YAAKOV

Ponderings and Links on Israel and Jewish Issues and Technology

Articles Posted: 72 Links Seeded: 601

Member Since: 1/2006 Last Seen: 5/15/2012

Why Did they Fire the Missiles?

Wed Jul 5, 2006 10:52 AM EDT

world-news, israel, terrorism, middle-east, gaza, hamas, attack, terrorist, west-bank, idf, fatah, missile, plo, retaliation, qassam, kassam, pflp

By Yaakov

Live Poll

What do the Kassam missiles launched at Israel over the last year represent?

Live Poll

With which group described in the article do you affiliate yourself?

Advertise | AdChoices

We are about to hit the one year mark since Israel left Gaza. When Israel did this, it was "unilateral" - they did not coordinate with the PLO or Hamas, they did not do this as a result of any agreement with someone deigning to represent the Palestinian people. They just left. One can argue whether this was a wise course of action. Some will say that by taking unilateral action, Israel must be acting in their own self-interest, and therefore against the interests of the Palestinians. Others might say that Israel would have negotiated with someone had there been someone to negotiate with - however, Abbas was not proving trustworthy (although he was good at talking, taking action was not exactly his forte) - and therefore Israel cannot be blamed for this lack of coordination. Whatever way you look at it, one thing is for sure: Israel was leaving Gaza, they were doing it at a certain date, they were clearing out all of the "fanatic" "extremist" Jewish settlers, moving the army out.

When Israel did this, it was taking a chance. Many in Israel saw any territorial compromise as a reward for terror - they were afraid (rightly so) that retreating from Gaza in exchange for nothing would add more fuel to the fire, and would turn Gaza into Hamastan within a short amount of time. Ariel Sharon, the Prime Minister at the time said that he saw this as a necessary, painful step that must be done in the pursuit of a separation between Israel and the Palestinian people. It will give them a chance at having their own land, without our interference, he argued, give them a chance to prove that they had what it takes to build a state. If they used it as a place from which to launch attacks against Israel, Israel would be back after the first missile is launched against Israel. It was an issue which caused a great divide to open in Israel between the religious and secular, between those who supported the settler movement and those who were against. Civil War within Israel almost broke out. But the withdrawal/expulsion was carried out. Israel left Gaza completely last August, turning the land over to the Palestinians who had been coveting it so much.

Time Magazine just published an article by Charles Krauthammer called Remember What Happened Here (Gaza is freed, yet Gaza wages war. That reveals the Palestinians' true agenda). Krauthammer sets the stage by talking about the conflict as a whole. It seems like the Israel/Arab conflict has been once never-ending cycle of violence for the past sixty years. One side attacks, one side retaliates, ad infinitum. Cycles by definition do not have starting points. Although there is lots of finger pointing, it has become increasingly difficult for people without a vested interest in the situation to figure out the rights and the wrongs.

However, when Israel left Gaza, the historic cycle had a chance to end.

How do the Palestinians respond [to Israel leaving Gaza]? What have they done with Gaza, the first Palestinian territory in history to be independent, something neither the Ottomans nor the British nor the Egyptians nor the Jordanians, all of whom ruled Palestinians before the Israelis, ever permitted? On the very day of Israel's final pullout, the Palestinians began firing rockets out of Gaza into Israeli towns on the other side of the border. And remember: those are attacks not on settlers but on civilians in Israel proper, the pre-1967 Israel that the international community recognizes as legitimately part of sovereign Israel, a member state of the U.N. A thousand rockets have fallen since.

For what possible reason? Before the withdrawal, attacks across the border could have been rationalized with the usual Palestinian mantra of occupation, settlements and so on. But what can one say after the withdrawal?

The logic for those continued attacks is to be found in the so-called phase plan adopted in 1974 by the Palestine National Council in Cairo. Realizing that they would never be able to destroy Israel in one fell swoop, the Palestinians adopted a graduated plan to wipe out Israel. First, accept any territory given to them in any part of historic Palestine. Then, use that sanctuary to wage war until Israel is destroyed.

So in 2005 the Palestinians are given Gaza, free of any Jews. Do they begin building the state they say they want, constructing schools and roads and hospitals? No. They launch rockets at civilians and dig a 300-yard tunnel under the border to attack Israeli soldiers and bring back a hostage.

Krauthammer's analysis is simple. Regardless of the circumstances of Israel's withdrawal from Gaza last Summer, the Palestinians had a Golden opportunity to stop fighting, start building and prove to the world that they were eager and capable of being partners in a two-state solution. Instead, the very day Israel left, the Qassams started flying towards pre-1967 Israel. The only explanation is that the Palestinian leadership was continuing on its quest to destroy Israel. What they cant get from concessions and withdrawals on Israel's part, they will seek with violence.

So we are brought to where we are today - many hundreds of Qassams, dozens of dead civilians on both sides - some (on Israel's side) killed through targeted attacks and murders, some (on the Palestinian side) killed because they were standing in the wrong place or riding in the wrong car when Israel shot back at her attackers. The IDF is now back in Gaza, seeking to rescue one of its own soldiers who was kidnapped last week. Everyone on each side is yelling at everyone on the other side, convinced that the rights and wrongs of the situation are totally clear cut.

Those in support of Israel make claims that Israel has the right to defend itself, to respond to attacks, to rescue its soldiers. If the Qassam missiles had not been fired at Israel, Israel would never have attacked Gaza. If the soldier had not been kidnapped, Israel would not have gone on the offensive. Israel is not interested in murdering or injuring Palestinians. They actually want to make peace, but so long as the Palestinians are pursuing Israel's destruction, Israel can and should respond with whatever force is necessary to defend itself.
Those in support of Hamas and the PLO make claims that Israel is interested in ethnic cleansing and in making land grabs. Israel are the real terrorists since they invaded the country, killed lots of people and Hamas has every right to respond in the way it has been doing, and they should just "admit they are powerless over violence—that their hatred has become unmanageable." There are lower health standards in Gaza, resulting in higher rates of infant mortality, and this is 100% Israel's fault (to the exclusion of anyone other than Israel being at fault). And regarding suicide bombing, it is "probably the most ethical tactic in a war of resistance."
And there is the third group who in theory might be in favor of Israel's right to defend themselves, but in practice think that Israel is too harsh and responds to violently to attacks that are made against it (which justifies some response from the other side).

For those of you who are new to this discussion, I am a firm proponent of the first group mentioned above. I think that Israel is trying its best in a tough situation, would make peace if they had a partner, but in the absence of one (and in the presence of an opponent who seeks Israel's destruction and has no problem teaching hate, lobbing missiles, digging tunnels and targeting civilians), Israel has an obligation to defend itself in the best way that it can. Civilian casualties on the other side are regrettable, but they are the fault of Israel's aggressors, the ones who attack Israel and pull Israel into further conflict.

I also have no problem accepting Krauthammer's explanation for the missiles being fired inti Israel from Gaza. The PLO, Hamas and other similar organizations have always officially stated that their definition of "Occupied Territories" (in terms of land that must be "liberated", on whose behalf it is legitimate to wage armed warfare against Israeli soldiers and civilians) includes all of Israel between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean (ie: all of Israel). Although promises to change their official stance and implicit recognition of Israel's right to exist may have made, the actions of these groups (through their "militant wings") have always been in line with their stated goals (ie: to destroy Israel). That being the case, Israel must always have this in mind when considering making "peace" with the Palestinians. As long as their "peace partners" officially seek the destruction of Israel (and support this goal through their actions), Israel must act cautiously when dealing with them, must avoid making any concessions or retreats in exchange for promises, and must act swiftly and with authority when defending against threats and aggression.

