Israel and Palestine agree to cease fire after rocket attacks, airstrikes

[Steely Dan]

Big Col

Islam is a religion, Zionism is a political movement.

Oh, please. You don't think the Iranian Islamic revolution was a political movement?!?

Actually, if you take the Quran and Hadiths and other Islamic texts ensemble they devote an enormous percentage of their content to how to conduct affairs with non-Muslims, this is the very epitome of a political movement, whereas Zionism is about the Jews and does not concern itself with affairs outside of Israel.

[Steely Dan]

The people firing the rockets into Israel, it's academic what you call them. If they get hit back, they asked for it.

But they don't get hit back, women and children do.

Only when the brave jihaddists fire from schools, hospitals and inside private residences.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTGbP55HGi8

[OzMick]

The people firing the rockets into Israel, it's academic what you call them. If they get hit back, they asked for it.

But they don't get hit back, women and children do.

When you fire a rocket at a residential area, and the eye in the sky tracks you home, do you have the right to complain when your family becomes collateral damage? It's a bit hard to claim the moral high ground when you're starting from an abyss.

[Colin Yai]

The people firing the rockets into Israel, it's academic what you call them. If they get hit back, they asked for it.

But they don't get hit back, women and children do.

When you fire a rocket at a residential area, and the eye in the sky tracks you home, do you have the right to complain when your family becomes collateral damage? It's a bit hard to claim the moral high ground when you're starting from an abyss.

Hey Mick,Hamas as been using women and kids has "human shields" for years ,as one of the Hamas leaders Fathi Hamad said quite plainly "they desire death as the Zionists desires life" . Edited March 20, 2012 by Colin Yai

[Pakboong]

Do you believe that true terrorist would be that pathetic? Strictly an academic point. Do you think the Iranians would send millions dollars and weapons to support a proxy terror effort that actually produced virtually nothing in real terms?

There was an end product; dead Palestinians. Iran has little regard for it's own citizens so it will have zero regard for the well being of Palestinians. They do have a propaganda value if killed by the Israelis though, and arming them with hi-tech weaponry would only result in sympathy for the Israelis if they caused significant casualties, not to mention the inevitable reprisals.

A valid point IMO.

I simply expect an average mortar man to be able to hit a football field with any kind of mortar made in the last 70 years and I expect a rocket launcher home made or otherwise, to out perform a 1000 year old catapult.

[Pakboong]

The people firing the rockets into Israel, it's academic what you call them. If they get hit back, they asked for it.

But they don't get hit back, women and children do.

When you fire a rocket at a residential area, and the eye in the sky tracks you home, do you have the right to complain when your family becomes collateral damage? It's a bit hard to claim the moral high ground when you're starting from an abyss.

My only point that I keep repeating is that a 21st century rocket or mortar is expected to perform infinitely better than is has over the last decade.

It is entirely possible that other factors are at play. Seriously, these are the world's premier terrorists, they are in the news daily. They are stupid and crude by comparison but there is no explanation for their dismal performance that would otherwise make sense to me.

Terrorists who use their kids as human shields would certainly have no problem decapitating an Israeli first grader and sending the family the head in a bag. There are plenty of Palestinian sources on the Israeli side of the fence and to arrange such as that would not be a major undertaking. That is terror, firing a rocket into the desert is hardly terrorism on a grand scale. My question which I keep repeating is: Why are the Palestinians so gentle in their terrorist effort?

I would gladly consider other opinions and try and offer my opinion without sarcasm.

Edited March 20, 2012 by Pakboong

[Jingthing]

The people firing the rockets into Israel, it's academic what you call them. If they get hit back, they asked for it.

But they don't get hit back, women and children do.

When you fire a rocket at a residential area, and the eye in the sky tracks you home, do you have the right to complain when your family becomes collateral damage? It's a bit hard to claim the moral high ground when you're starting from an abyss.

My only point that I keep repeating is that a 21st century rocket or mortar is expected to perform infinitely better than is has over the last decade.

It is entirely possible that other factors are at play. Seriously, these are the world's premier terrorists, they are in the news daily. They are stupid and crude by comparison but there is no explanation for their dismal performance that would otherwise make sense to me.

Terrorists who use their kids as human shields would certainly have no problem decapitating an Israeli first grader and sending the family the head in a bag. There are plenty of Palestinian sources on the Israeli side of the fence and to arrange such as that would not be a major undertaking. That is terror, firing a rocket into the desert is hardly terrorism on a grand scale. My question which I keep repeating is: Why are the Palestinians so gentle in their terrorist effort?

I would gladly consider other opinions and try and offer my opinion without sarcasm.

You're whining about Israeli successes! Hint: The west bank wall(s) virtually ending suicide bombers. Iron dome defense. Swift responses.

[Ulysses G.]

(Funny the founder wanted to establish a home in Palestine, I thought that place never existed according to some of you.)

Palestine was a desert region - not a state - with few inhabitants that was part of the Ottoman Empire. Jerusalem was a fairly vibrant city, but it was mostly dominated by Jews - not Arabs.

"..... A desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds... a silent mournful expanse.... a desolation.... we never saw a human being on the whole route.... hardly a tree or shrub anywhere. Even the olive tree and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country." (Mark Twain, The Innocents Abroad, p. 361-362)

Edited March 20, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Morch]

Perhaps I am way to cynical. I do not follow how or why Hamas would sit back and allow Islamic Jihad or anyone else to fire 200 rockets into the Israeli desert knowing that they would get what turned out to be 37 retaliation attacks by Israeli jets which kill 25 people and wound another 90. Like you say, Israel holds Hamas responsible. I get that. It is part of every IDF press release on these rocket attacks. That doesn't make sense to me and it is not about bad assumptions on my part. Hamas can't be that stupid. In this silly scenario, there is nothing in it for Hamas but pain and by any standard, that does not hold up for me.

Problem at least for me is, the other 7 billion people on our planet do not necessarily hold Hamas responsible. I happen to be from the 7 billion group that doesn't care who Israel holds responsible it simply needs to make sense in some meaningful way and cui bono matters in all such cases. This in no way benefits the group held accountable and in this case, that group stood by, according to several Israeli reports, and did nothing. Seems that everybody knew what was going on and Hamas stood by and let Israeli jets kill their people. If that makes sense to you, what can I say but good for you?

The IDF published in JP that they expected 100 plus rockets in retaliation for the mission to kill a couple of terrorist leaders. Did they expect a retaliation from Hamas or from Islamic Jihad. Or was the game arranged in such a way that Hamas would sit this one out and let Islamic Jihad have the fun? The initial reports on this indicate Hamas was not responsible for this attack. The report is in both the JP and Haaretz. I have posted 3 references, all from Israeli news papers, that Hamas was not involved. I get the IDF claim that Hamas is responsible for everything happening in Gaza; not necessary to repeat it.

PS, a grad or qassam will typically arrive at a launch site in the back of a van. The van will not hold much of this stuff and it is usually accompanied by 3 terrorists. If you need video of an actual launch taken by an Israeli drone, I can probably dig that up for you. It is a fairly large logistical effort to launch 200 of these.

Considering exactly the same things goes on in Lebanon for a long while, this isn't very original at all. Lebanese army hardly ever does anything to prevent attacks by Hezbollah, doesn't stop Lebanon from whining when Israel strikes back.

Hamas didn't intervene because due to some reasons:

1 - They can not afford to be seen as weak compared to the Islamic Jihad, or as collaborating with Israel. Especially not nowadays, when they are about to join hand with the Palestinian Authority, a move that will cost them some of the "tough guys" image.

2 - The Israeli attacks were vs. the Islamic Jihad. Hamas got little objection to the two hitting each other.

3 - Not in Hamas best interests to start an internal war just now. They are somewhat divided over the PA move.

