Kuwait's oil reserves and put America's energy security at risk.

[zolace]

Yes. Libya was stopped by France and Sudan by the USA. Not the best of examples since Sudan is also conventionally weak compared to the Israelis.

1.) Libya wasn't stopped by France, France held them off for a while but they were fine to let him have northern Chad and to have western Darfur. France was fairly cozy with Gaddafi, they wanted his oil.

2.) The US didn't stop anything in Sudan. In fact, Sudan remains one of the largest active conflict zones in the world, and Bashir's policies haven't helped him come out on top.

3.) It's interesting how you seem to think that when foreign intervention is involved then the examples shouldn't count. Unfortunately for you and your theories, that's not the way that the world works.

The Chadians got quite a lot of arms from France. The US was even more consistently pro-Chad than the French when it came to providing arms to use against Gaddafi.

The US is known to have supplied the SPLA with arms and other support. It's partially why they were so successful.

[sana8410]

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.

[zolace]

3.) It's interesting how you seem to think that when foreign intervention is involved then the examples shouldn't count. Unfortunately for you and your theories, that's not the way that the world works.

It's a different dynamic. Saddam was a shitty leader because he allowed himself to be internationally isolated by alienating all of his former allies and then tried to grab Kuwait while having essentially no support from anyone. It had nothing to do with his use of collective punishment against the Kurds, and certainly not the post-Gulf War Shia Uprisings.

[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.

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.

[zolace]

It only took a US invasion to do it, but hey, clear failure, right?

As someone who is supposed to be all about the outcome, I would assume that death would be nothing but a failure. Your example failed to maintain his position, thus he failed.

It's under control. Yes. There are terror threats which emerge from it to impact Russia, but beyond that, it's pretty much been crushed.

Weekly violence is hardly "under control".

Yes, but not for the reasons we’re discussing. The North Caucasus isn’t really defined by weekly violence. It has a lower murder rate (9.4 per 100,000) than Chicago (15 per 100,000).

[cryptasm]

3.) It's interesting how you seem to think that when foreign intervention is involved then the examples shouldn't count. Unfortunately for you and your theories, that's not the way that the world works.

It's a different dynamic. Saddam was a shitty leader because he allowed himself to be internationally isolated by alienating all of his former allies and then tried to grab Kuwait while having essentially no support from anyone. It had nothing to do with his use of collective punishment against the Kurds, and certainly not the post-Gulf War Shia Uprisings.

You're right, if Saddam had played the good lil despot and not tried to invade Kuwait he'd probably still be alive and in power. Got to love Western double-standards  

[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.

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.

[Rigon]

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.

[sana8410]

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.

[Alphi]

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.

aye perhaps it has something to do with the fact that Israel was bombing Hamas police stations and the houses of Hamas officials in the early days of the campaign.

or the fact that the "negotiators" and spokes people are actually people who live outside of Gaza.

this is why I have stated that its actually quite impressive that Hamas negotiators can even manage get people running around on the ground to stop firing. especially when some of those people are fuelled with blood rage after seeing their families and neighbourhoods destroyed.

its not like they can call them up on the phone and say "hey ahmed you can stop firing now Isreal wants to talk"

[Rigon]

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?

[zolace]

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/

[Rigon]

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.

[sana8410]

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.

[sana8410]

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.

[sana8410]

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.