My questions are for those who fit better into the second or third groups described above:

What explanation can you rationally argue (ie: without just spouting anti-Israel rhetoric, labeling Israel as a terrorist state seeking ethnic cleansing, etc) for the firing of hundreds of missiles into Israeli cities (pre-1967, if that makes a difference) starting on the day that Israel left Gaza?
Is there some explanation that you can give for this that dispels the notion that the Palestinians do not seek the destruction of Israel?
If the Palestinians would in fact be satisfied with a state established side-by-side with Israel, adhering for the most part to the 1967 borders, what could possibly have been their strategy when beginning this campaign of Qassam missiles against Israel on the day that Israel left Gaza?
If the Palestinians were really interested in a two-state solution, how did it benefit them to restart armed conflict with Israel instead of taking the opportunity to start building new homes, factories and cities in Gaza, which would have had the affect of ending hostilities between Israel and Gaza, and in addition to jump-starting the Palestinian economy would have led to world-wide support and admiration, and would have put them in a much stronger position when it came to actually deciding the details of a two-state solution
If your position is that most Palestinians do not support the actions of those attacking Israel, please explain this when the two largest parties in the government (PLO and Hamas) have both stated their official positions as calling for the destruction of Israel (and both have active "militant wings" supporting this goal). If you think that these groups are not involved with any missiles and really do support a two-state solution (their involvement in violence against Israel can easily be documented), and it is really just the other groups that direct violence and missiles against Israel, then how come the two most powerful organizations in Gaza have ignored these actions for the past year, with the knowledge that every missile fired into Israel brought the two sides farther away?

I ask these questions because given the events of the last couple of weeks in Israel, people are either becoming more frustrated with the whole situation, or more adamant regarding the correctness of their side of the argument. Rhetoric is flying, accusations are being made left and right, but in the end of the day it seems like absolutely no progress is being made in terms of arguing either position. The same people are making the same arguments time and time again on different posts relating ot the subject. So I would like to examine the events of the last year in the context of the questions laid out above. Why was there non-stop aggression against Israel from the day that they left Gaza? If it is in fact a continuation of the campaign to destroy Israel, then this fact must be acknowledged in all other conversations relating to the subject of the Arab-Israel conflict. If this is not the reason for the missiles, then what is?

Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Published to:

Yaakov's Column, All of Newsvine
Groups: none
Regions: Israel

Public Discussion (75)

chill

What explanation can you rationally argue (ie: without just spouting anti-Israel rhetoric, labeling Israel as a terrorist state seeking ethnic cleansing, etc) for the firing of hundreds of missiles into Israeli cities (pre-1967, if that makes a difference) starting on the day that Israel left Gaza?

This is a great question and a well written thoughtful post.

Given that Israel had just given up Gaza, it seems that if Palestinians only remaining goal was to get back the west bank then they should never have started firing missiles. In fact, it seems quite ludicrous.

Two possibilities come to mind:

1. they actually perceived the gaza withdrawal as weakness - clearly if true they miscalculated.

2. They, as u suggest, have only the destruction of Israel as a goal.

If #2 is true, them Israel has perhaps fallen into a trap with their harsh - civilian targeted - collective punishment response (eg water, electricity, etc). This is clearly against the Geneva convention, targets huge numbers of children, and thus gives any anti-israeli voice a fairly strong grievance against Israel. (and yes I realize suicide bombing is against teh geneva convention ... but I think you get my point).

While I agree with you that the civilian population elected Hamas. Don't forget they had little choice (Hamas had wisely provided much social assistance ... when not organizing suicide bombs, and the only alternative were the hopelessly corrupt ruled by Abbas).

And don't forget the children.

9 votes

#1 - Wed Jul 5, 2006 12:52 PM EDT

hirstopher

I truly appreciate writing of this caliber, Yaakov. I also especially appreciate the tone of almost everything you write - avoiding the hyperbole, audacity, and vicious claims of those who oppose you, or anyone who feels that Israel is to blame.

Your restraint should be a model for all of us.

Chris

7 votes

#2 - Wed Jul 5, 2006 1:15 PM EDT

Yaakov

Thanks hirstopher (Chris)!

#2.1 - Thu Jul 6, 2006 3:17 AM EDT

NikitaB

Ditto.

Also, I feel this poll is relevant.

It's interesting to see how the statistics line up... As of this message, 61% agree that Palestinian attacks represent the desire to destroy Israel (Your poll, question 1). Yet 91% agree that Palestine engages in is terrorism (my poll, question 2)... so, assuming that the 91% includes the 61%, that means 30% that thinks that Palestine engages in terrorism but the purpose is not destruction of Israel. Which can only mean that it's seens as reprisals for Israeli action, right? Or is there another way to see that? And then we have 34% that sees Israli action as terrorism against Palestinians... against 66% that do not, which, yet again alligns with the 61% above.

I am really curious whether these polls are the same people. There should be a list of participants for these polls with their respective positions.

1 vote

#2.2 - Fri Jul 14, 2006 7:36 PM EDT

cleareyes

If the Palestinians were really interested in a two-state solution, how did it benefit them to restart armed conflict with Israel instead of taking the opportunity to start building new homes, factories and cities in Gaza, which would have had the affect of ending hostilities between Israel and Gaza, and in addition to jump-starting the Palestinian economy would have led to world-wide support and admiration, and would have put them in a much stronger position when it came to actually deciding the details of a two-state solution

I don't remember this fully but when Israel pulled out of Gaza, did they not still control the trade in and out, forcing many argicultural goods to go bad before ever reaching outside markets?

#3 - Wed Jul 5, 2006 3:01 PM EDT

Yaakov

Israel controlled all entrances into Israel from Gaza into Israel for security reasons (very legitimate ones, as they have caught a number of suicide bombers and other individuals intent on attacking targets within Israel). They have been open (most of the time) and closed (usually in response to threats, attacks on the border, attacks within Israel) at different times during the past year.

However, this does not explain why the Qassam campaign against cities within pre-67 Israel was initiated as Israel was withdrawing from Gaza, does it?

3 votes

#3.1 - Wed Jul 5, 2006 5:04 PM EDT

cleareyes

So Israel doesnt control any trade out of Gaza on the other side?

#3.2 - Wed Jul 5, 2006 5:17 PM EDT

Yaakov

So Israel doesnt control any trade out of Gaza on the other side?

They do.

As long as things were quiet, good were allowed to pass through. The borders were closed, goods and workers held from leaving Gaza as a result of attacks and other violence directed at Israel.

Regardless, this still comes back to the original question - why start the missile campaign (and other accompanying attacks) after Israel left Gaza. If there had been quiet, and Hamas had concentrated on building in Gaza instead of destroying and looting, the borders would have remained open, goods would have been allowed to pass through, and more land would be on the way (with international support and Nobel Prizes for all).

Instead the missiles started. I still have not seen a rational argument how this was not an indication of a desire to destroy Israel.

1 vote

#3.3 - Thu Jul 6, 2006 3:16 AM EDT

I SPY

Is that little rocket it Yaakov. The way you guys go on about these missiles I was expecting a Guided Missile Frigate in the Dead Sea. I can buy one of these from my local model shop. Put up some pictures of the Horrible damage these thing do or is it a Photo Shop Lie from the Jerusalem Posts weekly Lie column.

3 votes

#4 - Wed Jul 5, 2006 4:29 PM EDT

I SPY

Oh I almost forgot, tour poll is racist.