4 - They were taken by surprise, and took them a while to figure how to go about this. They ain't no super masterminds, just politicians like everyone else. I don't think they could have perdicted how intense this round would be. We all make mistakes.

Israel did not say they hold the Hamas solely accountable , but both organisations. The meaning isn't that Hamas assisted or planned any of this, just that they are responsible by being in charge and not taking care of things. No one claimed they benefited much out of this.

I don't quite understand the "everyone seemed to know what was going on" bit - this isn't a new kind of event or something, all happened before more than once. As for killing "their" people - a little tricky, that. Hamas wouldn't exactly shed tears over Islamic Jihad supportes buying the farm. Kinda even "benefit" some as they get to blame Israel too, without getting hurt.

IDF for sure expected a reaction from the Islamic Jihad. As for a Hamas reaction, I don't think they could tell ahead what will happen. For one thing, Hamas got it's own internal issues now so control might be messed up a bit. Second, when fighting breaks out it doesn't always go as expected. easy enough for stuff to go down even without direct attack on Hamas.

If you're hinting at a possible arrangement between Israel and the Hamas - not as such, certainly not before the attack (can't imagine Israel would trust the Hamas that much). There might have been a message convayed later on, such as "don't get involved, don't get hurt", yes. I have no idea if that happened for real, though.

Grads etc - Shooting 200 of those within a short period of time and under current conditions is an undertaking, yes. You post dealt more with storage, handers and launch sites - and I replied to that.

Mind, the Islamic Jihad do claim to have multiple launchers, so might save them some effort :-).

Thanks for the time you took to reply. I know my twist on all of this can be quite tiring.

I keep getting hung up on a couple of points that keep jumping out at me. There are several but the two main points are:

-Hamas governs Gaza in a way that you would expect from the Keystone Cops. Their efforts are so feeble that the people have to know it. How could these people get elected to conduct a fire drill? All they have done is get thousands of Palestinians killed. The kill ratio is approximately 100-1 in favor of the Israelis.

-They have to be the most incompetent terrorists in history. I get the terror from "the unknown" but, it hasn't happened. Terrorists want to revenge their own dead, not a halloween type ghost scaring. Without dead, there is no serious explanation for the effort. There have been a few here that think Hamas and Iran do not want to start war. To me that is a bit rediculous but everybody is entitled to their opinion. These terrorists want to Martyr themselves to the point that they use their children as human shields. Hamas is pulling its punches to make sure they don't get knocked out to quickly or beaten up to badly. What about the Martyr argument that always comes into play when something Islamic does not otherwise make sense?

The facts of the matter are: Hamas is responsible for One Israeli death due to 627 rocket and mortar attacks in 2011. That could not make sense to the dumbest Palestinian. Hamas is elected by the people of Gaza and they have provided nothing but death. They are terrorist but the really do not act like terrorists. They act like they are playing out a script in a one act play.

This past weekend, 200 rockets were fired and nobody was killed except 25 Palestinans who don't seem to mind as long as they don't have to get killed in a real war.

Somebody posts here every day that Hamas are responsible for all this horrible terror but all the terror has actually fallen on Gaza, not Israel. (100-1) kill ratio. That is way too simple for my little pea brain. All of these people have signed up for a 100-1 kill ratio because they are stupid? Seriously, nobody is that stupid. Even Soi Dogs would not buy into that scenario. Iran is backing them with money and weapons?? Got to be kidding; are the Palestinians spending the money on baseball cards and only chewing the gum? Somebody on one of these threads is posting about Iranian proxies as I type. This is some fine proxy. Any mother would be proud.

Have you considered the idea that this Hamas arrangement could be staged? They certainly act as if it is staged.

Not exactly sure what you expect of the Hamas rule in Gaza.

It is not as if they had a great tradition running something like that or much experience with minding all manner of public affairs on this scale. True, they did (and do) have quite an active side running Muslim NGO style outfits, but that is not quite the same thing.

Before they took power, Hamas were the bad ass kids on the block. They could have a go at the Israli military, leaving the PA crowd to clean up the mess (while blaming them for holding Hamas down and collaborating with Israel). They are now getting a taste of the same from the smaller (more) militant organisations. Would the good people of Gaza prefer a better govrenment? Probably, yes. Just that there are not that many hot options in the political market and none got a real shiny track record.

Not sure about the latest best-terrorist-group pole in Gaza, but they are definitly losing ground. Being in charge takes its toll, as you can not entirely ignore the consequences of your actions. Much more fun to be non-govrenment, then you get to do all the fun terrorist stuff. As things stand, they more and more realize that what was said about eating the cake and living it whole, was a horrible truth. A bit OT - interesting to see how making up with the PA will fit into this.

As for how they were elected - people got fed up with the other side, which was ripe with corruption and was seen being too soft on the Israel front (but mostly it was the corruption and good campigning). Later on they simply wiped the opposition, thus securing their rule. As in many of these cases, they are well aware the same can happen to them if they get careless - which might explain some of their dilemmas and apparent confusion. There is also an internal rift between hardliners and, well...slightly less hardliners, over their role (carrying on the fight vs. ruling Gaza) and the talks with the PA. Interesting times over there.

Hamas is in power now, and has been for a while. People get used to being in power, and not that keen on letting go. Getting Israel too pissed off runs the risk of major retaliation. In the aftermath, who is to say Hamas will still be in charge? There are other contenders around. In the same way, I wouldn't place much on "martyrdom" arguments - you rarely see a leader volunteering for that sort of thing (well, not true just for Hamas, of course, but more a leader in general sort of thing). One gets used to the perks and such, so not in a hurry to leave. You ask where does the arms money go - Thai politicians do not have monopoly on corruption. Easier to be radical when you're not in charge, having more to lose mellows people some.

Not sure how you mean that the terror "not happened" - the low number of Israeli casualties from rocket attacks doesn't make them less effective. The fear, panic and stress they produce are real enough. So are direct and indirect damages. Most people don't run statistical figures when things are exploding around.

Terrorists want quite a few things other than "revenge". One would thing that instilling terror would be among those. On that front, they are doing fine. Other than effecting Israeli morale, getting Israel to react (and reinforce its aggressor image), broadcasting the message that they are still in the fight - it is also a rather common notion that rocket attacks act as deterrence against Israel taking harsher

actions (proving otherwise is a somewhat complicated in the current state of affairs). Not sure if the recent round would make a dent in that one,

The claim that they are useless as terrorists is off mark. The might not be the best around, but they also act within a very unfavorable set of conditions and limitations. Gaza is rather effectively blockaded, so that arms supply is both costly and complicated (nothing like the Hezbollah in Lebanon). In very much the same way, the border with Israel is practically sealed for some time now, precluding ground attacks (both conditions might change as the situation in Egypt and the Sinai peninsula evolve). This leaves very little options for attacking Israeli targets, hence rockets being the major venue.

The rockets available to the Palestinians aren't top notch and not used as intended (massive barrages). This is mainly due that nasty problem of there being an Israeli military. Firing the rockets isn't a big deal, but when you have very short time to do so, with fair changes of getting killed while at it, performance suffers. They are not up against the Royal Thai Army, exactly. Israel has been at it for years, got the technology, the firepower and the intel - seems like they figured how to deal with this threat. But mostly it is a question of access, and the fence/wall solution seems to be working on this level.

Are the Palestinians frustrated? Sure. Holding parades and claiming victory is almost mandatory, but the leadership and troops, at least, know the score. It is not lack of trying or motivation, just that the hurdle got way higher than before (not that they don't manage something every now and then). I would imagine those killed in the last round of fighting (seems like most were indeed terrorists), would rather, on the whole, stay alive. Not entirely sure how this wasn't "real war" - what...with swords and such? Sitting in a tank? This is what war looks like nowadays.

Is the 100:1 ratio you keep flaunting based on figures or is it one of those things that will be repeated ad nauseum until it will be accepted as fact? :-).

