Israel prepares for ground military operation, 98 dead in Gaza Strip airstrikes

dr_lucas · July 29, 2014

NATO member countries, along with the US, are strongly trending to disengage from conflict areas in the M.E., no matter the mandate, unlikely to committ forces into Palestinian held territory.

Deployment of third party country forces would at best be a temporary bandaid, with the risk of adding yet more diplomatic colours of grey.

NATO member countries and their people constantly criticizing both sides of the conflict, yet unwilling to help by sending "boots on the ground" high quality troops to help guarantee the security and safety required for the peace process to actually proceed and be concluded, is extremely unfortunate.

I'd expect or at least hope these nations citizens and the NATO country governments to be more helpful and constructive in helping these 2 struggling nations, instead of being vocally critical about the ongoing violence (and the frozen peace process).

While the deployment of NATO forces might be only temporarily needed (maybe long-period temporary), I don't think I would call it a band-aid or underestimate its importance in preserving the peace and saving the lives of innocent civilians.

dr_lucas · July 29, 2014

CBR250, I prefer to see Morch reply you in detail instead of me addressing all the (very good) questions you asked him.

While I won't get into the whole very complex background, reasons, origins and possible solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian problem and its multiple dimensions in my post, I do want to discuss the current unfortunate war going on in Gaza and possible solutions to the unfortunate innocent Gazan casualties.

As I do know, for a fact, that the IDF is doing its very best to operate in Gaza against Hamas terrorists, terrorist infrastructures, rockets, rocket launchers, rocket factories and the impressive "city" of underground terror tunnels going into Israeli territories which Hamas has built, I also acknowledge the incredible difficulty of operating in a hostile & condensed urban area without hurting innocent civilians, especially innocents who are not even supposed to be there in the first place after all the advanced warnings they receive from the IDF.

I realize that some may say that they are under blockade and thus got nowhere to evacuate to. That would not be correct as they do have many places to evacuate to, especially UN shelters and safe-zones.

Another problem is that the UN personnel in Gaza, as we've seen multiple times, are anything but impartial, and UN shelters are being used by Hamas terrorists for hiding and attacking the IDF, with full cooperation or no objection of UN personnel.

Sitting in my safe shelter in Bangkok, behind my safe keyboard, I was trying to think about possible solutions to the problem of innocent casualties in Gaza, while this justified reactive operation is proceeding. Then I got an idea.

As the UN force is ineffective, partially because it also does not have mandate (or will) to engage in any fights (they only have mandate to observe and "keep the peace"), maybe it would be best if NATO will send "boots on the ground" troops (with mandate to fight), to create safe zones in Gaza for Palestinian civilians during the operation.

Surely this will reduce or possibly eliminate the amount of civilian casualties.

What do you reckon?

Cheers doc - but in my post I make it clear I want to move on to the underlying issue of figuring out what Israel is doing about returning land in the interests of ensuring a long-term peace that prevents yet another cycle of violence..

As many of your recent posts were still about the current cycle of violence and the description of Netanyahu and the IDF as "murderers", I'd assume you would be happy to discuss ways to reduce the amount of casualties on the Palestinian side.

Does that mean you will no longer discuss or mention these topics? If yes, then so be it. If no, then please do answer my question.

jellydog · July 29, 2014

El Che in Gaza 1959.[attachment=277122:CHEBttS0-yIEAABIqn.jpg]

up-country_sinclair · July 29, 2014

Here is interesting news:

Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei Calls For Arming Gaza To Fight Israel

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran's supreme leader on Tuesday called on Muslims from around the world to help arm Gaza Palestinians in their fight against Israel.

The call by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was his latest such message during the ongoing war between Gaza's Hamas rulers and Israel.

Khamenei claims that while Israel and America seek to disarm Hamas, Iran says "the opposite ... the Muslim World has a duty to arm the Palestinian nation by all means."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/29/iran-israel-gaza_n_5629631.html

dr_lucas · July 29, 2014

Here is interesting news:

Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei Calls For Arming Gaza To Fight Israel

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran's supreme leader on Tuesday called on Muslims from around the world to help arm Gaza Palestinians in their fight against Israel.

The call by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was his latest such message during the ongoing war between Gaza's Hamas rulers and Israel.

Khamenei claims that while Israel and America seek to disarm Hamas, Iran says "the opposite ... the Muslim World has a duty to arm the Palestinian nation by all means."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/29/iran-israel-gaza_n_5629631.html

You call that news? Are you awake yet to what Iran has been doing for so many years?

Jingthing · July 29, 2014

Source: Iranian propaganda news agency. That "doctor" they speak of sounds like the infamous Maoist and Hamas supporter we've heard so much about. How about some actual evidence it is being used in the current operation in civilian areas?

http://bencohen.pundicity.com/15045/a-maoist-in-gaza

Edited July 29, 2014 by Jingthing

dexterm · July 29, 2014

NATO member countries, along with the US, are strongly trending to disengage from conflict areas in the M.E., no matter the mandate, unlikely to committ forces into Palestinian held territory.

Deployment of third party country forces would at best be a temporary bandaid, with the risk of adding yet more diplomatic colours of grey.