1 vote

#4.1 - Wed Jul 5, 2006 4:31 PM EDT

Yaakov

I SPY -

Over 1000 missiles have been launched. They are aimed at civilian areas and have been striking cities like Sderot and Ashkelon with regularity. Each time one is fired, an alarm goes off giving residents in the city 20 seconds to run for a bomb shelter. Thank God, casualties have been few. This is absolutely miraculous. The missiles do not have pinpoint accuracy, but they carry many kg of explosives and a direct hit can cause lots of damage. A number of times the missiles have strukc empty classrooms and nurseries moments before children were about to enter. Each time a missile hits, people are hospitalized for injuries and for shock. Schools and businesses have been closed, and the quality of day to day life has been ruined. The missiles are getting more advanced over time (you cannot buy one of these from your local model shop) and their arsenal has recently come to include Katyusha missiles which have a longer range and are more accurate. The amount of physical damage that the average missile causes is not the most important factor here. What matters is that they are designed as weapons of terror, and to that end, they are effective. (See here for a description of the psychological terror that these weapons induce, and here for an account of today's rocket attack against Ashkelon)

I anticipate a response along the lines of: "the Israelis shouldn't be complaining about that - they do worse to the Palestinians". Such a response is ignoring the questions posed above: if the Palestinians had not started their campaign of Kassams after Israel had left Gaza, then Israel wouldn't have started firing back, and any negative affects caused by Israel's retaliation would not have happened.

7 votes

#4.2 - Wed Jul 5, 2006 5:00 PM EDT

Matt Kennedy

Is that little rocket it Yaakov. The way you guys go on about these missiles I was expecting a Guided Missile Frigate in the Dead Sea. I can buy one of these from my local model shop.

I bet if you fire it at one of your neighbors or their homes, they'll be pretty pissed off at you.

I wonder how your defense would go in court. "Oh it's only a little rocket I bought at a model shop, I didn't think it could hurt anyone or damage anything."

1 vote

#4.3 - Wed Jul 5, 2006 11:05 PM EDT

I SPY

Matt Kennedy says "I wonder how your defense would go in court." and thats exactly how this should be treated.

Yaakov they are not large enough to carry kg's of explosives and shrapnel. They are dangerous if they hit some body ofcourse. Expanding the Gazza ofensive on this pretext looks criminal.

Now Israel is going to occupy 2 km's of Gazza as a buffer zone just as I said they would. Next they will need another 5 km's because of the increased range of the new rockets. This will continue until there is no more gazza and the people will just disappear.

4 votes

#4.4 - Thu Jul 6, 2006 4:00 AM EDT

Yaakov

This will continue until there is no more gazza and the people will just disappear.

Did you have to start with the rhetoric again? Israel is going to make the people "disappear"?

Your comments here make it seem as if the missiles are a reality that Israel must deal with, and if Israel has to take steps to protect itself from the missiles, it is not the Palestinians's fault. It is Israel's.

This is not correct. If people fire missiles against Israel, and Israel must take measures to protect itself, the blame goes on the people who are firing the missiles.

they are not large enough to carry kg's of explosives and shrapnel.

The Qassam 3 missile has a payload of 10-20 kg of explosives and a range of 10km. And now they are also using Katyushas.

3 votes

#4.5 - Thu Jul 6, 2006 4:07 AM EDT

I SPY

Yaakov I am well aware of the "Organ of Stalin" where do you suppose they will source the Vintage weapons ? 1936 studebakers are hard to find.

As for Qassam 3 rockets and your extremely vague speculative link is no real indicator as to these weapons. The Qassam 1 info is correct and I can verify that. 0.5 kg' of explosive is not even large, there are bullets with a bigger charge than that.

2 votes

#4.6 - Thu Jul 6, 2006 6:46 AM EDT

Looking for logic

I SPY,

I don't think the magnitude of the rockets matters as much as the fact that rockets are being shot to begin with. Any act of war, small or big, is still an act of war. By firing rockets into civilian areas, these Palestinian militants are making a statement that it's not about borders or land. It's about the destruction of Israel. You can disagree with Israel's response or previous responses to terrorist attacks but to start arguing that a small rocket is OK but a big rocket is not comes off as silly.

2 votes

#4.7 - Thu Jul 6, 2006 8:22 AM EDT

I SPY

I agree with your principle argument Looking for logic but to respond with Main battle Tanks and Helicopter gunships in a civilian area is an inappropriate level force.

What does sound silly is the Hamas Conspiracy to acquire a fleet of 1938 Studebakers to "Drive the Israeli's into the sea".

1 vote

#4.8 - Thu Jul 6, 2006 11:12 AM EDT

Yaakov

Thanks Looking for logic. I agree with your points. It is almost silly to argue about the payloads of the missiles since that is not the important part. However, it is also silly to not respond to a comment when it attacks valid sources and gives no proof for its counter-claim.

Katyushas - I am not in with the arms dealer crowd, so I have no idea where they get their katyushas fom. But Hezbollah has been using them for quite a while, and they are now being imported into Gaza. Perhaps they know something that you do not. (And perhaps they are being manufactured somewhere?)

Qassam 3 - There was nothing extremely vague or speculative about either of the links I provided. Both of them were quite clear (one was the IDF website, one was Wikipedia. If you have anything disproving the information that they provide, please share it instead of whining about things being "extremely vague speculative links").

3 votes

#4.9 - Thu Jul 6, 2006 11:12 AM EDT

Yaakov

to respond with Main battle Tanks and Helicopter gunships in a civilian area is an inappropriate level force.

You are getting off-topic again and ignoring the whole question asked in this post.

If their goal is not to destroy Israel, why did they start with the missiles when Israel left Gaza?

If you want to talk about your opinions regarding inappropriate levels of force in retaliation, please go to any post here and state your views.

3 votes

#4.10 - Thu Jul 6, 2006 11:15 AM EDT

I SPY

This is just a boy thing.Everybody wants a bigger one than the next guy. Israels concern with the Palestinians getting a bigger phallic symbol is just Penis Envy.

3 votes

#4.11 - Thu Jul 6, 2006 11:25 AM EDT

Yaakov

This is just a boy thing.Everybody wants a bigger one than the next guy. Israels concern with the Palestinians getting a bigger phallic symbol is just Penis Envy.

I SPY - Once again, you have left me speechless. I have no response to that one.

Thanks once again for your constructive contributions to our discussion. They are much valued and make a good impression on all as to your debating skills and ability to make rational deductions, both as an individual and as a representative of the pro-PLO/Hamas faction on Newsvine.

3 votes

#4.12 - Thu Jul 6, 2006 11:32 AM EDT

I SPY

This is just a boy thing.Everybody wants a bigger one than the next guy. Israels concern with the Palestinians getting a bigger phallic symbol is just Penis Envy.

2 votes

#4.13 - Thu Jul 6, 2006 11:32 AM EDT

yellowdevilDeleted

jnearen

Yaakov. I believe you have again honored yourself and Israel by your post.

I, too, am adamantly in group one above. It is beyond reason and descency that the Palestinians have elected to continue armed conflict in an unjustified holy war agaainst Israel. Cleareyes grasps at a feeble justification by implying that Israel defeated the Palestinian attempts at independence by locking down the borders. Yet, this ignores the fact that Gaza is on the sea, has a port, and is surrounded by Muslim countries who, presumably, support the Palestinian efforts to establish their gifted state.

There is no justification for the Palestinians behavior. If it is war they wanted, then they got what they asked for. Less so is there justification for the world to tolerate and support through financial contributions--often clothed as humanitarian aid--these actions. It appears that Hamas is staging this strategy for sympathy and more handouts from the foolish aid oranizations that fail to see how their money is being spent. It is deeply regrettable that innocents are suffering as a result of the Israeli incursion into Gaza. No one is happy about this situation. But who's fault is this suffering? The fault lies squarely on Hamas.

In my posts, I harp again and again on the fact that Muslims the world over remain silent, failing to condem the actions of Hamas and other terrorists organizations. This silence is an indictment on Islam. Some call such statements bigotry. They are not intended as such. The Muslim world cannot stand on a double standard of justifying inhuman acts by those who claim a religious right to violence, while condeming others (in this case Isarel) who respond to those acts with great restraint.