Hamas isn't the only terrorist organisation in Gaza, maybe even not currently the most militant one. Can't reproduce the the numbers off the top of my head, but safe to say that the smaller outfits definitly getting more and more of the action. While Hamas isn't directly responsible for all of the attacks on Israel, it does bear responsibility for damage and casualties in Gaza. Being the alleged sovreign, it has the power to limit such actions, if not to stop them altogether, and this avoid lethal retaliation. For Ideological and political reasons, this rarely ever happens. All 'n all, not much fun being a Hamas leader now, seems to be stuck between a rock and a hard place most of the time.

The backing from Iran is mostly financial and political, transfering arms being complicated (as said before, this might change due to the situation in Egypt). I'm not so sure that you and Iran share the same idea of what a good proxy is. For Iran, the main benefits of support are that it keeps Israel on its toes, undermines morale, keeps Israel fixed with the aggressor image and when needed, easy enough to cause major escalation.

Constantly firing barages of rockets on Israel would be a short lived venture, while giving it enough justification to conduct a full scale offensive operation. That would also mean Iran will have to renew its investment and rebuild contacts and capabilities. Much better the way it works now, so I'd say they're generally doing fine as proxy.

Staged? How? With whom? You got to be kidding.

Israel got nothing to gain from such a deal, and the Israeli public will tear apart any leadership for that. Mirror image of the same on the other side. You can be sure of two things - no way this could have been kept quiet on both sides, and like many of this vocation, local leaders care more about personal political survival. Considering both leaderships got some real extremists aboard (ones who really believe in the rhetoric) - not very likely they could stomach anything remotely llike that.

[Morch]

The point I am working up to is that Hamas conducts themselves more like an Israeli proxy than an Iranian proxy. What I have been writing about in other posts on this thread are the lead up to that conclusion.

To me, the important information is how Hamas would conduct intelligence operations within the Arab population on the Israeli side of the fence. These people are Arabs and have an ideological connection to Palestine, not Israel. Not that long ago they were strapping on vests with explosives and killing as many Israelis as they could, now they are cautious and don't want to start a real war?? But more importantly is that there is essentially no evidence that Israel is conducting counter intelligence among the people on the Israeli side of the fence. That is the Israeli forte but there is nothing coming out from any source about the Israelis having caught a spy on the Israeli side of the fence. Leads me to believe that the Israelis have reasons not to bother.

The Israelis conduct operations in this particular effort much as they would run an investment bank. Completely leveraged. Every war they have gotten themselves involved in was set up and leveraged to the hilt to minimize their risk. In this Hamas struggle, they have reduced their risk to .002. Can't get much more leveraged that that.

The irony of this point is, there will be pro-Israeli posters who can't help but holler "Nonsense" even though this is a very pro-Israeli view.

For one thing the border with Israel is practically sealed for them now, not the good old days. Much more surveillance focused on Gaza, as well. Pretty much the same reason they find it hard to execute that many ground operations (last one was via Sinai Peninsula and the Egyptian border).

Although they do get some collaboration - it is not that much of an issue and really never was. There are few reasons for that: (1) Israel maintains a very tight internal security apparatus (some say to the point of being almost a police state), most of it directed at the Israeli Arab population. (2) While Ideology is all very nice, getting caught is a distinct possibility that comes with a real long jail term (in addition, those do not get released when Israel trades terrorists for kidnapped soldiers, and promised funds are cut off). (3) Generally speaking, Israeli Arabs are better off than their brethren in Gaza and the West Bank, so the support they offer is usually more political in nature. Also, while most support the Palestinian cause, they have little wish to live under same restrictions posed by Palestinian leaderships (once again, more to lose etc.).

But again, it is mostly down to the issues of access and improved surveillance (It should be noted that the opposite does not apply - Israeli controls and regulates access, so theoretically could insert agents pretty easily). In connection with the first reason cited, both Palestinians and Israeli Arabs tend to be somewhat weary of political talk with unknown persons, mistrust runs high and informants are said to be common (does not have to be but people do believe this, or anyway would rather be careful).

As for evidence - not sure exactly what do you expect? A monthly newsletter detailing counter-intelligence actions of the Israeli secret service? They were never very forthcoming with information and got quite a leeway not sharing it.

Regarding wars Israel was involved in - you definitely got this one wrong: 1948 was not a set up and the risks did run high, same goes for 1973. 1982 saw Israel setting itself up in the Lebanese mess, not very bright, and risk management still in progress even after all those years. One may add that having a great plan how to win the 1967 war was not accompanied by a great plan on what to do afterwards, which is one of the main reasons for the current sad state of affairs. If this was meant in reference to any recent fighting vs. the Palestinians - this is not much of a challenge from a military point of view.

Repeating the claim that the rocket fire carries no effect does not make it so. Calculating statistical chances of getting hit and finding them low is not all that soothing as it sounds. Those things are pretty scary stuff. Somewhat like mortar fire, for example, not very accurate, but scares the living hell out of the opposition. Plus, it does hit every now and then, which is plain nasty.

The fear and stress by themselvs are damaging, nevermind the hits that do come in, damage to property and to the economy (recent round so most schools in southern Isral closed, quite a lot of businesses as well).

[Morch]

http://www.atimes.co...t/NC17Ak01.html

"even the hawks are sensitive to international pressure and know that an extended operation in Gaza would make a raid against Iran more difficult."

You can see how the pieces can fit together, not that there is any guarantee that this is what is infact happening.

I read this article earlier and can't help but wonder why a terrorist group would repeatedly break a cease fire knowing they are on the wrong end of a 100-1 kill ratio. This article even mentions the low Israeli end of the kill ratio. I have even thought back on other historical terrorists and for the most part, they get a lot of bang for their buck largely because of the surprise element of their effort. Hamas is an exception to pretty much all of terror history as far as I am aware. The American Indians were way better terrorists and they didn't have rockets.

I realize indigenous Arabs are not that bright as a group and give up roughly 22 points on average IQ to Ashkenazi Jews, survival also involves instinct and even the dumbest person has innate survival hardwired somehow into his being.

It is not necessarily the same group breaking the ceasefire. There are more than one terrorist organization around, not all are well coordinated inwards and outwards. Discipline is not always adhered to by everyone.

This time it might very well have been PRC (Popular Resistance Committees) people, who took a while to mobilize after their leader was assassinated by Israel in the recent attack which sparked this round of hostilities.

Perhaps not so much a question of violation from the Palestinian side, but another example of their inability or lack of will to control evens such as this.

I like Westerns too. Some things I keep noticing are how the settlers back then did not have constant aerial and communication surveillance, how those wagons were not really that hard to pass through, and how ringing a big bell or banging a pot fails to act as proper alarm (plus the actor making the racket gets himself killed). Nice try.

[Morch]

Interestingly and the basis for my posts is that is exactly what has happened. They fall harmlessly into the Israeli desert. More recently however, the Israelis claim that many are shot down by Iron Dome capabilities. Before Iron Dome, the casualty rate was also very low. 22 dead since the year 2000.

Could I sell you the simple idea that riding a motorbike in Thailand is significantly more dangerous than living within rocket range of Gaza. Apples and Oranges I know, but a true statement none the less. Many of us Farangs, despite the serious danger, continue on with our motorbikes.

Define "harmlessly"? One might almost imagine kids going out to watch the pretty fireworks. Not.

During Israel's 2006 conflict with Hezbollah, about 4000 rockets were fired (about a 100 per day). Israeli civilian casualties attributed to rocket attacks amounted to 43 (18 of them Israeli Arabs, btw).

Hezbollah is much more experienced, and much better trained than the Palestinians, theater or operations was signigicantly larger, Israeli military was not entirely focused on putting a stop to rocket fire, surveilance and defense systems available today (such as "Iron Dome") were not in service back then.