NATO member countries and their people constantly criticizing both sides of the conflict, yet unwilling to help by sending "boots on the ground" high quality troops to help guarantee the security and safety required for the peace process to actually proceed and be concluded, is extremely unfortunate.

I'd expect or at least hope these nations citizens and the NATO country governments to be more helpful and constructive in helping these 2 struggling nations, instead of being vocally critical about the ongoing violence (and the frozen peace process).

While the deployment of NATO forces might be only temporarily needed (maybe long-period temporary), I don't think I would call it a band-aid or underestimate its importance in preserving the peace and saving the lives of innocent civilians.

I think it would be a good idea to station NATO or whatever peacekeeping forces on the Israeli Gaza border if it would help with a permanent truce. But bear in mind that Israel has already rejected this idea in the West Bank.

http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Israel-rejects-proposal-by-Abbas-for-NATO-troops-in-the-Jordan-Valley-340798

dexterm · July 29, 2014

1,156 Palestinians, most of them civilians, have been killed in the fighting since 8 July. Some 6,700 have been injured.

Israel has lost 53 soldiers and three civilians - two Israelis and a Thai worker.

Israel’s over reaction to a couple of rockets falling harmlessly in an open field in early June and the ostensible search for 3 kidnapped Israeli teenagers which were the pretexts that started this present mayhem are passé now. Entire Palestinian families killed in their homes...hospitals, schools shelled and now UN personnel casualties too, the pinpoint accuracy and human shields sound bites are beginning to ring somewhat hollow.

I am seriously curious what Israel hopes to have achieved in all this. Certainly it’s a vote winner with 90% of Israelis in favour of the offensive. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28539528.

But at what a cost... much hatred and anger towards Israel generated in Gaza, the West Bank and the world, plus a new awareness globally through social media of the injustice Israel is perpetrating daily in its occupation. Relations with biggest ally US strained. It has not been a global PR success for Israel.

So what are Israel’s goals?

Kill as many Hamas militants and leadership as possible...bitterness may replace losses

Destroy rockets and tunnels...can be rebuilt.

Replace Hamas with PA in hearts and minds of Gazans. Maybe. If peace process is speeded up as a result of this present conflict, then Israel has some serious concessions to make towards a just 2 state solution. Which all contradicts Netanyahu’s recent assertion that there will never be a sovereign Palestinian state.

Somethings got to give. Interesting times we live in.

dr_lucas · July 29, 2014

NATO member countries, along with the US, are strongly trending to disengage from conflict areas in the M.E., no matter the mandate, unlikely to committ forces into Palestinian held territory.

Deployment of third party country forces would at best be a temporary bandaid, with the risk of adding yet more diplomatic colours of grey.

NATO member countries and their people constantly criticizing both sides of the conflict, yet unwilling to help by sending "boots on the ground" high quality troops to help guarantee the security and safety required for the peace process to actually proceed and be concluded, is extremely unfortunate.

I'd expect or at least hope these nations citizens and the NATO country governments to be more helpful and constructive in helping these 2 struggling nations, instead of being vocally critical about the ongoing violence (and the frozen peace process).

While the deployment of NATO forces might be only temporarily needed (maybe long-period temporary), I don't think I would call it a band-aid or underestimate its importance in preserving the peace and saving the lives of innocent civilians.

I think it would be a good idea to station NATO or whatever peacekeeping forces on the Israeli Gaza border if it would help with a permanent truce. But bear in mind that Israel has already rejected this idea in the West Bank.

http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Israel-rejects-proposal-by-Abbas-for-NATO-troops-in-the-Jordan-Valley-340798

In interviews conducted with "INSS" and "The New York Times", PA Chairman, Mahmoud Abbas, suggested NATO force deployment in all areas of a future Palestinian state, in order to prevent weapons smuggling and terrorism after the IDF withdrawal.

Secretary of State, John Kerry, confirmed that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected this proposal. To understand the immediate opposition of the Prime Minister, it's important to examine Israel's past experience with the international forces stationed along the border. Indeed, examination of the history of these forces show its continuous failures in many aspects, and that every time they encountered determined enemy forces, their primary concern was self-defense.

Another failure relates to the withdrawal of troops due to the mandate they got, at the request of the hostile force. A well known example of this is the removal of UN troops from Sinai in 1967 by the then Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser led to the Six Day War. Another example is the decision of the American President Ronald Reagan to withdraw its Marines forces from Lebanon in 83, following the terror attack perpetrated by Hezbollah Corps headquarters in Beirut.

It is important to emphasize that the UN force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) failure to prevent the smuggling of weapons south of the country and stop the construction of extensive terrorist infrastructure and the spread of terrorist activity in the face of fierce opposition to Hezbollah. And when Hamas took power in Gaza in 2007, international forces who supervised the Rafah border crossing between Egypt and Gaza have decided to suspend their operations.

In light of these precedents, it is easy to understand why Israel is very skeptical when it comes to depositing the security responsibility in the hands of another international force. However, the focus on the force's identity diverts attention from the more critical questions:

- What the force's mandate will be and what the responsibilities and capabilities of the force, rules of operation and its interactions with the IDF.