2 votes

#6 - Wed Jul 5, 2006 11:08 PM EDT

chill

It appears that Hamas is staging this strategy for sympathy and more handouts from the foolish aid oranizations that fail to see how their money is being spent. It is deeply regrettable that innocents are suffering

Personally, my heroes are people from rich countries that personally travel to the terrible places in the world and try to help the innocents - braver than me. These people have a choice and they choose danger and difficulties. In palestine, aid workers have been desperately trying to find a way to bring humanitarian aid without simultaneously funding violence/terrorism.

Many of us in the west agree that Hamas has been going too far. But there is less agreement on whether the disproportionately large % of the population of children deserve the collective punishment and thus humanitarian crisis that has been thrust upon them.

Its easy, uncaring, and wrong to from a distance call these brave aid workers foolish and to also dismiss the suffering of so many because they are trapped in such an awful situation. Last I looked the voting age in palestine exclude almost half the population.

4 votes

#6.1 - Thu Jul 6, 2006 2:36 AM EDT

RyanXP

Great viewpoint and explanation Yaakov. As to your question - why the Palestinians had to 'fire ze missiles', it seems to me that a much simpler answer exists:

Pride.

Israel pulling out of the Gaza strip and basically giving the land away was an injuring blow to the pride of the Palestinian power base, and they probably felt that if they accepted this percieved charity on the part of Israel, that it would be a hollow victory. Just my two cents, however.

1 vote

#7 - Thu Jul 6, 2006 12:05 AM EDT

Yaakov

RyanXP -

So you think that because of injured pride at being given their own land as a result of years of fighting with Israel (Israel left in the futile hope that it would cause "separation") without it having been part of the a negotiated deal (in which they would have had to give something or promise to do something instead of getting the land for nothing) this caused the Palestinians to embark on a missile campaign against Israeli cities? This is supposed to restore their pride and show the world how macho they are?

If I were a Palestinian, I would be pretty insulted by your statement, because it implies absolute stupidity on their part (in a strategic sense). The missiles were not part of a campaign to destroy Israel. They were simply something to do in order to avoid something that looks like a hollow victory, they would start firing missiles, something that makes any further negotiations very difficult, makes it much more likely that Israel will retaliate, violence on both sides will continue to escalate, and Israel might eventually have to come back into Gaza (as it did) and take over (as it did very easily) - something that is much more embarassing to Palestinian pride than being given Gaza as a free gift.

I don't buy it.

#7.1 - Thu Jul 6, 2006 2:58 AM EDT

lzhang

The Palestinians probably feel like getting Gaza is like being fed table scraps after being abused for years by the Israelis. And that abuse continues, although I will not say that any one side has the moral high ground here. I think it's pretty naive for people to look for anything like that anymore; this situation is all politics, feuding, and mutual enmity now.

1 vote

#8 - Thu Jul 6, 2006 1:10 AM EDT

Yaakov

lzhang -

The Palestinians probably feel like getting Gaza is like being fed table scraps after being abused for years by the Israelis.

Maybe. But as I pointed out above, when they were being given Gaza, they had the opportunity to show the world that they were actually interested in building and giving back to their people, rather than destroying and keeping the war with Israel going. If they had taken the opportunity to go away from violence and concentrate on their own best interests for a while, developed Gaza, improved the camps, not destroyed the greenhouses and showed that they were interested in having a country - not as a stepping stone to destroy Israel, but rather as a place for its people to live and prosper - if they had done that then Gaza would not be table scraps. It would be the first round of land given freely over to them, land that might eventually have become a viable state next to Israel.

I understand that they may have been frustrated, but that does not explain why strategically, if they were not interested in destroying Israel but rather acknowledged that Israel is here to stay and accepted a two-state solution, they would have embarked on a new campaign of missile attacks against Israel as soon as Israel left Gaza.

And that abuse continues, although I will not say that any one side has the moral high ground here. I think it's pretty naive for people to look for anything like that anymore; this situation is all politics, feuding, and mutual enmity now.

Please read the article above again. When Israel left Gaza last year it was a turning point. An opportunity for the "cycles of violence" to end. If the missiles had not started, there would have been no further violence. At this point it was not just politics, feuding and mutual enmity. The ball was in the Palestinian's court, and they decided to continue attacking. This implies that their main goal remains the complete destruction of Israel.

2 votes

#8.1 - Thu Jul 6, 2006 3:07 AM EDT

lzhang

First of all, let's not oversimplify the situation by referring to the Palestinians as some sort of unified group here, as if the Palestinians as a whole are responsible for the actions of a few. It may be convenient to do so and degenerate examination of this problem to that level. However, falsely characterizing the Palestinians as if they were one single person firing rockets into Israeli towns and burning greenhouses ignores the depth and the complexity of the issue.

And that is basically the failure in the Israeli response to Palestinian terrorism. Does the Israeli strategy of punishing the whole (civilians, women and children included) for the the transgressions of a few make any sense at all? Is dropping a bomb on a family picnicking on a beach self-defense against terrorism? I'm pretty sure it's not helping to end the "cycle of violence".

When the Israeli government is no longer violating international law, blowing up innocent Palestinians, and re-invading the Gaza Strip, then I'll be ready to say that the ball is in the Palestinian's court. Otherwise, your attempt to paint this very complicated and contentious situation as "if only the Palestinians did this!" fail to move me.

1 vote

#8.2 - Thu Jul 6, 2006 6:04 AM EDT

Yaakov

First of all, let's not oversimplify the situation by referring to the Palestinians as some sort of unified group here, as if the Palestinians as a whole are responsible for the actions of a few.

They did have elections, and elected Hamas and the PLO as the number one and two parties. This fact is shouted from the rooftops by their supporters left and right (as in: "How can you punish them for holding a democratic election").

Furthermore, they seek their own country (be it in the West Bank, or all of Israel) - that bespeaks of some level of unity.

Is dropping a bomb on a family picnicking on a beach self-defense against terrorism?

Israel never did this.

When the Israeli government is no longer violating international law, blowing up innocent Palestinians, and re-invading the Gaza Strip, then I'll be ready to say that the ball is in the Palestinian's court.

Which innocent civilians is Israel intending to blow up? Links please?

Israel went into Gaza in response to attacks originating from that area. To claim that Israel's offensive in Gaza was not in response to any attacks means that either Israel has not right to defend itself (ie: the Palestinians have a right to destroy Israel) or Israel was never attacked (not true). To pretend that Israel's entrance into Gaza was a provocative move, not prompted by any attacks or actions by the Gaza residents and ruling government is simply ignoring reality.

Otherwise, your attempt to paint this very complicated and contentious situation as "if only the Palestinians did this!" fail to move me.

The point is pretty clear and simple, no matter how much you try to complicate it by mixing in events that happened after Israel left Gaza to the Palestinians and they responded with a missile campaign. I suggest rereading the article above if the chronology is confusing.

2 votes

#8.3 - Thu Jul 6, 2006 11:24 AM EDT

lzhang

Furthermore, they seek their own country (be it in the West Bank, or all of Israel) - that bespeaks of some level of unity.

I'm referring to Israel's habit of killing civilians in their "self-defense" efforts, not the political status of the Palestinians.

Israel never did this.

Looks like this may or may not have happened, and I apologize (I haven't seen that article before). Thanks for the correction.

Which innocent civilians is Israel intending to blow up? Links please?

Israel is pursuing military action that clearly endangers Palestinian civilians. The IDF may not be expressly targeting civilians, but the Israeli strategy is willfully reckless when it comes to civilian casualties. I can give you links to where Israeli air strikes have once again "accidentally" killed civilians, as well as Olmert's acknowledgement of them, but I don't think it's necessary.