Not very impressive when you look at the figures. Then again, they did manage to drive a few hundred thousand people out of their homes, and instill some major fear in many more. Rockets are good as terror inducing, not necessarily the most effective for killing people.

The Palestinians operate under much harder conditions, give them a break, will ya? :-).

[Morch]

It is an academic point, not an emotional one. 22 dead in over 11 years is a significant piece of information. Last year's body count actually showed up as an OP topic in this forum That was 1 dead Israeli in 627 rockets and mortar attacks. If I add the 200 fired this last weekend that is astronomical failure.

Do you believe that true terrorist would be that pathetic? Strictly an academic point. Do you think the Iranians would send millions dollars and weapons to support a proxy terror effort that actually produced virtually nothing in real terms? Then compare that data with the dead Palestinians. The Terrorists kill no one and the victims kill 25 just last weekend. I started this point well before last weekend. Last weekend was simply consistent with my point. Very consistent.

The Palestinian terrorists do not act within a vacuum, but face a rather formidable opponent.

Take the Thai national football team. pit it against one of Europe's top sides in a game that matters - how do you think it will end up?

[Morch]

About a third of the Israeli population is Arab. Nobody is trying to belittle Jewish capability nor to doubt the huge average IQ advantage they have over the Arabs. In fact, the point I continually make is, what an accomplishment it is to leverage your own terrorist arrangement so that on your end it is pretty much all upside.The downside is fear and a few dead. What world leader would not enter an agreement which gave him a 100-1 kill ratio over his enemy? Regardless of the body count ration, you have the complete sympathy of the rest of the world. Of course they would never admit that they were willing to sacrifice an Israeli for the common good of the country. This sort of thing has happened routinely throughout history.

Abraham Lincoln as outlined in US Grant's memoirs sacrificed northern POWs at Andersonville for strategic reasons.

More like 20% (East Jerusalem included), about 15% of those will be Christian, Druze and other minorities. Just to get things straight instead of throwing numbers around.

Not even getting into this IQ crap, sorry.

Complete sympathy of the world? When did that happen? Israel gets mostly bad press when fighting with the Palestinians (sometimes rightfully so), certainly gets more than its fair share of UN (and affiliated organizations) condemnations.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4196331,00.html

This sort of thing has happened routinely throughout history.

Really? Democratic governments in modern times sacrifice their citizens routinely for the greater good? And the best you can come up with is a a reference to something not very similar (for one thing, POWs are not civilians), that took place about 150 years ago?

[Morch]

The people firing the rockets into Israel, it's academic what you call them. If they get hit back, they asked for it.

But they don't get hit back, women and children do.

That is patently not true, unless you want to claim all (or most) of those killed by IDF attacks on Gaza are women and children. Even the Palestinians do not make this claim.

http://www.womanhonorthyself.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/muz-toon0_2.gif

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and replies have been removed.

[Morch]

(Funny the founder wanted to establish a home in Palestine, I thought that place never existed according to some of you.)

Palestine was a desert region - not a state - with few inhabitants that was part of the Ottoman Empire. Jerusalem was a fairly vibrant city, but it was mostly dominated by Jews - not Arabs.

"..... A desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds... a silent mournful expanse.... a desolation.... we never saw a human being on the whole route.... hardly a tree or shrub anywhere. Even the olive tree and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country." (Mark Twain, The Innocents Abroad, p. 361-362)

Hrrmf, it makes good reading, and sort of funny how he lashes out at everyone.

As an accurate account, I wouldn't place much faith in it. Treat it more like an idiosyncratic blogger view.

Most academic research cites population in Ottoman Palestine at 300,000-400,000 around this time.

[Pakboong]

The point I am working up to is that Hamas conducts themselves more like an Israeli proxy than an Iranian proxy. What I have been writing about in other posts on this thread are the lead up to that conclusion.

To me, the important information is how Hamas would conduct intelligence operations within the Arab population on the Israeli side of the fence. These people are Arabs and have an ideological connection to Palestine, not Israel. Not that long ago they were strapping on vests with explosives and killing as many Israelis as they could, now they are cautious and don't want to start a real war?? But more importantly is that there is essentially no evidence that Israel is conducting counter intelligence among the people on the Israeli side of the fence. That is the Israeli forte but there is nothing coming out from any source about the Israelis having caught a spy on the Israeli side of the fence. Leads me to believe that the Israelis have reasons not to bother.

The Israelis conduct operations in this particular effort much as they would run an investment bank. Completely leveraged. Every war they have gotten themselves involved in was set up and leveraged to the hilt to minimize their risk. In this Hamas struggle, they have reduced their risk to .002. Can't get much more leveraged that that.

The irony of this point is, there will be pro-Israeli posters who can't help but holler "Nonsense" even though this is a very pro-Israeli view.

For one thing the border with Israel is practically sealed for them now, not the good old days. Much more surveillance focused on Gaza, as well. Pretty much the same reason they find it hard to execute that many ground operations (last one was via Sinai Peninsula and the Egyptian border).

Although they do get some collaboration - it is not that much of an issue and really never was. There are few reasons for that: (1) Israel maintains a very tight internal security apparatus (some say to the point of being almost a police state), most of it directed at the Israeli Arab population. (2) While Ideology is all very nice, getting caught is a distinct possibility that comes with a real long jail term (in addition, those do not get released when Israel trades terrorists for kidnapped soldiers, and promised funds are cut off). (3) Generally speaking, Israeli Arabs are better off than their brethren in Gaza and the West Bank, so the support they offer is usually more political in nature. Also, while most support the Palestinian cause, they have little wish to live under same restrictions posed by Palestinian leaderships (once again, more to lose etc.).

But again, it is mostly down to the issues of access and improved surveillance (It should be noted that the opposite does not apply - Israeli controls and regulates access, so theoretically could insert agents pretty easily). In connection with the first reason cited, both Palestinians and Israeli Arabs tend to be somewhat weary of political talk with unknown persons, mistrust runs high and informants are said to be common (does not have to be but people do believe this, or anyway would rather be careful).

As for evidence - not sure exactly what do you expect? A monthly newsletter detailing counter-intelligence actions of the Israeli secret service? They were never very forthcoming with information and got quite a leeway not sharing it.

Regarding wars Israel was involved in - you definitely got this one wrong: 1948 was not a set up and the risks did run high, same goes for 1973. 1982 saw Israel setting itself up in the Lebanese mess, not very bright, and risk management still in progress even after all those years. One may add that having a great plan how to win the 1967 war was not accompanied by a great plan on what to do afterwards, which is one of the main reasons for the current sad state of affairs. If this was meant in reference to any recent fighting vs. the Palestinians - this is not much of a challenge from a military point of view.

Repeating the claim that the rocket fire carries no effect does not make it so. Calculating statistical chances of getting hit and finding them low is not all that soothing as it sounds. Those things are pretty scary stuff. Somewhat like mortar fire, for example, not very accurate, but scares the living hell out of the opposition. Plus, it does hit every now and then, which is plain nasty.

The fear and stress by themselvs are damaging, nevermind the hits that do come in, damage to property and to the economy (recent round so most schools in southern Isral closed, quite a lot of businesses as well).

Thanks for the civil response Morch, I do appreciate the time you have taken to explain your position and why you disagree with mine. These threads should be about academic discourse IMO.

Seriously, I expect virtually no agreement on my points. They seem so foreign to anybody pro-Israel or otherwise. The point is, right or wrong, these points will never be popular. regardless of any statistic. The question is why.

All my analysis is simplistic because that is pretty much all it takes to make the points.

Not much damage.

Damage has not increased with Hamas.

Iran sends in money and weapons.

Hamas are gentle in their terrorism, despite sacrificing their own children as human shields, they don't want to cause a major war where lots of people could be killed. They are content to risk their own lives to send hundreds of rockets and mortar shells into the desert.