Any force that will be responsible for ensuring security of the future Palestinian state will be forced to deal with a situation in which a part of it (Gaza Strip) is already controlled by the Hamas terrorist organization, while another part of it (the West Bank) is expected to be characterized by a sharp increase in terrorist activity after the withdrawal of the IDF. Such force will also be required to address the possibility that Hamas will come to power in the West Bank, as happened in Gaza.

Abbas agreed that any future Palestinian state be demilitarized. Is NATO force gonna be able to disarm the Gaza Strip? Will the Palestinian Authority be exempted from any responsibility for preventing terrorist acts in the territory?

Security arrangements aren't tactical demand from the prime minister, but an essential condition for achieving Israeli public support for any future agreement. Ongoing rocket attacks in the south since the disengagement of 2005 led to most Israelis demand strict security arrangements.

# # #

However, progress towards peace requires taking calculated risks. The offer of American led NATO-force has the potential to be an innovative solution to the core issue of security, and it should not be rejected out of hand. If the proposed NATO force will be built in an innovative manner, and in accordance with thorough drawaing-conclusions from the failures of past international forces, then this kind of force might help security arrangements - which is a core issue in the negotiations.

Such an examination has to be opened by the following questions: Does Abbas plan to put the war on terror only on NATO forces? Is President Barack Obama, in light of the bitter experience of the Americans in Afghanistan, would be willing to send American troops force to another country in the Middle East with a clear mission to fight terrorism? And whether Netanyahu would be willing to abandon the principle of 65 years that Israel will never ask American soldiers to fight for it, let alone shed blood for it?

Even if the answer to all these questions is "Yes", it will still require careful construction of the mandate and rules of operation of the force, to ensure its success where so many other international forces have failed. These should be accompanied by the definitive agreements with the IDF to operate in the event of failure or withdrawal of NATO, and an ongoing process of performance evaluation of the NATO force. It will be impossible to limit the force's mandate to the traditional "peacekeeping" forces. It is a must to include in its mandate: the weapons smuggling-prevention, preventing the formation of terrorist networks and of course prevention of any acts of terror.

Legally, mandate's cancellation must be conditional on the consent of the three parties. NATO's operating rules must be comprehensive, including the provision of full independence to carry out searches, arrests and other actions related to the war on terrorism. It's necessary to demand that the Palestinian leadership will be responsible for preventing terrorist activity which originates in its area, and work in tandem with NATO force for this purpose. Their coordination Will have to help NATO's activities, but it will not be a prerequisite for its actions.

Another sensitive question concerns the sphere of action of the IDF in this security perspective. Sovereign Israel has a duty to protect its citizens. If determined that the Palestinian and international forces have failed in their role to prevent terrorism, the IDF have the authority to gather intelligence on threats, expose and pursue terrorism efforts and terrorist. Should the international force ceases to act, not as a result of a joint decision of the Israelis, Palestinians and Americans - Israel has the right to take full responsibility for its security, including sieze back areas vital for its protection, from which it has withdrawn.

Finally, it is important to note that the presence of an international force in a future Palestinian state is only one component of multiple vital security arrangements. Other arrangements that require separate discussion, including demilitarization, early warning systems, access of the Israeli Air Force to Palestinian airspace, temporary presence of the IDF in the Jordan Valley, redeployment within the Palestinian territory in emergency situations, as well as a prohibition on agreements that will enable the deployment of foreign army forces in the future Palestinian state.

Edited July 29, 2014 by dr_lucas

dr_lucas · July 29, 2014

So what are Israel’s goals?

Kill as many Hamas militants and leadership as possible...bitterness may replace losses

Destroy rockets and tunnels...can be rebuilt.

Replace Hamas with PA in hearts and minds of Gazans. Maybe. If peace process is speeded up as a result of this present conflict, then Israel has some serious concessions to make towards a just 2 state solution. Which all contradicts Netanyahu’s recent assertion that there will never be a sovereign Palestinian state.

Somethings got to give. Interesting times we live in.

As I recall, it is Morch who usually addresses your repeating false analysis in the first part of your post, so I won't repeat him or myself. Feel free to read my and his earlier replies.

I believe Israel's main short-term goal (other than the obvious preventive measures) is to achieve some deterrence (of Hamas terrorists).

After which, I hope for some movement in the peace process, with the PA.

That said, as I wrote in an early post on another thread today - Prophecy was given to fools.

Interesting times. Indeed.

Jay Sata · July 29, 2014

1,156 Palestinians, most of them civilians, have been killed in the fighting since 8 July. Some 6,700 have been injured.

Israel has lost 53 soldiers and three civilians - two Israelis and a Thai worker.

Israel’s over reaction to a couple of rockets falling harmlessly in an open field in early June and the ostensible search for 3 kidnapped Israeli teenagers which were the pretexts that started this present mayhem are passé now. Entire Palestinian families killed in their homes...hospitals, schools shelled and now UN personnel casualties too, the pinpoint accuracy and human shields sound bites are beginning to ring somewhat hollow.

I am seriously curious what Israel hopes to have achieved in all this. Certainly it’s a vote winner with 90% of Israelis in favour of the offensive. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28539528.

But at what a cost... much hatred and anger towards Israel generated in Gaza, the West Bank and the world, plus a new awareness globally through social media of the injustice Israel is perpetrating daily in its occupation. Relations with biggest ally US strained. It has not been a global PR success for Israel.