Also, if you can explain why the Israeli government feels it is justified in breaking international law for the purposes of self-defense, I'm all ears.

To claim that Israel's offensive in Gaza was not in response to any attacks

I'm making no such claims. Yes, Israel's offensive is in response to the Palestinian attacks. Whether it's the proper response is highly questionable.

you try to complicate it by mixing in events that happened after Israel left Gaza

I'm not asserting that these events happened before the Gaza pullout, just pointing out that yes, the abuse continues. Are you asserting that Israel has done nothing in the past to justify the current Palestinian animosity?

#8.4 - Fri Jul 7, 2006 3:24 PM EDT

insert_name_here

Israel's attacks may endanger civilians, but such are the facts of war. It sucks, but there is nothing to be done. Israel could carpet-bomb Gaza, and the terrorists would be gone, but for the civilians, Israel doesn't do this.

The reason Israel is justified in breaking international law is that in all of Israel's wars, Israel is fighting for her very survival. Given the choice between obeying the law but dying or breaking the law but living, which do you choose? It isn't a hard choice. Hamas is breaking international laws as well, but no one complains about that.

2 votes

#8.5 - Thu Jul 13, 2006 10:07 PM EDT

lzhang

It sucks, but there is nothing to be done.

I just want to point out that this statement is ridiculous. I guess this must be the "best of all possible worlds", where anybody who suffers does so for the very best reasons.

Israel could carpet-bomb Gaza, and the terrorists would be gone

That was a very effective strategy for the US in Vietnam. Just like disproportionate retaliation is helping make the Middle East safe for Israelis everywhere.

Israel is fighting for her very survival.

Maybe that could have been true in the past, but now Israel has fighter jets, tanks, nuclear weapons, and some of the best trained soldiers in the world.

1 vote

#8.6 - Fri Jul 14, 2006 10:04 PM EDT

Yaakov

I wonder where all of the usual suspects are? You know, the newsvine commenters (most of whom I linked to in my description of group 2 above) who have no problem condemning Israel left and right in just about every Israel-related article?

Do you guys have anything to say that would form a rational argument that the Palestinians do not want to destroy Israel? (without just spouting anti-Israel rhetoric, labeling Israel as a terrorist state seeking ethnic cleansing, etc)? Or do you admit that they really do want Israel destroyed. If that is the case, do you still support Hamas & the PLO given that this is their goal? (Remember, we are interested in cogent discussion here, not just anti-Israel rhetoric and statistics about Global Avoidable Mortality).

(Kudos to I SPY and cleareyes for dropping by, and adding their two bits to this discussion)

And what about my friends from Group 3 (Egyptian, you there)? I know that you might disagree with the notion that the Palestinians want Israel destroyed - I would be interested in your opinions, in the context of this discussion.

2 votes

#9 - Thu Jul 6, 2006 3:38 AM EDT

chill

Yaakov,

You respond to most posts but ignore those that suggest perhaps the strategy is to get Israel to overreact . like in its current collective punishment response.

Maybe Hamas was hoping for this current overreaction.

What do I mean by over-reaction: punishing women and children .... 75% of the population.

thereare a lot of dirty hands here. Maybe Hamas is too clever.

1 vote

#9.1 - Thu Jul 6, 2006 11:55 AM EDT

Yaakov

chill888 - Hamas is very clever, and their strategy is definitely to force Israel to react in such a way as to make Israel look bad and Hamas to look good. This is all included in the main idea presented in the article above - that the goal of Hamas through all of its tactics is to destroy Israel. They don't have enough firepower to do it directly, so they take whatever territory that they can get, and then use tactics like the one you are describing to make Israel weaker (and their presumed power stronger).

1 vote

#9.2 - Thu Jul 6, 2006 12:56 PM EDT

chill

Yaakov, thx for response, but:

you never answered my point. Hamas my be clever, but you haven't responded to whether Israel is overreacting. (versus whether hamas would like them to overreact).

1 vote

#9.3 - Thu Jul 6, 2006 2:16 PM EDT

Yaakov

I don't think that Israel is overreacting right now. They may have made a mistake by hitting the power station (short-term it is horrible PR and bad for the civilians...yet to be seen whether it will help Israel out long-term or not). Israel must respond right now in the way they are doing in order to stop the rockets and other attacks. These had been escalating month by month, and the longer Israel waited to respond, the worse they will get. Although the government is still in denial, a good deal of the establishment has realized the Hamas (who still aims for Israel's destruction) will not stop unless Israel responds to them using the only language that they understand - violence. It is unfortunate that this is the only way, but pushing it off will just make it worse (and harder to do) in the future.

2 votes

#9.4 - Thu Jul 6, 2006 3:49 PM EDT

chill

yes that is your view.

the children in palestine disagree. Collective punishment is a war crime

1 vote

#9.5 - Thu Jul 6, 2006 4:54 PM EDT

Keld Bach

Yaakov, I found your article quite interesting and well-written, but I think you distorted the Israel-Palestine conflict somehow by only focusing on the Gaza Strip. When Israel withdrew from Gaza they at the same time intensified building new settlements in the West Bank, and that upset the Palestinians of course. Is that not correct and what's your take on this?

#9.6 - Thu Jul 6, 2006 8:31 PM EDT

the egyptian

Hi Yaakov, how are you doing? Sorry for my absence but I've been out of town-- in your neighborhood actually, first Lebanon and now Egypt. I'm writing this from a very slow internet cafe in Cairo and after having read your post and the comments up to this point (not the comments after) so I apologize in advance if I say anything that has been covered in the many, many comments below this point.

First-- As always I commend your writing and your open mindedness. It's strange and funny that I can like a person I disagree with so much more than a great deal of people who, nominally at least, I would expect to agree with. I hope on my next trip to the region I might get a chance to visit you in person.

Now on to the questions you ask. I think that, in the end, the answer is basically that Palestinian leadership is and has for some time been made up of a bunch of thugs and criminals. Or in other words there is no such thing as Palestinian leadership. Just as some Arabs have a difficult time understanding that US policy is not so coherent as to be a massive conspiracy against the Arabs, I think that some Israelis have a difficult time understanding that Palestinian society is in such a desperate place that it barely looks like a society or government anymore. And thus one cannot ask why "Palestinians" didn't take advantage of the Gaza withdrawal. Even if the great majority of them wanted to, they are basically at the mercy of the terrorist element in their own society. We should not forget that Hamas terrorizes average Palestinians just as much, and probably more, than it does Israelis.

While Israel has benefited from the worldwide Jewish community's importation of lots of money and some of the smartest minds in the world, all of the greatest minds of the Palestinians have fled this situation they find themselves in. There are many wealthy Palestinian families, many intellectuals and potential leaders, but they have left. And who can blame them for this? So we should remember that as this conflict has gone on, Palestinian society has become less educated, less wealthy, more radicalized. In many ways the chances for peace are now worse than they have ever been.

Some of the commenters above are on the right track when they mention the fact that the West Bank plays an important role in all of this, as does the complete and utter lack of unity on the Palestinian side. In the end, though, I think that what you must understand is that if 1,000 people who are committed to the idea of "death to Israel" keep firing rockets into Israel, this is not enough to indict all the Palestinian people. If 1,000 people keep destroying the greenhouses and wrecking the government and sabotaging any chance of normal life that their own people can have, this is not enough to ask why "Palestinians" can't make a better go of it. This is why I keep arguing that the Israeli responses to aggressions against them are counterproductive. They are terrorizing all of Palestinian society, punishing all Palestinians, and creating more radicalism in general society, when they should be focusing on the terrorists and only the terrorists. Arresting Hamas legislators may be a good idea (I reserve judgement) but bombing a power station is emphatically not.

