Israel: Operation Protective Edge

[sana8410]

I can understand that, and I understand your reasoning. But let's be honest, you aren't the person either side is trying to sway. The people both sides are trying to sway are the people I described, who watch a few moments of FOX, or MSNBC, or CNN to form opinions, then switch back to Honey boo boo. Violence will never change their minds.

We see violence change the minds of people all of the time. I can assure you for example that Israel is facing much greater pressure over the issue of Palestine than Morocco is over the issue of Western Sahara and unfortunately, part of the reason for that is the absence of violence in the Western Sahara. There are other reasons of course since Israel is such a prominent interest of our culturally and politically. Conflict doesn't guarantee attention, just ask the Sudanese in South Kordofan.

I'm also not sure how this is a rebuttal or appropriate response to my statement. I'm not sure what you would have me do, give in to propaganda? Refrain from correcting people? Stop talking about it? I'm not really sure what you are advocating here.

[umair127]

And I'm really not much of a supporter of the UN. It's goals are fine, but they surpass reality. When you consider the majority of countries in the world have some sort of non democratic government, I don't want their opinions forced on me. Nor do I believe my opinion should be forced on some Afghan tribe. Essentially, their goals are too grandiose to be possible.

[sana8410]

And I'm really not much of a supporter of the UN. It's goals are fine, but they surpass reality. When you consider the majority of countries in the world have some sort of non democratic government, I don't want their opinions forced on me. Nor do I believe my opinion should be forced on some Afghan tribe. Essentially, their goals are too grandiose to be possible.

We have direct evidence of it though. the Sharon government blatantly stated that they pulled out of Gaza for example because of increased international pressure on them to engage in a peace deal with the Palestinian Authority.

From one of the chief initiators of the plan stated when asked why Israel had engaged in it:

"Because in the fall of 2003 we understood that everything was stuck. And although by the way the Americans read the situation, the blame fell on the Palestinians, not on us, Arik [Sharon] grasped that this state of affairs could not last, that they wouldn't leave us alone, wouldn't get off our case. Time was not on our side. There was international erosion, internal erosion. Domestically, in the meantime, everything was collapsing. The economy was stagnant, and the Geneva Initiative had gained broad support. And then we were hit with the letters of officers and letters of pilots and letters of commandos [refusing to serve in the territories]. These were not weird kids with green ponytails and a ring in their nose with a strong odor of grass. These were people like Spector's group [Yiftah Spector, a renowned Air Force pilot who signed the pilot's letter]. Really our finest young people."

That's pretty straightforward, he mentioned both US pressure and several instances of international pressure.

[umair127]

His statement was highly ambiguous, when it didn't have any reason to be so. We've seen such things before with other groups like Al Shabaab when it was trying to put forth a public image of control during its three way split and internal power struggle. It becomes especially interesting when the Israeli police reports and independent experts/ analysts both agreed that it hadn't been ordered by Hamas leadership and that they seemed to be operating operationally speaking on their own. The higher ups in the Israeli government are the primary faction stating that Hamas ordered it via primary leadership. Hamas still (right now) denies a role in it.

The truth is hard to get at, I don't know what it is, but neither does anyone with only publicly available records to go off of.

And who do you want this proof for?


Some sort of world body like the UN? There is no true such world body that will ever matter in a case like this. Russia is a great example. The UN can say what they like, but it doesn't matter. If anything happens in Ukraine that matters, it will be because the US drags Europe kicking and screaming into an effective sanctions routine. Ban Ki-moon making statements will do nothing important. The same applies to Israel.

I ask for proof because it is being used in a propaganda effort to justify Operation Protective Edge and make Hamas out to be the main / sole aggressor within the most recent fighting.

Plus I have my standards, so I tend to demand details when hard claims are made of that nature, especially since I am familiar with some of the nuances of conflict.

I mean no offense whatsoever, but there is no possible proof that is available to the world in general that would effectively sway your opinion on the situation there. I can understand that, and I understand your reasoning. But let's be honest, you aren't the person either side is trying to sway. The people both sides are trying to sway are the people I described, who watch a few moments of FOX, or MSNBC, or CNN to form opinions, then switch back to Honey boo boo. Violence will never change their minds.