If you do not think that one death in last 827 rocket mortar attacks is not statistically significant then you cannot possibly see my point much less agree with it. These are the attackers. By any standard, the attackers/terrorist will have a statistical advantage but these guys are not even close. In fact, their record stacks up as what would possible the worst record in terrorist history. To me, that is significant to a point of conclusion. It stands alone regardless of how much fear the threat of being hit by a rocket causes. Am I expected to believe that a terrorist cannot hit a grid square with a rocket is really the world's worst bad guy? What are Hamas hoping to accomplish other than getting themselves killed in a retaliation strike?

Really I am only asking one sensible question. At what point does the statistical record become significant? Perhaps 2000-1.

There simply has to be an academic point where things come into question and are simply not accepted because the Mainstream Media says so. I am merely searching for that particular point and the other side of the argument resists the notion that such a point can actually exist.

Edited March 20, 2012 by Pakboong

[Pakboong]

Interestingly and the basis for my posts is that is exactly what has happened. They fall harmlessly into the Israeli desert. More recently however, the Israelis claim that many are shot down by Iron Dome capabilities. Before Iron Dome, the casualty rate was also very low. 22 dead since the year 2000.

Could I sell you the simple idea that riding a motorbike in Thailand is significantly more dangerous than living within rocket range of Gaza. Apples and Oranges I know, but a true statement none the less. Many of us Farangs, despite the serious danger, continue on with our motorbikes.

Define "harmlessly"? One might almost imagine kids going out to watch the pretty fireworks. Not.

During Israel's 2006 conflict with Hezbollah, about 4000 rockets were fired (about a 100 per day). Israeli civilian casualties attributed to rocket attacks amounted to 43 (18 of them Israeli Arabs, btw).

Hezbollah is much more experienced, and much better trained than the Palestinians, theater or operations was signigicantly larger, Israeli military was not entirely focused on putting a stop to rocket fire, surveilance and defense systems available today (such as "Iron Dome") were not in service back then.

Not very impressive when you look at the figures. Then again, they did manage to drive a few hundred thousand people out of their homes, and instill some major fear in many more. Rockets are good as terror inducing, not necessarily the most effective for killing people.

The Palestinians operate under much harder conditions, give them a break, will ya? :-).

Hezbollah fire the Kutuschka (sp) which is of a better quality than the Qassam. Why does Hamas not have Kutushkas? When anybody on this forum refers to the bad guys of Gaza, Hamas is used. Not my view, it is the mainstream view.

[Pakboong]

Interestingly and the basis for my posts is that is exactly what has happened. They fall harmlessly into the Israeli desert. More recently however, the Israelis claim that many are shot down by Iron Dome capabilities. Before Iron Dome, the casualty rate was also very low. 22 dead since the year 2000.

Could I sell you the simple idea that riding a motorbike in Thailand is significantly more dangerous than living within rocket range of Gaza. Apples and Oranges I know, but a true statement none the less. Many of us Farangs, despite the serious danger, continue on with our motorbikes.

Define "harmlessly"? One might almost imagine kids going out to watch the pretty fireworks. Not.

During Israel's 2006 conflict with Hezbollah, about 4000 rockets were fired (about a 100 per day). Israeli civilian casualties attributed to rocket attacks amounted to 43 (18 of them Israeli Arabs, btw).

Hezbollah is much more experienced, and much better trained than the Palestinians, theater or operations was signigicantly larger, Israeli military was not entirely focused on putting a stop to rocket fire, surveilance and defense systems available today (such as "Iron Dome") were not in service back then.

Not very impressive when you look at the figures. Then again, they did manage to drive a few hundred thousand people out of their homes, and instill some major fear in many more. Rockets are good as terror inducing, not necessarily the most effective for killing people.

The Palestinians operate under much harder conditions, give them a break, will ya? :-).

Hezbollah fire the Kutuschka (sp) which is of a better quality than the Qassam. Why does Hamas not have Kutushkas? When anybody on this forum refers to the bad guys of Gaza, Hamas is used. Not my view, it is the mainstream view.

Harmlessly is a relative term and applies IMO as to the anticipated amount of damage versus the amount actually done. I fully understand your point. Fear is damage!! I would also make the point that fear can be used by the alleged victims to maintain control of the governed. Underwear bomber is a great example. We now have our underwear checked for bombs out of a really silly fear scenario.

[Ulysses G.]

Hezbollah fire the Kutuschka (sp) which is of a better quality than the Qassam. Why does Hamas not have Kutushkas?

Iran does not really like the Palestinians - Iran's population is overwhelmingly Shia, whereas Gaza is Sunni - and Tehran has withdrawn its patronage of Hamas over the Palestinian group's refusal to support the Syrian regime's crackdown against the uprising. On top of that, Hezbollah have much better supply lines and they are the direct puppets of Iran where Hamas have been grudging allies.

In short, why waste Katyushas on people that you despise when Qassams work just fine politically from Iran's perspective?

Edited March 21, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Jingthing]

The point I am working up to is that Hamas conducts themselves more like an Israeli proxy than an Iranian proxy. What I have been writing about in other posts on this thread are the lead up to that conclusion.

To me, the important information is how Hamas would conduct intelligence operations within the Arab population on the Israeli side of the fence. These people are Arabs and have an ideological connection to Palestine, not Israel. Not that long ago they were strapping on vests with explosives and killing as many Israelis as they could, now they are cautious and don't want to start a real war?? But more importantly is that there is essentially no evidence that Israel is conducting counter intelligence among the people on the Israeli side of the fence. That is the Israeli forte but there is nothing coming out from any source about the Israelis having caught a spy on the Israeli side of the fence. Leads me to believe that the Israelis have reasons not to bother.

The Israelis conduct operations in this particular effort much as they would run an investment bank. Completely leveraged. Every war they have gotten themselves involved in was set up and leveraged to the hilt to minimize their risk. In this Hamas struggle, they have reduced their risk to .002. Can't get much more leveraged that that.

The irony of this point is, there will be pro-Israeli posters who can't help but holler "Nonsense" even though this is a very pro-Israeli view.

For one thing the border with Israel is practically sealed for them now, not the good old days. Much more surveillance focused on Gaza, as well. Pretty much the same reason they find it hard to execute that many ground operations (last one was via Sinai Peninsula and the Egyptian border).

Although they do get some collaboration - it is not that much of an issue and really never was. There are few reasons for that: (1) Israel maintains a very tight internal security apparatus (some say to the point of being almost a police state), most of it directed at the Israeli Arab population. (2) While Ideology is all very nice, getting caught is a distinct possibility that comes with a real long jail term (in addition, those do not get released when Israel trades terrorists for kidnapped soldiers, and promised funds are cut off). (3) Generally speaking, Israeli Arabs are better off than their brethren in Gaza and the West Bank, so the support they offer is usually more political in nature. Also, while most support the Palestinian cause, they have little wish to live under same restrictions posed by Palestinian leaderships (once again, more to lose etc.).

But again, it is mostly down to the issues of access and improved surveillance (It should be noted that the opposite does not apply - Israeli controls and regulates access, so theoretically could insert agents pretty easily). In connection with the first reason cited, both Palestinians and Israeli Arabs tend to be somewhat weary of political talk with unknown persons, mistrust runs high and informants are said to be common (does not have to be but people do believe this, or anyway would rather be careful).

As for evidence - not sure exactly what do you expect? A monthly newsletter detailing counter-intelligence actions of the Israeli secret service? They were never very forthcoming with information and got quite a leeway not sharing it.

Regarding wars Israel was involved in - you definitely got this one wrong: 1948 was not a set up and the risks did run high, same goes for 1973. 1982 saw Israel setting itself up in the Lebanese mess, not very bright, and risk management still in progress even after all those years. One may add that having a great plan how to win the 1967 war was not accompanied by a great plan on what to do afterwards, which is one of the main reasons for the current sad state of affairs. If this was meant in reference to any recent fighting vs. the Palestinians - this is not much of a challenge from a military point of view.