What to do about all this? I confess (and this may enough for most people who care about Palestinians to decide that I am not really one of them) that I like Olmert's plan. Get behind your wall and dismantle everything on the other side of it and leave the Palestinians to their own devices for as long as it takes for that society to get its house in order. Defend the Israeli borders (but please, don't take more Palestinian land to do this... the buffer zone should be on your side of the wall), don't go crazy because of small provocations, and allow the Palestinians to have the internal dialogue that is necessary for a real leadership to emerge. Once this happens, I feel quite confident that the border, and the relationship between Palestinians and Israelis, will be adjusted as necessary.

8 votes

#9.7 - Fri Jul 7, 2006 2:06 PM EDT

Keld Bach

I apparently belong to the "usual suspects" you called upon, Yaakov, but you don't seem to bother to answer. What's the purpose then?

1 vote

#9.8 - Sat Jul 8, 2006 10:26 AM EDT

Yaakov

Keld - sorry for not replying promptly, I was away from my computer for a couple of days.

When Israel withdrew from Gaza they at the same time intensified building new settlements in the West Bank, and that upset the Palestinians of course. Is that not correct and what's your take on this?

First, could you please give some links documenting how Israel has intensified building new settlements in the West Bank at the same time that they left from Gaza? For the most part, settlements in the West Bank have been experiencing natural growth due over the past few years, nothing like it was in the 80s and 90s.

Actually, at the time that Israel left Gaza, they were not building settlements in the West Bank. They were destroying them. The expulsion of Jews last year was not restricted to just Gaza. There were also four settlements in the Northern Shomron that were evacuated and destroyed: Kadim, Ganim, Homesh and Sa-Nur.

If anything, Israel's actions taken in the Shomron to destroy communities there and turn them over to the Palestinians should have sent a very clear message that Israel was willing and intent on turning over territory in West Bank, if only the Palestinians would not re-initiate warfare with Israel after Israel's withdrawals. Unfortunately, either the message did not get through, or it was seen as a sign that Israel will continue to withdraw from territory while being attacked.

3 votes

#9.9 - Mon Jul 10, 2006 4:04 AM EDT

Yaakov

the_egyptian - Thanks for your thoughtful and constructive comments (as always).

I think that, in the end, the answer is basically that Palestinian leadership is and has for some time been made up of a bunch of thugs and criminals. Or in other words there is no such thing as Palestinian leadership...And thus one cannot ask why "Palestinians" didn't take advantage of the Gaza withdrawal. Even if the great majority of them wanted to, they are basically at the mercy of the terrorist element in their own society. We should not forget that Hamas terrorizes average Palestinians just as much, and probably more, than it does Israelis.

This paragraph is very confusing to me. According to this, the Palestinians have no real leadership, a majority of Palestinians may have wanted to start building when Israel left Gaza, but instead they themselves are terrorized by the organizations that run their society, foremost among them being Hamas.

The thing that confuses me is that a few months after Israel ran from Gaza, the majority of Palestinians (despite the best efforts of the US and Israel) voted for Hamas. If your reference to "thugs and criminals" was only talking about the PLO, I would agree with you. But here I see you referring to Hamas as people who are terrorizing the Palestinians people. If they did this, and most people do not support them, then how did they get elected? We have had discussions before (which I am not in the mood to find right now) where I have said that they voted for Hamas, which wants to destroy Israel, and should therefore be viewed as supporting Hamas goals. To this, you always responded that when they voted for Hamas it was not in support of Hamas's stated goals of destroying Israel. Most people did not believe in that, you claimed (then and now). Really, the reason that they voted for Hamas is because Hamas wasn't corrupt, was not made up of thugs and criminals, and because of the social service infrastructure that Hamas had put into place. What you wrote here - that Hamas are thugs and criminals who may not be supported by the majority of Palestinians, and who in fact terrorize their constituents - flies right in the face of everything you have written on the subject in the past (to the best of my memory). So, I am confused.

I think that what you must understand is that if 1,000 people who are committed to the idea of "death to Israel" keep firing rockets into Israel, this is not enough to indict all the Palestinian people.

I think that the epidemic is much more widespread than 1,000 people. Digging tunnels under the fence for six months in order to run an operation, importing and constructing enough materials in order to produce at least 2 or 3 kassam missiles to fire into Israel, terrorist training camps, "security forces" numbering in the tens of thousands (for both Hamas and the PLO) - this requires a huge infrastructure to organize and maintain. Although the individual terror cells that fire the missiles are comprised of only a few people, they are backed up by many times that number who help keep them fed, armed and properly motivated.

And let's say in theory that 100% of the people with weapons are extremists committed to destroying Israel, and 100% of the unarmed civilians want a two-state solution (something that I find very hard to believe), then Israel still has a responsibility to its people to respond to attacks made against itself by these people. In this case, we may not be indicting all of the Palestinian people. However, when the extremists hide themselves among these people (most of whom seem to have no problem providing this cover) and fire missiles at Israel from their back yards, then who is to blame when civilians are injured when Israel responds by firing back? Even without an indictment, and even if most civilians are not in support of the goals of the government that they themselves elected (again, something I find to be a stretch), it does not change the reality that Israel is being fired upon by these people and Israel must respond in order to protect itself.

This is why I keep arguing that the Israeli responses to aggressions against them are counterproductive. They are terrorizing all of Palestinian society, punishing all Palestinians, and creating more radicalism in general society, when they should be focusing on the terrorists and only the terrorists.

So you think that Israel should just continue to absorb daily missiles fired into its own cities, aimed at its infrastructure and civilians, and forgoe its responsibility and obligation to defend itself, merely because responding may alienate some people on the other side?

Get behind your wall and dismantle everything on the other side of it and leave the Palestinians to their own devices for as long as it takes for that society to get its house in order.

I think that this suggestion completely ignores the last twelve months. This is what Israel did in Gaza, and look what has happened. You think that if Israel does this on a scale ten times larger it will have a completely opposite affect?

1 vote

#9.10 - Mon Jul 10, 2006 4:25 AM EDT

Keld Bach

Yaakov:

... could you please give some links documenting how Israel has intensified building new settlements in the West Bank at the same time that they left from Gaza?

I don't have any documentation for this right now. My computer unfortunately broke down last week erasing my whole "digital memory" but I do remember that Ariel Sharon on TV promised to complete some planned settlements in the West Bank just at the time of the withdrawal from Gaza. Maybe somebody else has some facts on this...

#9.11 - Mon Jul 10, 2006 9:56 AM EDT

Yaakov

Fair enough, let me know if you find something.

What is not disputable is that as part of the withdrawal last Summer, Israel destroyed four settlements in Northern Samaria. This seems to go directly against the notion that Israel was actively encouraging the growth of settlements in the West Bank (beyond natural growth that exists in any place where people live). Thus, I find it a stretch to say that increased settlement building in the West Bank was an impetus for further attacks against Israel.

2 votes

#9.12 - Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:06 AM EDT

the egyptian

Hi Yaakov,

Thanks for calling out the inconsistencies in my posts on this topic. I think I should clarify. Although there are many who wish to see Hamas as a homogenous movement, it is made up of at least three different parts-- the social welfare groups (that I have argued are largely responsible for Hamas winning a majority in the Palestinian elections), the more moderate leadership in Gaza and the West Bank, and the hardline leadership in Damascus. Furthermore, it is extremely unlikely that any of these three groups exercise any kind of authority over the actions taken by the terrorist groups. This may be confusing because the political leadership often attempts to "take credit" for actions taken by the militants, but the truth is that the political leadership probably had almost nothing to do with this latest escalation or the constant barrage of rockets into Israel. So in other words I think it's still fair to say that there is no single, unified "Palestinian leadership" of any kind, because this so-called leadership cannot exercise any control over the militant groups; and I can simultaenously say that the terrorist groups that are loosely affilliated with Hamas and Fatah terrorize the Palestinians at least as much as they do the Israelis. The armed groups that run Gaza and the West Bank ARE thugs and criminals, and I think you and maybe other commentators tend to exaggerate the level of control that the politicians have over these armed groups. In reality, it is very little.