Well that is a bit offensive since it implies that I am not capable of changing my mind regardless of the situation and am incapable of impartial analysis. I also find that a bit off since I actually have changed my mind, and quite dramatically, on this issue and used to be a staunch supporter of Israeli occupation which would seem to indicate that my opinion is open to changing dependent upon evidence / research.

That wasn't the point. Neither side is particularly trying to convince people who study the issue thoroughly, through the use of propaganda. I wasn't indicating you were unable to change your mind.

[umair127]

I can understand that, and I understand your reasoning. But let's be honest, you aren't the person either side is trying to sway. The people both sides are trying to sway are the people I described, who watch a few moments of FOX, or MSNBC, or CNN to form opinions, then switch back to Honey boo boo. Violence will never change their minds.

We see violence change the minds of people all of the time. I can assure you for example that Israel is facing much greater pressure over the issue of Palestine than Morocco is over the issue of Western Sahara and unfortunately, part of the reason for that is the absence of violence in the Western Sahara. There are other reasons of course since Israel is such a prominent interest of our culturally and politically. Conflict doesn't guarantee attention, just ask the Sudanese in South Kordofan.

I'm also not sure how this is a rebuttal or appropriate response to my statement. I'm not sure what you would have me do, give in to propaganda? Refrain from correcting people? Stop talking about it? I'm not really sure what you are advocating here.

Going back to the beginning of our conversation, the only thing I'm discussing is the best way to change the perspective of the American public. The only thing I'm a proponent of is a change in tactics. If I saw that the current tactics were working, I wouldn't be chatting about it at all.

[bryant.coleman]

We see violence change the minds of people all of the time. I can assure you for example that Israel is facing much greater pressure over the issue of Palestine than Morocco is over the issue of Western Sahara and unfortunately, part of the reason for that is the absence of violence in the Western Sahara. There are other reasons of course since Israel is such a prominent interest of our culturally and politically. Conflict doesn't guarantee attention, just ask the Sudanese in South Kordofan.

Well, the Moroccans have driven out almost all of the natives from Western Sahara and have replaced them with Moroccan citizens. There is no violence in Western Sahara, partially because there are no natives out there. Almost the entire pre-invasion population of WS is living as refugees in the desolate and cholera-stricken UN camps in Algeria.

Are you saying that Israel should follow similar measures?

[sana8410]

Now of course that doesn't mean that Israel did what we were pressuring them to do (engage in a peace process), instead they unilaterally pulled out of Gaza in order to end peace talks with Abbas.

Dov Weisglass (the aid) went on to explain:

"The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process, and when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress."

If there was any ambiguity in that he also stated:

"The disengagement is actually formaldehyde. It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians."

That's fairly cut and dry, so no i'm not just proverbially speaking talking out of my ass, rather I say those things because I have paid attention to internal Israeli political dialogue. I make those claims specifically because I have direct supporting evidence for them.
This actually isn't true either, we see pressures occur all of the time in the absence of security council agreement.

[umair127]

And I'm really not much of a supporter of the UN. It's goals are fine, but they surpass reality. When you consider the majority of countries in the world have some sort of non democratic government, I don't want their opinions forced on me. Nor do I believe my opinion should be forced on some Afghan tribe. Essentially, their goals are too grandiose to be possible.

We have direct evidence of it though. the Sharon government blatantly stated that they pulled out of Gaza for example because of increased international pressure on them to engage in a peace deal with the Palestinian Authority.

From one of the chief initiators of the plan stated when asked why Israel had engaged in it:

"Because in the fall of 2003 we understood that everything was stuck. And although by the way the Americans read the situation, the blame fell on the Palestinians, not on us, Arik [Sharon] grasped that this state of affairs could not last, that they wouldn't leave us alone, wouldn't get off our case. Time was not on our side. There was international erosion, internal erosion. Domestically, in the meantime, everything was collapsing. The economy was stagnant, and the Geneva Initiative had gained broad support. And then we were hit with the letters of officers and letters of pilots and letters of commandos [refusing to serve in the territories]. These were not weird kids with green ponytails and a ring in their nose with a strong odor of grass. These were people like Spector's group [Yiftah Spector, a renowned Air Force pilot who signed the pilot's letter]. Really our finest young people."

That's pretty straightforward, he mentioned both US pressure and several instances of international pressure.

Of course, this last part is exactly what I meant. They will do what's in their interest while pretending that pressure made them do whatever it is that was in their interest to do.

[umair127]

Now of course that doesn't mean that Israel did what we were pressuring them to do (engage in a peace process), instead they unilaterally pulled out of Gaza in order to end peace talks with Abbas.

Dov Weisglass (the aid) went on to explain:

"The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process, and when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress."

If there was any ambiguity in that he also stated:

"The disengagement is actually formaldehyde. It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians."

That's fairly cut and dry, so no i'm not just proverbially speaking talking out of my ass, rather I say those things because I have paid attention to internal Israeli political dialogue. I make those claims specifically because I have direct supporting evidence for them.
This actually isn't true either, we see pressures occur all of the time in the absence of security council agreement.

Please point out the pressure put on any security council member that was solely done by the UN. Because I would say that the UN made some noise, and the US, China, or Russia did what they chose despite the UN comments. In fact, I would say that the UN only puts out what at least one of those countries wants put out.

[Rigon]

Now of course that doesn't mean that Israel did what we were pressuring them to do (engage in a peace process), instead they unilaterally pulled out of Gaza in order to end peace talks with Abbas.

Dov Weisglass (the aid) went on to explain:

"The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process, and when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress."

If there was any ambiguity in that he also stated:

"The disengagement is actually formaldehyde. It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians."

That's fairly cut and dry, so no i'm not just proverbially speaking talking out of my ass, rather I say those things because I have paid attention to internal Israeli political dialogue. I make those claims specifically because I have direct supporting evidence for them.
This actually isn't true either, we see pressures occur all of the time in the absence of security council agreement.

sana8410, have you read any interesting books lately? i'm in the mood to read something not work related for once .

[Rigon]

Now of course that doesn't mean that Israel did what we were pressuring them to do (engage in a peace process), instead they unilaterally pulled out of Gaza in order to end peace talks with Abbas.

Dov Weisglass (the aid) went on to explain:

"The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process, and when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress."

If there was any ambiguity in that he also stated:

"The disengagement is actually formaldehyde. It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians."

That's fairly cut and dry, so no i'm not just proverbially speaking talking out of my ass, rather I say those things because I have paid attention to internal Israeli political dialogue. I make those claims specifically because I have direct supporting evidence for them.
This actually isn't true either, we see pressures occur all of the time in the absence of security council agreement.

Please point out the pressure put on any security council member that was solely done by the UN. Because I would say that the UN made some noise, and the US, China, or Russia did what they chose despite the UN comments. In fact, I would say that the UN only puts out what at least one of those countries wants put out.

relevant:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iCcltrV3Jk

[umair127]

Now of course that doesn't mean that Israel did what we were pressuring them to do (engage in a peace process), instead they unilaterally pulled out of Gaza in order to end peace talks with Abbas.

Dov Weisglass (the aid) went on to explain:

"The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process, and when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress."

If there was any ambiguity in that he also stated:

"The disengagement is actually formaldehyde. It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians."

That's fairly cut and dry, so no i'm not just proverbially speaking talking out of my ass, rather I say those things because I have paid attention to internal Israeli political dialogue. I make those claims specifically because I have direct supporting evidence for them.
This actually isn't true either, we see pressures occur all of the time in the absence of security council agreement.

Please point out the pressure put on any security council member that was solely done by the UN. Because I would say that the UN made some noise, and the US, China, or Russia did what they chose despite the UN comments. In fact, I would say that the UN only puts out what at least one of those countries wants put out.

relevant:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iCcltrV3Jk

Probably not. I mean, Abbas saying whatever he was saying, which I can't translate, and someone writing a description in Hebrew about that...no context...probably is suspect. I certainly wouldn't draw any conclusion from it.

[Rigon]

Now of course that doesn't mean that Israel did what we were pressuring them to do (engage in a peace process), instead they unilaterally pulled out of Gaza in order to end peace talks with Abbas.

Dov Weisglass (the aid) went on to explain:

"The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process, and when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress."

If there was any ambiguity in that he also stated:

"The disengagement is actually formaldehyde. It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians."

That's fairly cut and dry, so no i'm not just proverbially speaking talking out of my ass, rather I say those things because I have paid attention to internal Israeli political dialogue. I make those claims specifically because I have direct supporting evidence for them.
This actually isn't true either, we see pressures occur all of the time in the absence of security council agreement.

Please point out the pressure put on any security council member that was solely done by the UN. Because I would say that the UN made some noise, and the US, China, or Russia did what they chose despite the UN comments. In fact, I would say that the UN only puts out what at least one of those countries wants put out.

relevant:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iCcltrV3Jk

Probably not. I mean, Abbas saying whatever he was saying, which I can't translate, and someone writing a description in Hebrew about that...no context...probably is suspect. I certainly wouldn't draw any conclusion from it.

He's basically saying he spoke to the leaders of hamas and they denied being behind the kidnapping. when he questioned the people claiming responsibility (he names saleh al-arouri) they told him they did it without approval from higher up. he then says something along the lines of "an operation like this and you don't get approval from leadership?".

it cuts off after that so what he meant by that last sentence is up for debate.

[sana8410]

Now of course that doesn't mean that Israel did what we were pressuring them to do (engage in a peace process), instead they unilaterally pulled out of Gaza in order to end peace talks with Abbas.

Dov Weisglass (the aid) went on to explain:

"The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process, and when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress."

If there was any ambiguity in that he also stated:

"The disengagement is actually formaldehyde. It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians."

That's fairly cut and dry, so no i'm not just proverbially speaking talking out of my ass, rather I say those things because I have paid attention to internal Israeli political dialogue. I make those claims specifically because I have direct supporting evidence for them.
This actually isn't true either, we see pressures occur all of the time in the absence of security council agreement.

sana8410, have you read any interesting books lately? i'm in the mood to read something not work related for once .

Depends on what you do for work and what genres you like to read. I tend to like history books or classic sci fi and fantasy when I want something lighter.

The last couple of history books that I have read over the summer have been:

Darfur: The Long Road to Disaster by Robert O. Collins and Millard Burr, which is primarily a book about Chad, and the conflict dynamics that have existed between Chad, Sudan, Libya and Egypt since independence. It's only really in the last chapter or two that he really gets into Darfur.

Dancing in the Glory of Monsters: The collapse of the Congo and the Great War of Africa by Jason Stearns, a book about the conflict in the DR Congo since the early 90s. It looks at both Congolese wars and the stage setting for the Mai Mai militias and jungle rebel groups that still exist today. This book isn't as dry of reading as the Darfur one, it has good facts, but also a lot of interviews and human testimonies. So he won't just name a massacre give some numbers and a date and move on (Like the French political Scientist Gerard Prunier does in his telling of the conflict in Africa's World War) but he'll do that and then couple it with a personal account from someone he interviewed.

On Saudi Arabia:Its People, Past, Religion, Fault Lines, and Future by Karen Elliott House, title is pretty self descriptive. It lacks the research levels and details that I tend to like in books and is mostly an account of her personal experiences and fieldwork in Saudi Arabia and observations of Saudi culture. It isn't too long though.

Radical Religious and Violent by Eli Berman, written by an economist it is an examination of the behavior of religious radical groups (both violent and non-violent) and how they operate, and why they are so much better at terrorism when they do turn violent relative to non-religious radicals. He mostly examines the Taliban, Hamas, and ultra Orthodox Jewish communities. Though other groups make appearances as well and he even examines (briefly) the growth of Christian radical movements in historical Europe.

Boko Haram: Islamism, Politics, Security and the State in Nigeria, It is a collection of academic works and analyses on different aspects of Boko Haram in northern Nigeria. I read this one in PDF form and it can be found for free online. Some essays are better written and more interesting than others, but all in all it has good content. If you read this one I'd suggest probably reading Curbing Violence in Nigeria (II): The Boko Haram Insurgency published by the International Crisis Group first. it gives a more generalized historical overview of the movement which would be helpful to have before tackling the more specific looks at the insurgency that the above listed paper does. The Crisis Group's Boko Haram report can also be found online for free in PDF form.

A Savage War of Peace: Algeria 1954 - 1962 by Alistair Horne, About the Algerian struggle for independence from France. Probably the best written book on this list. Easy to read with good selections of quotes like Stearns work on the Congo (so it isn't too dry), but very well researched and detailed in its facts (like Collin's work on Chad). It covers pre-war, different ethnic, cultural, and political factions, the entire conflict, and sets the stage for understanding the subsequent civil war and the formation of the GSPC (which would eventually become Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb).

Next on the list is: A History of Modern Sudan by Robert O. Collins, Collins is a well respected expert on Sudanese history, since the first book of his that I read on Darfur ended up being more about Chad, I looked up his other works and picked this one up on Sudan. It is shorter than his more regional work (listed above) and I expect it to be somewhat dry reading like his other book, but also very well researched.

[sana8410]

Outside of that, most of what I have read recently has been reports released by various agencies and NGO's (Would be happy to share if you have a specific subject you wanted to read on, most are related to conflict, terrorism, economic development, or women's rights). I could also recommend fiction books like classic Sci Fi or fantasy which I also read a lot of depending on what you are interested in.

[Rigon]

Outside of that, most of what I have read recently has been reports released by various agencies and NGO's (Would be happy to share if you have a specific subject you wanted to read on, most are related to conflict, terrorism, economic development, or women's rights). I could also recommend fiction books like classic Sci Fi or fantasy which I also read a lot of depending on what you are interested in.

Have you read any reports on IS/ISIS that you'd recommend? I pretty much just read up on middle-east history whenever I get the chance.

[noviapriani]

Now of course that doesn't mean that Israel did what we were pressuring them to do (engage in a peace process), instead they unilaterally pulled out of Gaza in order to end peace talks with Abbas.

Dov Weisglass (the aid) went on to explain:

"The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process, and when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress."

If there was any ambiguity in that he also stated:

"The disengagement is actually formaldehyde. It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians."

That's fairly cut and dry, so no i'm not just proverbially speaking talking out of my ass, rather I say those things because I have paid attention to internal Israeli political dialogue. I make those claims specifically because I have direct supporting evidence for them.
This actually isn't true either, we see pressures occur all of the time in the absence of security council agreement.

No you sit on the oil bases and as long as that is given you dont give a damn when people kill themselves there. These sunnits try to fool people. The truth is they hate, shia, kurds or turkmen more than the jews. Thats why they dont move a finger while the heads roll. Free men gather in the region to bring an end to these barbarians. What will be supported next to destabilize the region?

[sana8410]

Outside of that, most of what I have read recently has been reports released by various agencies and NGO's (Would be happy to share if you have a specific subject you wanted to read on, most are related to conflict, terrorism, economic development, or women's rights). I could also recommend fiction books like classic Sci Fi or fantasy which I also read a lot of depending on what you are interested in.

Have you read any reports on IS/ISIS that you'd recommend? I pretty much just read up on middle-east history whenever I get the chance.

There are a number absolutely. I mostly get by ISIS news from the Institute for the Study of War which has published several in depth papers on the organization in both Iraq and Syria, the Combating Terrorism Center, and the Jamestown Foundation. Also for some decent (though more conservative) reading, there is the Long War Journal.

Depending on how far back you'd like to go I'd be happy to suggest some specific papers that I found useful.

[sana8410]

As it relates to the thread subject, the ceasefire is already being violated daily as Egypt and Israel have yet to ease blockade restrictions as agreed to in the ceasefire:

http://www.irinnews.org/report/10056...s-of-loosening

[umair127]

Outside of that, most of what I have read recently has been reports released by various agencies and NGO's (Would be happy to share if you have a specific subject you wanted to read on, most are related to conflict, terrorism, economic development, or women's rights). I could also recommend fiction books like classic Sci Fi or fantasy which I also read a lot of depending on what you are interested in.

Have you read any reports on IS/ISIS that you'd recommend? I pretty much just read up on middle-east history whenever I get the chance.

There are a number absolutely. I mostly get by ISIS news from the Institute for the Study of War which has published several in depth papers on the organization in both Iraq and Syria, the Combating Terrorism Center, and the Jamestown Foundation. Also for some decent (though more conservative) reading, there is the Long War Journal.

Depending on how far back you'd like to go I'd be happy to suggest some specific papers that I found useful.

I'm getting more interested in this. If you wouldn't mind sharing, I would like to read up.

One of the reasons is I was just told something I wasn't aware of, and it conflicts with what is commonly assumed. This al Baghdadi guy...someone just suggested to me that he was formerly with Saddam, and was trained by US forces in Jordan around 2006. Now it's possible I misunderstood who was being referred to, but it certainly was someone high up in ISIS. Does that make any sense to you?