Repeating the claim that the rocket fire carries no effect does not make it so. Calculating statistical chances of getting hit and finding them low is not all that soothing as it sounds. Those things are pretty scary stuff. Somewhat like mortar fire, for example, not very accurate, but scares the living hell out of the opposition. Plus, it does hit every now and then, which is plain nasty.

The fear and stress by themselvs are damaging, nevermind the hits that do come in, damage to property and to the economy (recent round so most schools in southern Isral closed, quite a lot of businesses as well).

Thanks for the civil response Morch, I do appreciate the time you have taken to explain your position and why you disagree with mine. These threads should be about academic discourse IMO.

Seriously, I expect virtually no agreement on my points. They seem so foreign to anybody pro-Israel or otherwise. The point is, right or wrong, these points will never be popular. regardless of any statistic. The question is why.

All my analysis is simplistic because that is pretty much all it takes to make the points.

Not much damage.

Damage has not increased with Hamas.

Iran sends in money and weapons.

Hamas are gentle in their terrorism, despite sacrificing their own children as human shields, they don't want to cause a major war where lots of people could be killed. They are content to risk their own lives to send hundreds of rockets and mortar shells into the desert.

If you do not think that one death in last 827 rocket mortar attacks is not statistically significant then you cannot possibly see my point much less agree with it. These are the attackers. By any standard, the attackers/terrorist will have a statistical advantage but these guys are not even close. In fact, their record stacks up as what would possible the worst record in terrorist history. To me, that is significant to a point of conclusion. It stands alone regardless of how much fear the threat of being hit by a rocket causes. Am I expected to believe that a terrorist cannot hit a grid square with a rocket is really the world's worst bad guy? What are Hamas hoping to accomplish other than getting themselves killed in a retaliation strike?

Really I am only asking one sensible question. At what point does the statistical record become significant? Perhaps 2000-1.

There simply has to be an academic point where things come into question and are simply not accepted because the Mainstream Media says so. I am merely searching for that particular point and the other side of the argument resists the notion that such a point can actually exist.

We get it dude. You are accusing Israel of attacking Israel for years now from Gaza, yet you dance around that without ever expressing it as clearly; rather gingerly resorting to snarky insinuations and whines about mainstream media. It is a ridiculous and offensive suggestion, yet you persist, again and again, with absolutely NO evidence. You suggest your "theory" will be "disproved" if more Israelis get hit by the rockets. Again, this is NAUSEATING. Edited March 21, 2012 by Jingthing

[Morch]

The point I am working up to is that Hamas conducts themselves more like an Israeli proxy than an Iranian proxy. What I have been writing about in other posts on this thread are the lead up to that conclusion.

To me, the important information is how Hamas would conduct intelligence operations within the Arab population on the Israeli side of the fence. These people are Arabs and have an ideological connection to Palestine, not Israel. Not that long ago they were strapping on vests with explosives and killing as many Israelis as they could, now they are cautious and don't want to start a real war?? But more importantly is that there is essentially no evidence that Israel is conducting counter intelligence among the people on the Israeli side of the fence. That is the Israeli forte but there is nothing coming out from any source about the Israelis having caught a spy on the Israeli side of the fence. Leads me to believe that the Israelis have reasons not to bother.

The Israelis conduct operations in this particular effort much as they would run an investment bank. Completely leveraged. Every war they have gotten themselves involved in was set up and leveraged to the hilt to minimize their risk. In this Hamas struggle, they have reduced their risk to .002. Can't get much more leveraged that that.

The irony of this point is, there will be pro-Israeli posters who can't help but holler "Nonsense" even though this is a very pro-Israeli view.

For one thing the border with Israel is practically sealed for them now, not the good old days. Much more surveillance focused on Gaza, as well. Pretty much the same reason they find it hard to execute that many ground operations (last one was via Sinai Peninsula and the Egyptian border).

Although they do get some collaboration - it is not that much of an issue and really never was. There are few reasons for that: (1) Israel maintains a very tight internal security apparatus (some say to the point of being almost a police state), most of it directed at the Israeli Arab population. (2) While Ideology is all very nice, getting caught is a distinct possibility that comes with a real long jail term (in addition, those do not get released when Israel trades terrorists for kidnapped soldiers, and promised funds are cut off). (3) Generally speaking, Israeli Arabs are better off than their brethren in Gaza and the West Bank, so the support they offer is usually more political in nature. Also, while most support the Palestinian cause, they have little wish to live under same restrictions posed by Palestinian leaderships (once again, more to lose etc.).

But again, it is mostly down to the issues of access and improved surveillance (It should be noted that the opposite does not apply - Israeli controls and regulates access, so theoretically could insert agents pretty easily). In connection with the first reason cited, both Palestinians and Israeli Arabs tend to be somewhat weary of political talk with unknown persons, mistrust runs high and informants are said to be common (does not have to be but people do believe this, or anyway would rather be careful).

As for evidence - not sure exactly what do you expect? A monthly newsletter detailing counter-intelligence actions of the Israeli secret service? They were never very forthcoming with information and got quite a leeway not sharing it.

Regarding wars Israel was involved in - you definitely got this one wrong: 1948 was not a set up and the risks did run high, same goes for 1973. 1982 saw Israel setting itself up in the Lebanese mess, not very bright, and risk management still in progress even after all those years. One may add that having a great plan how to win the 1967 war was not accompanied by a great plan on what to do afterwards, which is one of the main reasons for the current sad state of affairs. If this was meant in reference to any recent fighting vs. the Palestinians - this is not much of a challenge from a military point of view.

Repeating the claim that the rocket fire carries no effect does not make it so. Calculating statistical chances of getting hit and finding them low is not all that soothing as it sounds. Those things are pretty scary stuff. Somewhat like mortar fire, for example, not very accurate, but scares the living hell out of the opposition. Plus, it does hit every now and then, which is plain nasty.

The fear and stress by themselvs are damaging, nevermind the hits that do come in, damage to property and to the economy (recent round so most schools in southern Isral closed, quite a lot of businesses as well).

Thanks for the civil response Morch, I do appreciate the time you have taken to explain your position and why you disagree with mine. These threads should be about academic discourse IMO.

Seriously, I expect virtually no agreement on my points. They seem so foreign to anybody pro-Israel or otherwise. The point is, right or wrong, these points will never be popular. regardless of any statistic. The question is why.

All my analysis is simplistic because that is pretty much all it takes to make the points.

Not much damage.

Damage has not increased with Hamas.

Iran sends in money and weapons.

Hamas are gentle in their terrorism, despite sacrificing their own children as human shields, they don't want to cause a major war where lots of people could be killed. They are content to risk their own lives to send hundreds of rockets and mortar shells into the desert.

If you do not think that one death in last 827 rocket mortar attacks is not statistically significant then you cannot possibly see my point much less agree with it. These are the attackers. By any standard, the attackers/terrorist will have a statistical advantage but these guys are not even close. In fact, their record stacks up as what would possible the worst record in terrorist history. To me, that is significant to a point of conclusion. It stands alone regardless of how much fear the threat of being hit by a rocket causes. Am I expected to believe that a terrorist cannot hit a grid square with a rocket is really the world's worst bad guy? What are Hamas hoping to accomplish other than getting themselves killed in a retaliation strike?

Really I am only asking one sensible question. At what point does the statistical record become significant? Perhaps 2000-1.

There simply has to be an academic point where things come into question and are simply not accepted because the Mainstream Media says so. I am merely searching for that particular point and the other side of the argument resists the notion that such a point can actually exist.

"Not much damage" - again, this is a relative statement which considers casualties as the only criteria. Both sides repeatably point to other aspects of damage done.

"Damage has not increased with Hamas" - Not so, Hamas rules in Gaza since 2006, the number of rocket attacs rose significantly - http://en.wikipedia....rael#Casualties, so did damage done (even in refferance to casualties alone). Operation "Cast Lead" was carried out 12/08-1/09.

"Iran sends in money and weapons" - Money mostly, as weapon transfers are much harder. The Palestinians aren't as well armed and financed as, say, Hezbollah. Israeli media tends to hype the direct military aid from Iran, but it seems most of what they throw at Israel doesn't bear the Made in Iran trademark, At least for now.

"Hamas are gentle in their terrorism" - For one thing, there are quite a few armed groups in Gaza, not just Hamas. All of them are not gentle, it is more that their previous MO of suicide bombs was cut off when Israel pulled out of the Gaza strip and sealed the border. Here are some figures - http://en.wikipedia....suicide_attacks. Other avenues of violence (such as placing bombs, shooting incedents) similarily decreased. I would say they are currently more "frustrated in their terrorism".

"they don't want to cause a major war where lots of people could be killed" - Seeing as under the current conditions, most of the casualties will be on their side, it is probably not in their best interest.

"They are content to risk their own lives to send hundreds of rockets and mortar shells into the desert" - I doubt that they are "content", but what else could they go for? With their capability to execute attack on the ground curtailed. they have to make do with rockets. Then again, they can not afford to give up, as fighting Israel is the basis for their existence.

I think the statistical significane of the rocket attacks-casualty ratio is that it shows rockets to be an uneffective means of causing casualties, especially when operated under heavy limitations. Wishing them to be something they are not wouldn't change that. They are still very effective as tools of terror, but that if body count is your only measuring stick it does seem bogus.Continually ignoring certain factors would indeed make the numbers seem improbable.

"These are the attackers. By any standard, the attackers/terrorist will have a statistical advantage" - The element of surprise is still there, but quality intelligence and surveilance go a long way cutting down its significance. Technology and training allows for faster reaction time, both on for counter-offense and defense. The recent addition of interception system makes things even worse, from the terrorist point of view.

"their record stacks up as what would possible the worst record in terrorist history" - Once again, if you consider only casualties, than sure that their capabilities are much lower than before. Otherwise, the rockets are pretty successful means as far as other aspects of terrorism go. Considering Hezbollah, a superior force fighting under more favorable odds, didn't do spectacularly better (inflicting casualties, that is) - this is a somewhat uncalled for unappreciative view of the Palestinian effort. One does what one can, i guess.

"Am I expected to believe that a terrorist cannot hit a grid square with a rocket is really the world's worst bad guy?" - Those rockets aren't precision weapons, and you keep neglecting the fact that this isn't a shooting range, the targets actually fire back at you. I think it is difficult for people who haven't been under in any sort of fighting situation (other than computer games) to appreciate the levels of stress combatants operate under.

I'm not sure what is they are currently doing on Terrorist Idol, guess losing the suicide bomb angle cost them some points. Serisouly, dubbing them "worst" or whatever is meaningless - they are still not nice people, and they ARE terrorists. Not very deadly lately, but still going strong.

"What are Hamas hoping to accomplish other than getting themselves killed in a retaliation strike?" - What would you have them do? Drop the fight? Can't do that. Mount an all out attack? No capability. Get better weapons? They keep trying. it ain't that easy.

Other than that, it is not always the Hamas firing, but other outfits - sometimes this works to Hamas's benefit, sometimes not. The amount of control Hamas is able to excercise over them is in question, the will to do so almost never manifests itself.

"At what point does the statistical record become significant? Perhaps 2000-1" - Under current conditions, it could come to that, perhaps. If the Palestinians were to introduce better grade weapon systems (multiple launchers, improved accuracy/range/payload of rockets, unconventional warheads) or somehow renew ground attacks - your peace of mind might be restored. Of course, the Israeli military is pretty quick in adjusting to new threats, so suppose some solutions will be found for most things. That is without considering yet another massive ground operation.The point is that the significance you attach to the ratio ignores pretty straightforward facts which explain it.

Edited March 21, 2012 by Morch

[Jingthing]

Straightforward facts aren't very sexy to those who bend over backwards to demonize Israel. The really bizarre thing is that there are plenty of very LEGITIMATE criticisms that could be made against Israeli government policies, in Gaza, in the West Bank, in the response to the Iranian threat. There is no need for incendiary fantasies.

Edited March 21, 2012 by Jingthing

[Morch]

Interestingly and the basis for my posts is that is exactly what has happened. They fall harmlessly into the Israeli desert. More recently however, the Israelis claim that many are shot down by Iron Dome capabilities. Before Iron Dome, the casualty rate was also very low. 22 dead since the year 2000.

Could I sell you the simple idea that riding a motorbike in Thailand is significantly more dangerous than living within rocket range of Gaza. Apples and Oranges I know, but a true statement none the less. Many of us Farangs, despite the serious danger, continue on with our motorbikes.

Define "harmlessly"? One might almost imagine kids going out to watch the pretty fireworks. Not.

During Israel's 2006 conflict with Hezbollah, about 4000 rockets were fired (about a 100 per day). Israeli civilian casualties attributed to rocket attacks amounted to 43 (18 of them Israeli Arabs, btw).

Hezbollah is much more experienced, and much better trained than the Palestinians, theater or operations was signigicantly larger, Israeli military was not entirely focused on putting a stop to rocket fire, surveilance and defense systems available today (such as "Iron Dome") were not in service back then.

Not very impressive when you look at the figures. Then again, they did manage to drive a few hundred thousand people out of their homes, and instill some major fear in many more. Rockets are good as terror inducing, not necessarily the most effective for killing people.

The Palestinians operate under much harder conditions, give them a break, will ya? :-).

Hezbollah fire the Kutuschka (sp) which is of a better quality than the Qassam. Why does Hamas not have Kutushkas? When anybody on this forum refers to the bad guys of Gaza, Hamas is used. Not my view, it is the mainstream view.

Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist organizations in Gaza use few models of rockets. Most locally made ones carry different names according to the producing organization (for example, Qassam for Hamas, Al-Quds for Islamic Jihad), but specifications are pretty similar. As Israel withdrew from the Gaza strip and range became an issue the Palestinians first purchased, then copied, longer range rockets (mostly variants of BM-21, aka Grad). Those longer range rockets got the same designation as before (such as Qassam 3 etc), so media reports can be quite confusing as to what exactly was fired.

Katyusha is nowadays used as a generic term, usually reffering to short/medium range rockets based on Soviet design. Over 90% of of the rocketss fired by Hezbollah during the 2006 conflict were variants of BM-21, which the Hamas and Islamic Jihad use as well. Some variants are said to be better than others (notably those of Chinese manufacture), but not in ant way that makes them far more superior. Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad all use a mix of bought/self made rockets,

[Morch]

Interestingly and the basis for my posts is that is exactly what has happened. They fall harmlessly into the Israeli desert. More recently however, the Israelis claim that many are shot down by Iron Dome capabilities. Before Iron Dome, the casualty rate was also very low. 22 dead since the year 2000.

Could I sell you the simple idea that riding a motorbike in Thailand is significantly more dangerous than living within rocket range of Gaza. Apples and Oranges I know, but a true statement none the less. Many of us Farangs, despite the serious danger, continue on with our motorbikes.

Define "harmlessly"? One might almost imagine kids going out to watch the pretty fireworks. Not.

During Israel's 2006 conflict with Hezbollah, about 4000 rockets were fired (about a 100 per day). Israeli civilian casualties attributed to rocket attacks amounted to 43 (18 of them Israeli Arabs, btw).

Hezbollah is much more experienced, and much better trained than the Palestinians, theater or operations was signigicantly larger, Israeli military was not entirely focused on putting a stop to rocket fire, surveilance and defense systems available today (such as "Iron Dome") were not in service back then.

Not very impressive when you look at the figures. Then again, they did manage to drive a few hundred thousand people out of their homes, and instill some major fear in many more. Rockets are good as terror inducing, not necessarily the most effective for killing people.

The Palestinians operate under much harder conditions, give them a break, will ya? :-).

Hezbollah fire the Kutuschka (sp) which is of a better quality than the Qassam. Why does Hamas not have Kutushkas? When anybody on this forum refers to the bad guys of Gaza, Hamas is used. Not my view, it is the mainstream view.

Harmlessly is a relative term and applies IMO as to the anticipated amount of damage versus the amount actually done. I fully understand your point. Fear is damage!! I would also make the point that fear can be used by the alleged victims to maintain control of the governed. Underwear bomber is a great example. We now have our underwear checked for bombs out of a really silly fear scenario.

Well, considering no one sees casualties alone as the criteria of anticipated damage I fail to see your point.

Fear can be used to control the population, sure. That does not mean that every threat is originating from the powers that be, most are rather real. Not exactly sure what sort of control you think might be achived by something of this sort, in this case. General public opinion among Isralis isn't pro-Palestinian as it is, and been that way long before the rockets showed up. The main public reaction on the political front costs the govrenmrnt dearly, whatever they do or don't do. The actual probabilty of something like that to be managable and kept secret is lower than the chance of getting killed by a Palestinian rocket.

[Pakboong]

Interestingly and the basis for my posts is that is exactly what has happened. They fall harmlessly into the Israeli desert. More recently however, the Israelis claim that many are shot down by Iron Dome capabilities. Before Iron Dome, the casualty rate was also very low. 22 dead since the year 2000.

Could I sell you the simple idea that riding a motorbike in Thailand is significantly more dangerous than living within rocket range of Gaza. Apples and Oranges I know, but a true statement none the less. Many of us Farangs, despite the serious danger, continue on with our motorbikes.

Define "harmlessly"? One might almost imagine kids going out to watch the pretty fireworks. Not.

During Israel's 2006 conflict with Hezbollah, about 4000 rockets were fired (about a 100 per day). Israeli civilian casualties attributed to rocket attacks amounted to 43 (18 of them Israeli Arabs, btw).

Hezbollah is much more experienced, and much better trained than the Palestinians, theater or operations was signigicantly larger, Israeli military was not entirely focused on putting a stop to rocket fire, surveilance and defense systems available today (such as "Iron Dome") were not in service back then.

Not very impressive when you look at the figures. Then again, they did manage to drive a few hundred thousand people out of their homes, and instill some major fear in many more. Rockets are good as terror inducing, not necessarily the most effective for killing people.

The Palestinians operate under much harder conditions, give them a break, will ya? :-).

Hezbollah fire the Kutuschka (sp) which is of a better quality than the Qassam. Why does Hamas not have Kutushkas? When anybody on this forum refers to the bad guys of Gaza, Hamas is used. Not my view, it is the mainstream view.

Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist organizations in Gaza use few models of rockets. Most locally made ones carry different names according to the producing organization (for example, Qassam for Hamas, Al-Quds for Islamic Jihad), but specifications are pretty similar. As Israel withdrew from the Gaza strip and range became an issue the Palestinians first purchased, then copied, longer range rockets (mostly variants of BM-21, aka Grad). Those longer range rockets got the same designation as before (such as Qassam 3 etc), so media reports can be quite confusing as to what exactly was fired.

Katyusha is nowadays used as a generic term, usually reffering to short/medium range rockets based on Soviet design. Over 90% of of the rocketss fired by Hezbollah during the 2006 conflict were variants of BM-21, which the Hamas and Islamic Jihad use as well. Some variants are said to be better than others (notably those of Chinese manufacture), but not in ant way that makes them far more superior. Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad all use a mix of bought/self made rockets,

I do appreciate your attempt at explaining the situation from your point of view.

It is my opinion that the actual answer to the question "at what point can Israel be called into question regarding any statistical analysis"? is "never". It is not possible to call Israel into question. That is the answer I was fishing for. A rhetorical question and I seriously appreciate your honest attempt at answering my silly questions.

Everyone else answered the question exactly as I expected and you kept up an effort to take the question seriously and I do appreciate your patience. The answer is in fact "Never". It doesn't matter if the statistical analysis produces millions to one probability, the answer will always be "Never".

So any of us who actually question anything that the Israelis do are up against this impossible situation.

Edited March 21, 2012 by Pakboong

[Ulysses G.]

We get it dude. You are accusing Israel of attacking Israel for years now from Gaza, yet you dance around that without ever expressing it as clearly; rather gingerly resorting to snarky insinuations and whines about mainstream media. It is a ridiculous and offensive suggestion, yet you persist, again and again, with absolutely NO evidence. You suggest your "theory" will be "disproved" if more Israelis get hit by the rockets. Again, this is NAUSEATING.

Plenty of Israelis have been killed by rockets and murdered by suicide bombers. Repeating this loathsome "theory" over and over again does not make it any less foolish.

Edited March 21, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Jingthing]

...

So any of us who actually question anything that the Israelis do are up against this impossible situation.

Cry me a river. How about dealing with actual issues instead of fantasy issues?

Unless you are going to be known as: the guy who seriously thinks Israel has been rocketing ... Israel ... for years and years. In that case, you're a winner!

Edited March 21, 2012 by Jingthing

[OzMick]

Interestingly and the basis for my posts is that is exactly what has happened. They fall harmlessly into the Israeli desert. More recently however, the Israelis claim that many are shot down by Iron Dome capabilities. Before Iron Dome, the casualty rate was also very low. 22 dead since the year 2000.

Could I sell you the simple idea that riding a motorbike in Thailand is significantly more dangerous than living within rocket range of Gaza. Apples and Oranges I know, but a true statement none the less. Many of us Farangs, despite the serious danger, continue on with our motorbikes.

Define "harmlessly"? One might almost imagine kids going out to watch the pretty fireworks. Not.

During Israel's 2006 conflict with Hezbollah, about 4000 rockets were fired (about a 100 per day). Israeli civilian casualties attributed to rocket attacks amounted to 43 (18 of them Israeli Arabs, btw).

Hezbollah is much more experienced, and much better trained than the Palestinians, theater or operations was signigicantly larger, Israeli military was not entirely focused on putting a stop to rocket fire, surveilance and defense systems available today (such as "Iron Dome") were not in service back then.

Not very impressive when you look at the figures. Then again, they did manage to drive a few hundred thousand people out of their homes, and instill some major fear in many more. Rockets are good as terror inducing, not necessarily the most effective for killing people.

The Palestinians operate under much harder conditions, give them a break, will ya? :-).

Hezbollah fire the Kutuschka (sp) which is of a better quality than the Qassam. Why does Hamas not have Kutushkas? When anybody on this forum refers to the bad guys of Gaza, Hamas is used. Not my view, it is the mainstream view.

Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist organizations in Gaza use few models of rockets. Most locally made ones carry different names according to the producing organization (for example, Qassam for Hamas, Al-Quds for Islamic Jihad), but specifications are pretty similar. As Israel withdrew from the Gaza strip and range became an issue the Palestinians first purchased, then copied, longer range rockets (mostly variants of BM-21, aka Grad). Those longer range rockets got the same designation as before (such as Qassam 3 etc), so media reports can be quite confusing as to what exactly was fired.

Katyusha is nowadays used as a generic term, usually reffering to short/medium range rockets based on Soviet design. Over 90% of of the rocketss fired by Hezbollah during the 2006 conflict were variants of BM-21, which the Hamas and Islamic Jihad use as well. Some variants are said to be better than others (notably those of Chinese manufacture), but not in ant way that makes them far more superior. Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad all use a mix of bought/self made rockets,

Well it's nice they have developed an industry, just a shame that it couldn't advance the Palestinian's lot a little better.