I agree that Israel "must respond in order to protect itself", but my problem is with the level of the response. I still think, and no amount of discussion will change my opinion here, that the response to the abduction of Cpl. Shalit is totally out of proportion and extremely counterproductive. I am not arguing that Israel should "just continue to absorb daily missiles fired into its own citizens." I am arguing that Israel needs to reevaluate this response.

As for my policy prescription of Israel getting behind a wall and waiting things out, you exaggerate the importance of the Gaza withdrawal. It means very little to Palestinians, regardless of the trauma on the Israeli side, that Israel was willing to walk away from an overcrowded and hostile strip of land. Real withdrawal means leaving the West Bank as well. Even if this doesn't do much to change the attitudes of terrorists (though I think it will) it doesn't change the fact that it is the right thing to do.

1 vote

#9.13 - Tue Jul 11, 2006 6:18 AM EDT

Yaakov

Although there are many who wish to see Hamas as a homogenous movement, it is made up of at least three different parts

I hear what you are saying, but I don't think that it matters. According to you, the only thing that the "social welfare", political and terrorist parts of Hamas have in common is that they are all part of Hamas. To me this means: the one thing they have in common is that they all identify with the goals of Hamas: to destroy Israel. Even if the "social welfare" committee does not have direct control of the actions of the Qassam squads, they are all working and contributing towards the same goal. You yourself have claimed time and time again (including here) that the reason Hamas was elected was because of its social welfare, and not because of its terrorist policies. I disagree with this position, but for the sake of the discussion, let's assume that this is the case. So, this is saying that the Hamas-Social-Welfare was the direct cause of Hamas-Politicians to gain more power. And the Hamas-Polticians in turn (who have never swayed from their destroy-Israel party line) are able to use their increased power and influence to funnel more money and weapons to Hamas-Terrorists, who then use these resources to further their war against Israel. Even if the head of Hamas-Social-Welfare doesn't have the head of Hamas-Terrorists in his rolodex, they all choose (proudly) to be affiliated with an associated that is dedicated to destroying Israel, and all of their actions are directed towards furthering that goal.

Real withdrawal means leaving the West Bank as well. Even if this doesn't do much to change the attitudes of terrorists (though I think it will) it doesn't change the fact that it is the right thing to do.

Try to think from the Israeli point of view. The withdrawal from Gaza meant a great deal here. It was put up on a pedestal by the left-wing government as the model for future interactions with the Palestinians, and promises were made to the public that it was worth expelling 8,000 people from their homes and destroying their communities, because it would lead to peace. Now a year later, just about everyone in Israel, including the most ardent lefties, admit that after leaving Gaza all of the warnings from the right came true, their are more attacks against pre-1967 Israel then before, Israel was forced to go back into Gaza to respond to kidnappings and missile attacks, Gaza is now a big staging ground for terrorism in which the IDF has given away its ground presence. If you told the average Israeli that giving away land to Hamas will lead to a cessation of violence, he will laugh in your face.

I am aware that you think many Palestinians held the retreat from Gaza to be a minor event. However, in light of the way it is viewed in Israel, do you really expect people over here to support giving away many times more land, kicking out many times more people and destroying many times more communities simply because giving away Gaza wasn't enough, and they should take it on faith that the same escalation of violence will not take place (magnified many times) if Israel retreats from the West Bank? Whether or not it is the "right thing to do" means absolutely nothing if it is a 99.9% guarantee that Hamas (or their successor) will gain more power and will have 100% of Israel within Qassam range.

2 votes

#9.14 - Tue Jul 11, 2006 1:43 PM EDT

Full Throttle

Just a thought:

Wonder what would happen if the Palestinians changed tactics. Say change from firing rockets and sending suicide bombers across the border, say they go the route of Gandhi.

A passive protest. Line each and every Israeli/Palestine border gate with passive protesters. Cease all violence and practice Gandhi's ideas of peaceful civil disobedience.

Somebody has to call someone's bluff. Both sides play the tit for tat game of violence begets violence, might as well be the Palestinians to break the cycle.

Lets see who breaks first.

Great post Yaakov and I agree, if I see another disingenuous rant that includes a reference to Global Avoidable Mortality I may choke to death on regurgitated bile. Which oddly enough are all those stats are worth, bile.

7 votes

#10 - Thu Jul 6, 2006 4:04 AM EDT

Yaakov

Wonder what would happen if the Palestinians changed tactics. Say change from firing rockets and sending suicide bombers across the border, say they go the route of Gandhi.

All violence in the region would stop and they would have a country side by side with Israel, with international support, within the year.

4 votes

#10.1 - Thu Jul 6, 2006 11:16 AM EDT

the egyptian

Yeah, exactly. We Arabs royally @!$%#ed that one up. There is justice and truth on the Palestinian side but they have destroyed all sympathy for their cause with their behavior. While the terrorism *may* have been useful from a realpolitik point of view in the 1950s and 60s (in order to get the world's attention) once they got it, and they definitely did get it, they should have learned from the success of nonviolent movements throughout the world during that same time. If the Palestinians hadn't launched an intifida but had instead launched nonviolent protests... well, I can barely imagine what they would have gained.

5 votes

#10.2 - Fri Jul 7, 2006 2:10 PM EDT

Oluseye

Give them all their land back. PERIOD!

5 votes

#11 - Thu Jul 6, 2006 4:52 AM EDT

Yaakov

Yes, I agree that land should be given back to the settlers who were expelled from their homes in Gaza last Summer.

Do you have anything constructive to contribute to this discussion?

3 votes

#11.1 - Thu Jul 6, 2006 9:07 AM EDT

ComSen

Give them all their land back. PERIOD!

Give Israel the land back it had 2000 years ago?

3 votes

#11.2 - Thu Jul 6, 2006 9:10 AM EDT

Oluseye

My contribution is ...you can complain about anything either side did, but for me the issue is the fundamental cause.

#11.3 - Thu Jul 6, 2006 10:39 AM EDT

Yaakov

In other words, you believe that Hamas & the PLO are in favor of destroying Israel, and you are in favor of this. Thanks for letting us know.

3 votes

#11.4 - Thu Jul 6, 2006 10:51 AM EDT

Oluseye

BS...

I don't support destroying Israel, neither do I support Israeli atrocities.

Give them their land back, and realise that the onus of working out peace is on you.
'

They have a right to resist occupation.

2 votes

#11.5 - Thu Jul 6, 2006 10:58 AM EDT

Yaakov

So then when you mean "Give them all their land back. PERIOD!" you are not referring to their definition of what is included in "their land"?

The onus of peace is on Israel? So therefore, despite Israel turning over Gaza to them, they are entitled to fire missiles into Israel until Israel keeps backing down and gives them the rest of "their land"?

That sounds very much like advocating that Israel give back all of the land sought after by the Palestinians - in other words, the destruction of Israel.

(If you would mind clarifying your cryptic replies in the context of this discussion, then I wouldn't have to go to such lengths attempting to divine what it is you are really trying to say.)

2 votes

#11.6 - Thu Jul 6, 2006 11:06 AM EDT

Oluseye

Negotiating with them for their land. It was afterall, in modern times, their land. The onus is on you because it was their land.

Some people talk about pre-1967 borders, and that's at least reasonable. But beyond that, stop excessive militarism.

I don't want the destruction of Israel, I wnat justice done that is acceptable to the aggrieved and the International Community.

Israel's actions are not acceptable to the international community.