So what are Israel’s goals?

Kill as many Hamas militants and leadership as possible...bitterness may replace losses

Destroy rockets and tunnels...can be rebuilt.

Replace Hamas with PA in hearts and minds of Gazans. Maybe. If peace process is speeded up as a result of this present conflict, then Israel has some serious concessions to make towards a just 2 state solution. Which all contradicts Netanyahu’s recent assertion that there will never be a sovereign Palestinian state.

Somethings got to give. Interesting times we live in.

I don't think I could have summed it up better.

Israel will come out of this losing the global sympathy vote.

Wiping out the only Gaza power station will have big repercussions for the innocent Palestinians.

simple1 · July 29, 2014

NATO member countries, along with the US, are strongly trending to disengage from conflict areas in the M.E., no matter the mandate, unlikely to committ forces into Palestinian held territory.

Deployment of third party country forces would at best be a temporary bandaid, with the risk of adding yet more diplomatic colours of grey.

NATO member countries and their people constantly criticizing both sides of the conflict, yet unwilling to help by sending "boots on the ground" high quality troops to help guarantee the security and safety required for the peace process to actually proceed and be concluded, is extremely unfortunate.

I'd expect or at least hope these nations citizens and the NATO country governments to be more helpful and constructive in helping these 2 struggling nations, instead of being vocally critical about the ongoing violence (and the frozen peace process).

While the deployment of NATO forces might be only temporarily needed (maybe long-period temporary), I don't think I would call it a band-aid or underestimate its importance in preserving the peace and saving the lives of innocent civilians.

I think it would be a good idea to station NATO or whatever peacekeeping forces on the Israeli Gaza border if it would help with a permanent truce. But bear in mind that Israel has already rejected this idea in the West Bank.

http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Israel-rejects-proposal-by-Abbas-for-NATO-troops-in-the-Jordan-Valley-340798

In interviews conducted with "INSS" and "The New York Times", PA Chairman, Mahmoud Abbas, suggested NATO force deployment in all areas of a future Palestinian state, in order to prevent weapons smuggling and terrorism after the IDF withdrawal.

Secretary of State, John Kerry, confirmed that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected this proposal. To understand the immediate opposition of the Prime Minister, it's important to examine Israel's past experience with the international forces stationed along the border. Indeed, examination of the history of these forces show its continuous failures in many aspects, and that every time they encountered determined enemy forces, their primary concern was self-defense.

Another failure relates to the withdrawal of troops due to the mandate they got, at the request of the hostile force. A well known example of this is the removal of UN troops from Sinai in 1967 by the then Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser led to the Six Day War. Another example is the decision of the American President Ronald Reagan to withdraw its Marines forces from Lebanon in 83, following the terror attack perpetrated by Hezbollah Corps headquarters in Beirut.

It is important to emphasize that the UN force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) failure to prevent the smuggling of weapons south of the country and stop the construction of extensive terrorist infrastructure and the spread of terrorist activity in the face of fierce opposition to Hezbollah. And when Hamas took power in Gaza in 2007, international forces who supervised the Rafah border crossing between Egypt and Gaza have decided to suspend their operations.

In light of these precedents, it is easy to understand why Israel is very skeptical when it comes to depositing the security responsibility in the hands of another international force. However, the focus on the force's identity diverts attention from the more critical questions:

- What the force's mandate will be and what the responsibilities and capabilities of the force, rules of operation and its interactions with the IDF.

Any force that will be responsible for ensuring security of the future Palestinian state will be forced to deal with a situation in which a part of it (Gaza Strip) is already controlled by the Hamas terrorist organization, while another part of it (the West Bank) is expected to be characterized by a sharp increase in terrorist activity after the withdrawal of the IDF. Such force will also be required to address the possibility that Hamas will come to power in the West Bank, as happened in Gaza.

Abbas agreed that any future Palestinian state be demilitarized. Is NATO force gonna be able to disarm the Gaza Strip? Will the Palestinian Authority be exempted from any responsibility for preventing terrorist acts in the territory?

Security arrangements aren't tactical demand from the prime minister, but an essential condition for achieving Israeli public support for any future agreement. Ongoing rocket attacks in the south since the disengagement of 2005 led to most Israelis demand strict security arrangements.

# # #

However, progress towards peace requires taking calculated risks. The offer of American led NATO-force has the potential to be an innovative solution to the core issue of security, and it should not be rejected out of hand. If the proposed NATO force will be built in an innovative manner, and in accordance with thorough drawaing-conclusions from the failures of past international forces, then this kind of force might help security arrangements - which is a core issue in the negotiations.

Such an examination has to be opened by the following questions: Does Abbas plan to put the war on terror only on NATO forces? Is President Barack Obama, in light of the bitter experience of the Americans in Afghanistan, would be willing to send American troops force to another country in the Middle East with a clear mission to fight terrorism? And whether Netanyahu would be willing to abandon the principle of 65 years that Israel will never ask American soldiers to fight for it, let alone shed blood for it?

Even if the answer to all these questions is "Yes", it will still require careful construction of the mandate and rules of operation of the force, to ensure its success where so many other international forces have failed. These should be accompanied by the definitive agreements with the IDF to operate in the event of failure or withdrawal of NATO, and an ongoing process of performance evaluation of the NATO force. It will be impossible to limit the force's mandate to the traditional "peacekeeping" forces. It is a must to include in its mandate: the weapons smuggling-prevention, preventing the formation of terrorist networks and of course prevention of any acts of terror.

Legally, mandate's cancellation must be conditional on the consent of the three parties. NATO's operating rules must be comprehensive, including the provision of full independence to carry out searches, arrests and other actions related to the war on terrorism. It's necessary to demand that the Palestinian leadership will be responsible for preventing terrorist activity which originates in its area, and work in tandem with NATO force for this purpose. Their coordination Will have to help NATO's activities, but it will not be a prerequisite for its actions.

Another sensitive question concerns the sphere of action of the IDF in this security perspective. Sovereign Israel has a duty to protect its citizens. If determined that the Palestinian and international forces have failed in their role to prevent terrorism, the IDF have the authority to gather intelligence on threats, expose and pursue terrorism efforts and terrorist. Should the international force ceases to act, not as a result of a joint decision of the Israelis, Palestinians and Americans - Israel has the right to take full responsibility for its security, including sieze back areas vital for its protection, from which it has withdrawn.

Finally, it is important to note that the presence of an international force in a future Palestinian state is only one component of multiple vital security arrangements. Other arrangements that require separate discussion, including demilitarization, early warning systems, access of the Israeli Air Force to Palestinian airspace, temporary presence of the IDF in the Jordan Valley, redeployment within the Palestinian territory in emergency situations, as well as a prohibition on agreements that will enable the deployment of foreign army forces in the future Palestinian state.

Don't believe the domestic politics of US & NATO member countries would permit on the ground deployment of their respective forces with about 100% certainty of deaths of personnel. Could be wrong, but in my opinion the whole concept is a non starter.

Edited July 29, 2014 by simple1

Scott · July 29, 2014

Posts which are requesting or giving advice on where to donate money have been deleted, that is well outside the scope of this thread and violates forum rules. I suspect that for some, this may not be sincere. If you are, however, information can be exchanged by PM.

Also replies to such posts.

Ulysses G. · July 30, 2014

Israel’s over reaction to a couple of rockets falling harmlessly in an open field in early June and the ostensible search for 3 kidnapped Israeli teenagers which were the pretexts that started this present mayhem are passé now.

As you have been told - and shown - repeatedly, the response was to numerous rocket attacks over many months and years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel,_2014

dexterm · July 30, 2014

Israel’s over reaction to a couple of rockets falling harmlessly in an open field in early June and the ostensible search for 3 kidnapped Israeli teenagers which were the pretexts that started this present mayhem are passé now.

As you have been told - and shown - repeatedly, the response was to numerous rocket attacks over many months and years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel,_2014

I beg to differ. One man's showing is another man's obfuscation.

You fail to mention the numerous IDF killings and assassinations over many months and years, which may account for numerous rockets fired in frustration at Israel.

If you follow your own link you will find 2 rockets fired in early June, one on 1st one on 14th, which is exactly what I said. If this current invasion (with over 1200 Palestinian and 53 Israeli soldiers dead) was all about Israel wanting to Stop the Rockets, they had more or less already achieved that on June 12 when the teens were kidnapped.

I agree that there are often complex reasons behind a conflict starting. There had also been recent targeted killings of Palestinians by IDF in May and June, and the cold blooded murder of 2 Palestinian teens in Beitunia on May 15. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beitunia_killings

But the incident that lit the blue touch paper was the kidnapping of the 3 teens, and Netanyahu's claim on 15th June "Hamas is responsible".

Ulysses G. · July 30, 2014

I beg to differ.

Nonsense. You can "differ" all you want. It is there in black and white. There were many rockets before the dates that you have picked out of nowhere and many afterwards. The rockets never "stopped".

dexterm · July 30, 2014

I beg to differ.

Nonsense. You can "differ" all you want. It is there in black and white. There were many rockets before the dates that you have picked out of nowhere and many afterwards. The rockets never "stopped".

I think you will find that the peaks on your charts in 2008 and 2012 occurred during Israel's previous invasions of Gaza, and were a response, not a cause.

I'm sure there must be an equivalent bar chart of assassinated Palestinians which prompt the frustrated rocket fire.

Try this one http://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/assets/4756436/IP_conflict_deaths_total.png

Edited July 30, 2014 by dexterm

Ulysses G. · July 30, 2014

I'm sure there must be an equivalent bar chart of assassinated Palestinians which prompt the frustrated rocket fire.

Try this one http://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/assets/4756436/IP_conflict_deaths_total.png

All that shows is how foolish they are to keep fighting a war that they have lost already - more than 6 decades ago.

dr_lucas · July 30, 2014

I beg to differ.

Nonsense. You can "differ" all you want. It is there in black and white. There were many rockets before the dates that you have picked out of nowhere and many afterwards. The rockets never "stopped".

I think you will find that the peaks on your charts in 2008 and 2012 occurred during Israel's previous invasions of Gaza, and were a response, not a cause.

Obviously the peaks were during times of escalations, but why do you blatantly ignore all the rest of the ongoing terror attacks as if they they are meaningless?

Hamas is similar to N.Korea. Both lost ability to reason long ago. Both attract self-affliction in order to get sympathy from their own cadres and from int'l opinion. It's like a little kid in a big family. Every day he's got a bruise or a bloody cut with which to gain attention and sympathy.

What's the alternative? Dialogue and acknowledging Israel is stronger militarily.

dr_lucas · July 30, 2014

NATO member countries and their people constantly criticizing both sides of the conflict, yet unwilling to help by sending "boots on the ground" high quality troops to help guarantee the security and safety required for the peace process to actually proceed and be concluded, is extremely unfortunate.

I'd expect or at least hope these nations citizens and the NATO country governments to be more helpful and constructive in helping these 2 struggling nations, instead of being vocally critical about the ongoing violence (and the frozen peace process).

While the deployment of NATO forces might be only temporarily needed (maybe long-period temporary), I don't think I would call it a band-aid or underestimate its importance in preserving the peace and saving the lives of innocent civilians.

I think it would be a good idea to station NATO or whatever peacekeeping forces on the Israeli Gaza border if it would help with a permanent truce. But bear in mind that Israel has already rejected this idea in the West Bank.

http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Israel-rejects-proposal-by-Abbas-for-NATO-troops-in-the-Jordan-Valley-340798

In interviews conducted with "INSS" and "The New York Times", PA Chairman, Mahmoud Abbas, suggested NATO force deployment in all areas of a future Palestinian state, in order to prevent weapons smuggling and terrorism after the IDF withdrawal.

Secretary of State, John Kerry, confirmed that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected this proposal. To understand the immediate opposition of the Prime Minister, it's important to examine Israel's past experience with the international forces stationed along the border. Indeed, examination of the history of these forces show its continuous failures in many aspects, and that every time they encountered determined enemy forces, their primary concern was self-defense.

Another failure relates to the withdrawal of troops due to the mandate they got, at the request of the hostile force. A well known example of this is the removal of UN troops from Sinai in 1967 by the then Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser led to the Six Day War. Another example is the decision of the American President Ronald Reagan to withdraw its Marines forces from Lebanon in 83, following the terror attack perpetrated by Hezbollah Corps headquarters in Beirut.

It is important to emphasize that the UN force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) failure to prevent the smuggling of weapons south of the country and stop the construction of extensive terrorist infrastructure and the spread of terrorist activity in the face of fierce opposition to Hezbollah. And when Hamas took power in Gaza in 2007, international forces who supervised the Rafah border crossing between Egypt and Gaza have decided to suspend their operations.

In light of these precedents, it is easy to understand why Israel is very skeptical when it comes to depositing the security responsibility in the hands of another international force. However, the focus on the force's identity diverts attention from the more critical questions:

- What the force's mandate will be and what the responsibilities and capabilities of the force, rules of operation and its interactions with the IDF.

Any force that will be responsible for ensuring security of the future Palestinian state will be forced to deal with a situation in which a part of it (Gaza Strip) is already controlled by the Hamas terrorist organization, while another part of it (the West Bank) is expected to be characterized by a sharp increase in terrorist activity after the withdrawal of the IDF. Such force will also be required to address the possibility that Hamas will come to power in the West Bank, as happened in Gaza.

Abbas agreed that any future Palestinian state be demilitarized. Is NATO force gonna be able to disarm the Gaza Strip? Will the Palestinian Authority be exempted from any responsibility for preventing terrorist acts in the territory?

Security arrangements aren't tactical demand from the prime minister, but an essential condition for achieving Israeli public support for any future agreement. Ongoing rocket attacks in the south since the disengagement of 2005 led to most Israelis demand strict security arrangements.

# # #

However, progress towards peace requires taking calculated risks. The offer of American led NATO-force has the potential to be an innovative solution to the core issue of security, and it should not be rejected out of hand. If the proposed NATO force will be built in an innovative manner, and in accordance with thorough drawaing-conclusions from the failures of past international forces, then this kind of force might help security arrangements - which is a core issue in the negotiations.

Such an examination has to be opened by the following questions: Does Abbas plan to put the war on terror only on NATO forces? Is President Barack Obama, in light of the bitter experience of the Americans in Afghanistan, would be willing to send American troops force to another country in the Middle East with a clear mission to fight terrorism? And whether Netanyahu would be willing to abandon the principle of 65 years that Israel will never ask American soldiers to fight for it, let alone shed blood for it?

Even if the answer to all these questions is "Yes", it will still require careful construction of the mandate and rules of operation of the force, to ensure its success where so many other international forces have failed. These should be accompanied by the definitive agreements with the IDF to operate in the event of failure or withdrawal of NATO, and an ongoing process of performance evaluation of the NATO force. It will be impossible to limit the force's mandate to the traditional "peacekeeping" forces. It is a must to include in its mandate: the weapons smuggling-prevention, preventing the formation of terrorist networks and of course prevention of any acts of terror.

Legally, mandate's cancellation must be conditional on the consent of the three parties. NATO's operating rules must be comprehensive, including the provision of full independence to carry out searches, arrests and other actions related to the war on terrorism. It's necessary to demand that the Palestinian leadership will be responsible for preventing terrorist activity which originates in its area, and work in tandem with NATO force for this purpose. Their coordination Will have to help NATO's activities, but it will not be a prerequisite for its actions.

Another sensitive question concerns the sphere of action of the IDF in this security perspective. Sovereign Israel has a duty to protect its citizens. If determined that the Palestinian and international forces have failed in their role to prevent terrorism, the IDF have the authority to gather intelligence on threats, expose and pursue terrorism efforts and terrorist. Should the international force ceases to act, not as a result of a joint decision of the Israelis, Palestinians and Americans - Israel has the right to take full responsibility for its security, including sieze back areas vital for its protection, from which it has withdrawn.

Finally, it is important to note that the presence of an international force in a future Palestinian state is only one component of multiple vital security arrangements. Other arrangements that require separate discussion, including demilitarization, early warning systems, access of the Israeli Air Force to Palestinian airspace, temporary presence of the IDF in the Jordan Valley, redeployment within the Palestinian territory in emergency situations, as well as a prohibition on agreements that will enable the deployment of foreign army forces in the future Palestinian state.

Don't believe the domestic politics of US & NATO member countries would permit on the ground deployment of their respective forces with about 100% certainty of deaths of personnel. Could be wrong, but in my opinion the whole concept is a non starter.

Given the state of debate in the west - it might happen sooner than we may think now ("boots on the ground" that is). I have a feeling the UN's blue helmets will show their boots in the area in order to also calm down what happens in other neighboring countries such as Syria and Lebanon.

Hopefully it would help to pacify the region and help both Israelis and Palestinians to live normal lives without fear of rocket fires or military strikes.

Kalebiran · July 30, 2014

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28559537

No warning. Israel fires rocket at UN refugee school killing Children because they believed there were" Mortar rockets in the vicinity" Ahh I see. So it's tough luck to babies and infants if they are nearby? A shame on humanity . The last word doesn't include a certain zionist state .

Morch · July 30, 2014

Israel’s over reaction to a couple of rockets falling harmlessly in an open field in early June and the ostensible search for 3 kidnapped Israeli teenagers which were the pretexts that started this present mayhem are passé now.

As you have been told - and shown - repeatedly, the response was to numerous rocket attacks over many months and years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel,_2014

I beg to differ. One man's showing is another man's obfuscation.

You fail to mention the numerous IDF killings and assassinations over many months and years, which may account for numerous rockets fired in frustration at Israel.

If you follow your own link you will find 2 rockets fired in early June, one on 1st one on 14th, which is exactly what I said. If this current invasion (with over 1200 Palestinian and 53 Israeli soldiers dead) was all about Israel wanting to Stop the Rockets, they had more or less already achieved that on June 12 when the teens were kidnapped.

I agree that there are often complex reasons behind a conflict starting. There had also been recent targeted killings of Palestinians by IDF in May and June, and the cold blooded murder of 2 Palestinian teens in Beitunia on May 15. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beitunia_killings

But the incident that lit the blue touch paper was the kidnapping of the 3 teens, and Netanyahu's claim on 15th June "Hamas is responsible".

So while agreeing that conflicts are started by complex reasons, the only things cited are specific violent incidents.

The underlying conditions which led to the current hostilities were detailed in quite a few posts all over these topics,

continuing to treat them as secondary to one specific incident or another hints at either a very simplified view of the

situation or at some inherent bias.

Morch · July 30, 2014

I beg to differ.

Nonsense. You can "differ" all you want. It is there in black and white. There were many rockets before the dates that you have picked out of nowhere and many afterwards. The rockets never "stopped".

I think you will find that the peaks on your charts in 2008 and 2012 occurred during Israel's previous invasions of Gaza, and were a response, not a cause.

I'm sure there must be an equivalent bar chart of assassinated Palestinians which prompt the frustrated rocket fire.

Try this one http://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/assets/4756436/IP_conflict_deaths_total.png

Assassinated, for real? Even the link you provided does not use this term.

Then again, it seems to ignore certain death (such as the killings associated with Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip).

Morch · July 30, 2014

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28559537

No warning. Israel fires rocket at UN refugee school killing Children because they believed there were" Mortar rockets in the vicinity" Ahh I see. So it's tough luck to babies and infants if they are nearby? A shame on humanity . The last word doesn't include a certain zionist state .

And in other news...

U.N. says more rockets found at one of its Gaza schools

GAZA, July 29 (Reuters) - The United Nations agency that looks after Palestinian refugees said on Tuesday it had found a cache of rockets at one of its schools in the Gaza Strip and deplored those who had put them there.

United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) spokesman Chris Gunness condemned those responsible for placing civilians in harm's way by storing the rockets at the school but he did not specifically blame any particular party.

"We condemn the group or groups who endangered civilians by placing these munitions in our school. This is yet another flagrant violation of the neutrality of our premises. We call on all the warring parties to respect the inviolability of U.N. property," Gunness said in a statement.

http://af.reuters.com/article/egyptNews/idAFL6N0Q45TO20140729

Edited July 30, 2014 by Morch

CBR250 · July 30, 2014

So what are Israel’s goals?

Kill as many Hamas militants and leadership as possible...bitterness may replace losses

Destroy rockets and tunnels...can be rebuilt.

Replace Hamas with PA in hearts and minds of Gazans. Maybe. If peace process is speeded up as a result of this present conflict, then Israel has some serious concessions to make towards a just 2 state solution. Which all contradicts Netanyahu’s recent assertion that there will never be a sovereign Palestinian state.

Somethings got to give. Interesting times we live in.

I believe Israel's main short-term goal (other than the obvious preventive measures) is to achieve some deterrence (of Hamas terrorists).

After which, I hope for some movement in the peace process, with the PA.

Israel's main short term goal, is not just to "achieve some deterrence", but as Netnayahu has said, the goal is the destruction of Hamas. He doesn't say "the deaths of women and children to collectively punish all Gazans for the actions of Hamas", but actions speak louder than words, so he doesn't need to say this.

And srael's main long-term goal is, and has been for many years, the theft of land on the West Bank through the use of Settlements, Court Orders, and the Apartheid Wall (which runs 85% in the West Bank, not on the border). If Palestinians (or Egyptians or Jordanians) were stealing Israeli land, one would expect Israel to fight back too.

Edited July 30, 2014 by CBR250

Jingthing · July 30, 2014

Again, there are forces on both sides that really don't want peace or aren't willing to pay the price of peace anyway. It is total idiocy to solely blame either side. But for now, Israel really must do what they must do to repel the terrorist Hamas threat in Gaza.

CBR250 · July 30, 2014

Again, there are forces on both sides that really don't want peace or aren't willing to pay the price of peace anyway. It is total idiocy to solely blame either side. But for now, Israel really must do what they must do to repel the terrorist Hamas threat in Gaza.

Ah yes. The "terrorist threat". You can't have a constructive discussion unless you acknowledge that there are other items on the agenda.

Jingthing · July 30, 2014

Again, there are forces on both sides that really don't want peace or aren't willing to pay the price of peace anyway. It is total idiocy to solely blame either side. But for now, Israel really must do what they must do to repel the terrorist Hamas threat in Gaza.

Ah yes. The "terrorist threat". You can't have a constructive discussion unless you acknowledge that there are other items on the agenda.

So the rockets and tunnels aren't real things to you, huh? Amazing.

CBR250 · July 30, 2014

Again, there are forces on both sides that really don't want peace or aren't willing to pay the price of peace anyway. It is total idiocy to solely blame either side. But for now, Israel really must do what they must do to repel the terrorist Hamas threat in Gaza.

Ah yes. The "terrorist threat". You can't have a constructive discussion unless you acknowledge that there are other items on the agenda.

So the rockets and tunnels aren't real things to you, huh? Amazing.

Why are you amazed? Where did I say these things aren't real? Do you have any idea what it means to discuss rationally?

Repeating Netanyahu's Zionist propaganda over and over does not qualify as rational discussion.

Thankfully, modern media shows the truth of Israel's disregard for human rights. Israel lost its moral high ground long ago. The suspicion of previously neutral people - and nations - shows Israel has lost credibility. It is now seen by many as a rogue nation.

Exsexyman · July 30, 2014

Again, there are forces on both sides that really don't want peace or aren't willing to pay the price of peace anyway. It is total idiocy to solely blame either side. But for now, Israel really must do what they must do to repel the terrorist Hamas threat in Gaza.

Ah yes. The "terrorist threat". You can't have a constructive discussion unless you acknowledge that there are other items on the agenda.

So the rockets and tunnels aren't real things to you, huh? Amazing.

Why are you amazed? Where did I say these things aren't real? Do you have any idea what it means to discuss rationally?

Repeating Netanyahu's Zionist propaganda over and over does not qualify as rational discussion.

Thankfully, modern media shows the truth of Israel's disregard for human rights. Israel lost its moral high ground long ago. The suspicion of previously neutral people - and nations - shows Israel has lost credibility. It is now seen by many as a rogue nation.

Just been watching the evening news on UK Channel 4, some truly awful and sickening footage. Children being slaughtered as they slept in a UN designated shelter where they were seeking shelter after being instructed to leave their homes by the Israeli army. Despite the Israeli army being informed 17 times that the shelter was occupied by civilians, mainly children. At least 20 civilians dead and scores injured at a crowded market where Palestinians were taking advantage of an Israeli announced 'Humanitarian window' to shop for supplies after being cooped up in the rubble of what used to be their homes. After the first bomb hit the market people running away were then targeted. When bombs are laser guided on to their targets how on earth do you drop a bomb on a crowded market by accident? Likewise when the UN have called you 17 times to let you know where a crowded school full of civilians is located how do you still manage to hit it on several occasions? These incidents are clearly no accident, this is deliberate policy. The Israeli army are targeting civilians, only the most blinkered would claim otherwise.

Equally sickening was footage which i will link here, of Israelis in Tel Aviv a few days ago joyfully celebrating the murder of Palestinian children. " There's no school tomorrow, theres no children left in Gaza. Oleh"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7qFACSfd_k

Sign In

Israel prepares for ground military operation, 98 dead in Gaza Strip airstrikes

Recommended Posts

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Recently Browsing 0 members

Announcements

Topics

Latest posts...

Popular in The Pub

ASEANNOW

MORE INFO

POPULAR AREAS

CONTACT US