2 votes

#11.7 - Thu Jul 6, 2006 11:16 AM EDT

Yaakov

Negotiating with them for their land.

What do you think Israel has been trying to do for the past 15 years?

And if the goal of the Palestinians is to destroy Israel (as I have not seen any cogent argument against this claim, the overwhelming winner in the poll above), then how can Israel be expected to give up more land when the enemy will only use this to make further attacks easier.

So do you think that Israel should negotiate with them anyway, even though they desire to destroy Israel?

Or if you don't think that they want to destroy Israel, how can you justify this position given the points laid out in the article above?

2 votes

#11.8 - Thu Jul 6, 2006 11:29 AM EDT

chill

yaakov,

Since you are talking land/terrortory:

I would be interested in your views on the path (not the concept but the precise path) of the wall.

1 vote

#11.9 - Thu Jul 6, 2006 11:58 AM EDT

Yaakov

I would be interested in your views on the path

Although the topic of the fence is not germane to the topic at hand, my "short" answer is: I think that the fence in its current manifestation (it is a fence for almost the entire route, only a wall in a few sections) should not exist. Its current purpose is to define a future border between Israel and a Palestinian state, setting the exact location of the border at the whim of the current Israeli government. As I think that the current leadership of the PA still hopes for Israel's destruction and is acting to further this goal, any unilateral move to abandon large areas within the West Bank will only magnify the problems that have led to Israel's current offensive within Gaza (less than a year after leaving it).

If the fence must exist (and it will be condemned by Israel's opponents no matter what the route), then the route should reflect the current security situation. If Hamas/PLO are intent on destroying Israel, then the route should not make any allowances whatsoever that would in any way weaken the defense of Israel from any Palestinian state that might occupy the "other side of the fence" in the future (unlike the current route, which has made many of these allowances). That means more land annexed by Israel, less for Palestine. And the more the other side is intent on attacking Israel and seeking its destruction, the more cautious and wary Israel gets in planning the route of the fence.

1 vote

#11.10 - Thu Jul 6, 2006 1:02 PM EDT

chill

Fair enough. thx for response. My point was only that the ROUTE of the fence is pretty offensive to most non israelis and one reason why the fanatics won't accept status quo.

2 votes

#11.11 - Thu Jul 6, 2006 2:21 PM EDT

Full Throttle

Oluseye Bassir

Give them all their land back. PERIOD!

What land would that be? The term "Palestine" didn't exist until sometime in the 1960's.

According to the PLO proclamation of 1988 a State of Palestine referred to a country called Palestine but it's borders were vague at best. The only definitive section of that document was the annexation of State of Israel.

More recently the PA has demanded a return to the borders that existed prior to the 1967 Six-Day War. That border also follows the so-called Green Line dictated by the 1949 armistice line. To follow that line of reasoning the entire Southwest of the U.S. would have been returned to Mexico years ago. To take it futher The whole of America would have been returned to England.

There are consequences to war, one of which, as history teaches, is the loss of land.

3 votes

#11.12 - Thu Jul 6, 2006 8:03 PM EDT

Oluseye

Full Throttle; The United States and Mexico are huge countries, and Mexico is now not left with a homeland. When Israel rolled into Gaza last week, it claimed a Palestinian state does not exist. If The United States rolled into Mexico and Mexico ceased to exist, they would be justified to sk for their land.

As to your vague definitions, Israel did not exist when Palestine did not. Israel's borders now are vague and contested as well. On the map before 1948, there was an area marked Palestine. Part of it is now Israel. The exact coordinates of its boundaries are not clear, but neither in case you don't know are the exact boundaries of several states created by colonialists clear. That's a red herring.

We all know where Palestine was until Israel was created and the Palestines have to be pacified. Give them as much as you can without possibly eviscerating Israel. That would be justice. Otherwise, create part of the Nevadan desert and make it Palestine, maybe or perhaps Antarctica :)

Seriously, Full Throttle, there was an injustice done to the Palestines, and they want their land. This IMO is not too much to ask for.

You can condemn their terrorism but not without condemning Israel's which has much more gravity of consequence.

3 votes

#11.13 - Fri Jul 7, 2006 3:37 AM EDT

Yaakov

there was an injustice done to the Palestines, and they want their land.

The thing is, the land that they want is all of Israel.

If the only land that they wanted was the pre-1967 borders, West Bank - then they could have had a country there before 1967 (when the land was under the control of Jordan).

2 votes

#11.14 - Fri Jul 7, 2006 3:50 AM EDT

the egyptian

the land that they want is all of Israel.

This isn't true for the vast majority of the Palestinian people and you really ought to stop claiming otherwise. For the last 15 years poll after poll after poll has proven that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians (even today) would be satisfied with pre-1967 borders.

4 votes

#11.15 - Fri Jul 7, 2006 2:14 PM EDT

JalJones

Yaakov what if all of the Christian and Muslim Palestinians converted to Judaism would that lead to Peace in the Region? Since Israel must maintain its racist premise of a "Jewish State" at all cost rather than simply being a state for Jews.

2 votes

#12 - Thu Jul 6, 2006 11:48 AM EDT

Yaakov

Jallahbad Jones - Please stop trolling. If you have something on topic, please share. Otherwise, please go away. Similar comments will be deleted (especially when accusations of racism are leveled without basis).

4 votes

#12.1 - Thu Jul 6, 2006 11:51 AM EDT

JalJones

LOL! What accusation of racism?

#12.2 - Thu Jul 6, 2006 12:41 PM EDT

Yaakov

Since Israel must maintain its racist premise of a "Jewish State" at all cost

2 votes

#12.3 - Thu Jul 6, 2006 12:53 PM EDT

Dennis M Wright

Yaakov, don't need to allow yourself to be distracted off topic by, as you put it, trolls.

Sensible readers will recognise off-topic wild accusations and claims for what they are. Just ignore them.

They will only get support from those who are not in any event interested in learning anything from a rational discussion.

4 votes

#12.4 - Thu Jul 6, 2006 12:59 PM EDT

chill

The problem here is yaakov is asking a very good question to a very specific aspect of the conflict.

ie. why would the palestinians escalate hostilities just after receiving part of their demands.

Good question: But it appears to many that he is using it as a defense to the current Israeli reaction.

One could also phrase a different question:
"What could possibly justify the collective punishment of hundreds of thousands of innocent children such as is occurring now in Palestine?"

This is also a good question. There are lots of dirty hands here.

The region needs the emergence of special visionaries of peace like a (ok at least two) Ghandi(s). Someone that would say no matter how bad things get I understand that violence (especially against innocents) will help no-one.

I must say discussion here has changed my views. I started out cursing the palestinian leadership as causing endless harm to their people. I still believe that but am now also appalled at the israeli repsonse.

4 votes

#13 - Thu Jul 6, 2006 12:09 PM EDT

the egyptian

The region already had its peaceful visionaries and they were assassinated by radicals from their own countries. Who can imagine what would have happened if Yitzhak Rabin and Anwar Sadat were still living today?

2 votes

#13.1 - Fri Jul 7, 2006 2:19 PM EDT

FUN STUFF:

COMPANY STUFF:

LEGAL STUFF:

Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
Newsvine is a property of

	Continued Palestinian desire to destroy Israel
	Attacks in support of two-state solution
	Attacks in protest of Israeli "aggression"
	Attacks by extremist splinter terrorist groups
	None of the above

	1) Pro-Israel
	2) Pro Hamas/PLO/anti-Israel
	3) Somewhere in the middle
	Something else
	Undecided

New Users:

Existing Users:

YAAKOV

Why Did they Fire the Missiles?

Live Poll

Live Poll

Published to:

FUN STUFF:

COMPANY STUFF:

LEGAL STUFF: