Gaza conflict: Truce ends amid fresh fighting

[Wat dee]

Unless mistaken, Israel stated quite clearly that Hamas leaders will still be targeted, regardless. One of the Palestinian demands on the negotiations was for Israel to refrain from such assassinations in the future, again, do not think it was one of the points on which an understanding was reached. Targeting of leadership is one of the things which actually effect Hamas's stance, to a degree.

That is plain crazy.

You must agree not to shoot at us, but we can still shoot at you.

As far as I understand, this related only to Hamas leadership, not a general thing. Mind, Hamas did previously break the ceasefire during negotiations, so not really better standards.

Tell that to the lady and the kid.

[Morch]

The Israelis might have the upper hand at this time but the world and especially the Palestinians will not forget that they deliberately killed children, bombed UN protected schools and steal the land of the Palestinians since decades.

Things are in continuous evaluation and the day will come that they have to pay for the crimes against humanity committed, these scumbags deserve that punishment fully.

Israel has killed NO arabs in this war, hamas is wholly redponsible

I daresay even Israel does not make this claim.

[Ulysses G.]

Unless mistaken, Israel stated quite clearly that Hamas leaders will still be targeted, regardless. One of the Palestinian demands on the negotiations was for Israel to refrain from such assassinations in the future, again, do not think it was one of the points on which an understanding was reached. Targeting of leadership is one of the things which actually effect Hamas's stance, to a degree.

That is plain crazy.

You must agree not to shoot at us, but we can still shoot at you.

As far as I understand, this related only to Hamas leadership, not a general thing. Mind, Hamas did previously break the ceasefire during negotiations, so not really better standards.

Tell that to the lady and the kid.

That is on the terrorist who had them living with them. He knew that he was a target.

Edited August 20, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Seastallion]

I don't think very many are surprised the Cairo talks failed.

This detail is interesting ... whether Mr. Deif was killed or not being an important factor on the level of escalation of this current wave of violence:

http://www.timesofisrael.com/direction-of-israel-hamas-war-hinges-on-fate-of-muhammad-deif/

The prospects for resumed negotiations in Egypt (with or without American involvement) now appear to depend, ironically, on the fate of Deif. If this symbol of Hamas has been killed, Hamas would feel the political need to escalate the fighting with a harsh response — to demonstrate to the Palestinian public that it was not surrendering. Thus, the likelihood of a truce or an arrangement in the coming days would be zero.

But if Deif has survived, the issue of revenge becomes personal, rather than political, and Cairo might again host another effort at indirect negotiations on a long-term deal.

No, not surprising at all. From the same article you have linked to....

"

Another issue concerns Israel’s considerations in attacking Deif at this juncture. This is not to say that it was not correct to target Deif, an arch-terrorist who turned himself into a dead man years ago. It’s the timing that raises questions........

........

Just hours earlier, Israel and Hamas had been in indirect negotiations, via Egypt and the Palestinian Authority, on a long-term truce..........The Israeli decision to strike the house in Sheikh Radwan spelled certain escalation.

....Whoever authorized the attempted assassination of Muhammed Deif knew that it meant continuation of the fighting and an escalation for several additional days at least.....

No surprise Israel wanted to ensure further hostilities.

Furthermore, the hideous and unconscionable action of Israel in murdering his wife and child is no surprise either. Also from your linked article...

Quote; "The likelihood that Deif would be with his wife and son when the conflict had re-escalated does not seem particularly high,..." end quote.

Complaining about the fonts I used is no way to win an argument. Extremely petty.

[arjunadawn]

With what's going on with ISIS, Israel needs to resolve this quickly, one way or another, before being attacked on more than one side.

Might find themselves with some "unusual" allies soon.

ISIS is not a direct threat to Israel at this point. Some hostile Arab forces between them and Israel which would need to be dealt with first.

Israel's "second front" threat was more to to with Hezbollah, but as these are tied up with the fighting in Syria, it seems a bit unlikely they would divert their attention to another front anytime soon.

The ISIS threat could become a reality if and when they take charge of either Syria or Jordan. On another level, increased presence on the Gaza Strip, West Bank and Sinai Peninsula could raise the stakes, but not quite there yet.

I am aware of your in-depth knowledge of this region, and agree totally with your above post. However, I would just like to add one thought for context: Why is IS not a threat to Israel at this stage? Its rhetorical; I know you know. People are often unaware that the primary target of radical Islam is not first Israel, or Jews, it is other Muslims (shia, blasphemers, arab strongmen, those who enter into treaties with infidels, etc).

In this equation the cui bono inferred. It is always better to have a war with single players rather than wide-scale asymmetrical threats. Whether its tracking deploying armies or managing collateral damage, its advisable to have a single entity to manage.

Fracturing the artificial state lines that now exist in the mid east and restoring them to ethnic/tribal/sect faults allows the true threat players to distill and consolidate and facilitates a manageable threat to emerge. It sounds, at first, counter intuitive, but considering the psychology of warfare and the players involved, it is a brilliant stroke of genius. This is why, irrespective of al baghdahi's final intention, he clearly aids and abets his enemies now. I personally think he is not as manageable as the west might imagine. You cannot ever reason with a man who is confident his god commands his actions.

Someone earlier mentioned Israel might be squarely behind motivating IS. At the time I considered, perhaps peripherally. Now I am less certain. There really is a stroke of both madness and genius in the utility of IS. The fact that it is not garnering the widespread condemnation that even Saddam's fictitious WPD did, this is suggestive. If what I am saying is even partially true, even 10%, or true by omission of actions of the west, or sitting on intelligence, or entirely provoking the IS threat, then the West is guilt of genocide! I do assert this is true (IMO).

[Seastallion]

You must agree not to shoot at us, but we can still shoot at you.

As far as I understand, this related only to Hamas leadership, not a general thing. Mind, Hamas did previously break the ceasefire during negotiations, so not really better standards.

Tell that to the lady and the kid.

That is on the terrorist who had them living with him. He knew that he was a target.

From JT's linked article, we learn that Israel knew it was unlikely that Deif was with them. The wife and child were not "living with him" but were at a house far away from home.

Murderers.

[arjunadawn]

I think what many detest about Israel, aside from the historical inequity in the Jewish land grabs, is that Israel IS the aggressor. Responding to a bunch of rockets that fall in barren fields with the disingenuous cry of "We have a right to defend ourselves" and employing a barrage of modern weapons to kill hundreds is aggression.

If a little waif off the street picks up a pebble and throws it harmlessly at my feet, and I respond by yelling "I have a right to defend myself" and attack the waif with a knife and a club, giving him a sound beating...who is the aggressor? Add to that scenario that the waif happens to have something I want, and if he runs away I'll obtain, and my motives become clear.

Ok, "what many detest about Israel," and you then make a valid point about the land, but you digress into the very thing under consideration as a declared fact, "Israel IS (I guess no ISIS pun intended) the aggressor."

It's convenient for an observer to arbitrarily decide "a bunch of rockets" doesn't deserve response; today, yesterday, last month, last year, every year, on the ground, in the air, overseas, on the coast. Because that the attackers aren't brilliant does not an excuse make. It's been a varying standard in war that you don't go into a gunfight with a knife. So, assuming this is known- and the whole world knows Israel will respond- why then does Hamas continuing using a knife? Doesn't reason and personal mental justice compel one to ask the question? "If Israel keeps rooting us out, forcing us to flee for our lives and hide amongst our citizens, in hospitals, in camps, why do we attack with a knife (a bunch of rockets)?" The answer is unambiguous. Hamas sacrifices Palestinians because their strategic warfare rests on the attrition of public perception. Every Sovereign since time immemorial had steadfastly guarded it's terrain. Your point is not invalid, it just doesn't seem complete, or it's lacking context. To me.

It's convenient to mask our deep seated position in what we believe by the conviction it's universally obvious to everyone. Your point is not that obvious to me. false analogy (a bit overdone)=Hamas is not a little waif off the streets. Rockets are not little pebbles. I can't comment on secondary scenarios to the waif; that one wiped me out. I hope your smiling because my intention is not unkind. I just think differently. Your position, if exercised, still produces war, conflict, or non resolution.

If Israel only return fired rockets in empty fields in response invariably Hamas would what... Get more precise. Then, extrapolating a scenario from your point, Israel would respond in kind? If Hamas rocket hit a bus and Israeli planners were considering target packets they should the correspondingly look for a target that wipes out.... Hrmmm there were 18 bus victims so... 18 Hamas fighters. You ask of Israel a standard not asked of anyone, anywhere, ever, as a tool of state.

Sorry my friend, you are using sophistry. Unintentionally, I'm sure. You concede the land issue is valid, you then go on to talk about the reality of going to a gunfight armed with a knife. So true and apt, but it avoids the issue of justice, and another reality; that of fighting to your last breath, tooth and nail, for your home. And if you hit below the belt, really, who uses Queensberry rules when the literal life of your entire community is at stake (not to mention your opponent doesn't fight by the rules either)?

You say it's a false analogy, that pebbles are not rockets. Helicopter gunships, white phosphorous, and tanks are not a knife and a club, either. Actually, to make the analogy more accurate, I should tie one of the waif's hands behind his back, and starve him of sustenance so he has low energy. I do not think I overdid it at all. You did not mention my cry, as I brutally bully the waif, of "I have a right to defend myself!". It was important to the analogy. Also important to the analogy was the fact that I want something that the waif has, and with him gone or incapacitated, I am free to take it.

I don't dispose of your point regarding proportionate responses. I think, though, you were a little disingenuous to suggest that I think Israel should kill 18, for the 18 Hammas killed. But there's proportionate and then there's vastly disproportionate, ie pebble harmlessly falling in my direction vs a severe beating with a knife and club. Surely if I had slapped the waif, or even boxed his ears I would not earn (as much) censure?

As you say, "It's convenient to mask our deep seated position in what we believe by the conviction it's universally obvious to everyone.".

I avoid the secondary points of your post and go to the heart.

And so you capture and define my weakest point; I am aware of it. If any reads my posts they could infer it. But you are correct. In a world of absolutes (suspend the relative for a moment), Israel took land from others. I often sidestep this issue by declaring there was no Palestinian State, ever. I declare that the Arab world never even recognized a Palestinian State previously. Yes. I do not do this to be evasive or sell a product. I believe this. But my mind operates from a singular perspective:

If we aren't going to kill all the Jews, and we aren't going to kill all the Arabs, how do we proceed. History should inform the future and the absolute fact of the land grab doesn't inform any current, relative choices.

I do find myself mixing relative arguments with absolute reality (land grab). I try to avoid it but then it becomes insufferable to defend my position when people introduce the issue of first cause- the land grab. It is at this point where my line item arguments come to an end, or don't connect. I am an honest man and I have an abiding respect for keeping my mind subordinate to reason. I try to have no opinion I cant defend with reason or self evidence. Every post I make I consider deeply and mean. Sometimes I am mistaken or post wrong and when shown, I hope my humility equals the observation.

I just deeply believe that the issue with the Palestinians is much more fundamental than land (Indeed for the remainder of Islam the land is a vehicle only; they hate Jews). I am an avid student of Islam having once written a book on the mystical similarities of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. The problem was after I began collecting my facts on Islam, reading the many suras, the hadith, islamic exegesis, etc., I became appalled and realized that I would be fitting a round hole in a square socket. I could not edit it nor publish it. Indeed, even Sufi suffered greatly. In my instance, I could not complete the comparison for the book but the knowledge, and the many years in these areas, informed me that there is a very deep, underlying maleficence motivating Arabs towards Israel and in another book I called that chapter The Thorn in Ishmael's Side. This is the issue. (Note: The Book in reference will never be mentioned).

Edited August 20, 2014 by arjunadawn

[Ulysses G.]

From JT's linked article, we learn that Israel knew it was unlikely that Deif was with them.

That is not what the article says. The journalist was speculating on the likelihood of them being together right now. However, none of us - including him - knows what Israel knew. We also don't know if he actually survived. Hamas lie at every opportunity.

[Morch]

Woman and child murdered. Who is the savage ?

Of course it's always sad if a woman or child is killed, particularly if they're non-combatants. The husband and dad is/was a combatant. In that role, he has a duty to remove himself from them, at least as long as there's a war going on. He's a military target. He knows it, as I assume everyone who knows him knows it. Some unsolicited free advice to non-combatant Palestinians: Don't hang with combatants! It could be hazardous to your health. Message to combatants: don't hide among non-combatants. You're endangering them.

Just collateral damage...Or don't use F-16 to eliminate single person.

The loss of innocent life is regrettable and I do not think that even most of those who wished Deif dead would say otherwise. If I understand correctly, though, this falls inside the realm of the allowed, as far as international law goes. Does not mean it is condoned or anything of the sort, just that from a legal point of view, these this would be an instance where proportionality exists. I'm glad I do not have to be the one calling these shots or pressing the trigger.

[Jean Pierre Jacquot]

The Israelis might have the upper hand at this time but the world and especially the Palestinians will not forget that they deliberately killed children, bombed UN protected schools and steal the land of the Palestinians since decades.

Things are in continuous evaluation and the day will come that they have to pay for the crimes against humanity committed, these scumbags deserve that punishment fully.

Israel has killed NO arabs in this war, hamas is wholly redponsible

What's this shit of Israel not killed any arabs? No need to even argue ....

[Eliot Rosewater]

The Israelis might have the upper hand at this time but the world and especially the Palestinians will not forget that they deliberately killed children, bombed UN protected schools and steal the land of the Palestinians since decades.

Things are in continuous evaluation and the day will come that they have to pay for the crimes against humanity committed, these scumbags deserve that punishment fully.

Israel has killed NO arabs in this war, hamas is wholly redponsible

What's this shit of Israel not killed any arabs? No need to even argue ....

What I mean is; hamas has brought this on themselves, completely

They are true thugs and murderers

Israel is only doing what it has to, to protect themselves

[Jean Pierre Jacquot]

I think what many detest about Israel, aside from the historical inequity in the Jewish land grabs, is that Israel IS the aggressor. Responding to a bunch of rockets that fall in barren fields with the disingenuous cry of "We have a right to defend ourselves" and employing a barrage of modern weapons to kill hundreds is aggression.

If a little waif off the street picks up a pebble and throws it harmlessly at my feet, and I respond by yelling "I have a right to defend myself" and attack the waif with a knife and a club, giving him a sound beating...who is the aggressor? Add to that scenario that the waif happens to have something I want, and if he runs away I'll obtain, and my motives become clear.

Ok, "what many detest about Israel," and you then make a valid point about the land, but you digress into the very thing under consideration as a declared fact, "Israel IS (I guess no ISIS pun intended) the aggressor."

It's convenient for an observer to arbitrarily decide "a bunch of rockets" doesn't deserve response; today, yesterday, last month, last year, every year, on the ground, in the air, overseas, on the coast. Because that the attackers aren't brilliant does not an excuse make. It's been a varying standard in war that you don't go into a gunfight with a knife. So, assuming this is known- and the whole world knows Israel will respond- why then does Hamas continuing using a knife? Doesn't reason and personal mental justice compel one to ask the question? "If Israel keeps rooting us out, forcing us to flee for our lives and hide amongst our citizens, in hospitals, in camps, why do we attack with a knife (a bunch of rockets)?" The answer is unambiguous. Hamas sacrifices Palestinians because their strategic warfare rests on the attrition of public perception. Every Sovereign since time immemorial had steadfastly guarded it's terrain. Your point is not invalid, it just doesn't seem complete, or it's lacking context. To me.

It's convenient to mask our deep seated position in what we believe by the conviction it's universally obvious to everyone. Your point is not that obvious to me. false analogy (a bit overdone)=Hamas is not a little waif off the streets. Rockets are not little pebbles. I can't comment on secondary scenarios to the waif; that one wiped me out. I hope your smiling because my intention is not unkind. I just think differently. Your position, if exercised, still produces war, conflict, or non resolution.

If Israel only return fired rockets in empty fields in response invariably Hamas would what... Get more precise. Then, extrapolating a scenario from your point, Israel would respond in kind? If Hamas rocket hit a bus and Israeli planners were considering target packets they should the correspondingly look for a target that wipes out.... Hrmmm there were 18 bus victims so... 18 Hamas fighters. You ask of Israel a standard not asked of anyone, anywhere, ever, as a tool of state.

Sorry my friend, you are using sophistry. Unintentionally, I'm sure. You concede the land issue is valid, you then go on to talk about the reality of going to a gunfight armed with a knife. So true and apt, but it avoids the issue of justice, and another reality; that of fighting to your last breath, tooth and nail, for your home. And if you hit below the belt, really, who uses Queensberry rules when the literal life of your entire community is at stake (not to mention your opponent doesn't fight by the rules either)?

You say it's a false analogy, that pebbles are not rockets. Helicopter gunships, white phosphorous, and tanks are not a knife and a club, either. Actually, to make the analogy more accurate, I should tie one of the waif's hands behind his back, and starve him of sustenance so he has low energy. I do not think I overdid it at all. You did not mention my cry, as I brutally bully the waif, of "I have a right to defend myself!". It was important to the analogy. Also important to the analogy was the fact that I want something that the waif has, and with him gone or incapacitated, I am free to take it.

I don't dispose of your point regarding proportionate responses. I think, though, you were a little disingenuous to suggest that I think Israel should kill 18, for the 18 Hammas killed. But there's proportionate and then there's vastly disproportionate, ie pebble harmlessly falling in my direction vs a severe beating with a knife and club. Surely if I had slapped the waif, or even boxed his ears I would not earn (as much) censure?

As you say, "It's convenient to mask our deep seated position in what we believe by the conviction it's universally obvious to everyone.".

I avoid the secondary points of your post and go to the heart.

And so you capture and define my weakest point; I am aware of it. If any reads my posts they could infer it. But you are correct. In a world of absolutes (suspend the relative for a moment), Israel took land from others. I often sidestep this issue by declaring there was no Palestinian State, ever. I declare that the Arab world never even recognized a Palestinian State previously. Yes. I do not do this to be evasive or sell a product. I believe this. But my mind operates from a singular perspective:

If we aren't going to kill all the Jews, and we aren't going to kill all the Arabs, how do we proceed. History should inform the future and the absolute fact of the land grab doesn't inform any current, relative choices.

I do find myself mixing relative arguments with absolute reality (land grab). I try to avoid it but then it becomes insufferable to defend my position when people introduce the issue of first cause- the land grab. It is at this point where my line item arguments come to an end, or don't connect. I am an honest man and I have an abiding respect for keeping my mind subordinate to reason. I try to have no opinion I cant defend with reason or self evidence. Every post I make I consider deeply and mean. Sometimes I am mistaken or post wrong and when shown, I hope my humility equals the observation.

I just deeply believe that the issue with the Palestinians is much more fundamental than land (Indeed for the remainder of Islam the land is a vehicle only; they hate Jews). I am an avid student of Islam having once written a book on the mystical similarities of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. The problem was after I began collecting my facts on Islam, reading the many suras, the hadith, islamic exegesis, etc., I became appalled and realized that I would be fitting a round hole in a square socket. I could not edit it nor publish it. Indeed, even Sufi suffered greatly. In my instance, I could not complete the comparison for the book but the knowledge, and the many years in these areas, informed me that there is a very deep, underlying maleficence motivating Arabs towards Israel and in another book I called that chapter The Thorn in Ishmael's Side. This is the issue. (Note: The Book in reference will never be mentioned).

Thanks for your humility. Much appreciated, at least some of the Israel defenders are considering their position from time to time.

I cannot however agree with this blant statement: Moslems hate Jews. After all what the Jews did to them in the Middle East there are obviously a bit angry about them. (I have to control my anger about this arrogant, blood thirsty Israelis too and I am even not a Muslim). But just saying they hate Jews? No, you really can't. The problem with the Arabs and the Jews (as a matter of fact Jews are Arabs too), is that they are very tribe-oriented and very suspicioius towards anything else than their own tribe.

There is a solution: compassion towards each other. Israel needs to stop thinking that they can control 'the Arabs' in just eradicating and suppressing them, this creates only hate in them and plays into the hands of extremists on the other side, like Hamas. Palestinians need, though I understand it is very hard as the Jews kill deliberately their children, to be compassionate and understanding towards the Jews. This is what I meant with love can change things. Hate will never bring a real change.

[Morch]

Palestinians are raised from day one in hatred agains Israelis.

I have not noticed the opposite in Israel.

Would depend on which places you visit in Israel, whom you talk to and on what level. As you mentioned earlier that you stayed on a kibbutz, it is not very surprising that you would come to this conclusion.

I travelled extensively around Israel, slept in hotels, guest houses, kibbutz and stayed at people's houses making the error of switching on the lights on Sabbat. I was told not to worry but saw the fanatics attacking people carrying a camera. I made friends with a university professor of Hebrew who spoke perfect French and English and a journalist for the Jerusalem Post. We still keep in touch sporadically.

I travelled into the Golan and saw the flattened houses and visited the border with Syria and saw a flattened Syrian town. War is sadness.

I travelled thought the Negev desert and the West Bank.

I only have negative souvenirs meeting Palestinians.

I have mixed souvenirs meeting Israelis, most positive though.

There you have it.

I saw the hatred in the Palestinian eyes, every time.

Fair enough - I concur that the level of hatred witnessed on the Palestinian side is higher, and in my opinion - with good cause. They are, after all, the weaker and oppressed side (regardless of who started it, who's to blame, and all the rest). Israel, being the stronger party can afford to incorporate more tolerant views.

But that is not to say that there is no hatred on the Israeli side, far from it. A lot of it around, and was much in evidence this time.

This is one reason which keeps me less than optimistic about chances of resolving anything in the near future. Too much hatred and too little brave leadership to build bridges.

[Jean Pierre Jacquot]

Palestinians are raised from day one in hatred agains Israelis.

I have not noticed the opposite in Israel.

Would depend on which places you visit in Israel, whom you talk to and on what level. As you mentioned earlier that you stayed on a kibbutz, it is not very surprising that you would come to this conclusion.

I travelled extensively around Israel, slept in hotels, guest houses, kibbutz and stayed at people's houses making the error of switching on the lights on Sabbat. I was told not to worry but saw the fanatics attacking people carrying a camera. I made friends with a university professor of Hebrew who spoke perfect French and English and a journalist for the Jerusalem Post. We still keep in touch sporadically.

I travelled into the Golan and saw the flattened houses and visited the border with Syria and saw a flattened Syrian town. War is sadness.

I travelled thought the Negev desert and the West Bank.

I only have negative souvenirs meeting Palestinians.

I have mixed souvenirs meeting Israelis, most positive though.

There you have it.

I saw the hatred in the Palestinian eyes, every time.

We see what we want to see.

[Ulysses G.]

Israel is only doing what it has to, to protect themselves

Right, and as we all knew Israel is protecting themselves in killing all the Arabs. No ennemie anymore will give full protection. You are sick Elliot! Killing children and bombing schools in order to protect yourself? Totally inhuman stand. Or would you say that Nazi Deutschland was right too to eliminate the Jews in order to protect themselves?

The Nazis were not attacked by the Jews. The Jews were attacked by them.

The Jews also did not start the violence with the Arabs. The Arabs started it, long before the Jews started fighting back.

Please drop the stupid comparisons.

Edited August 20, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Jean Pierre Jacquot]

Another failure ahead. No win situation for Israel until they take all Gaza exterminate HAMAS and leave. Half a job isn't a job well done. And tell the 'World opinion' to go and bomb themselves.

Exterminating Hamas is just waste of time and lives.As long as Palestinians have no human rights and live in camps, there will be Hamas or new equal organisation.

When the arabs accept that Israelis have rights, such as the right to live without the threat of suicide bombers and rockets killing women and children; then and only then can the arabs complain about their human rights

Which are these arabs you are talking about?

[arjunadawn]

Another failure ahead. No win situation for Israel until they take all Gaza exterminate HAMAS and leave. Half a job isn't a job well done. And tell the 'World opinion' to go and bomb themselves.

Assuming, of course, that it is indeed feasible for Israel to re-conquer the Gaza Strip and destroy the Hamas. Not an assured thing on both counts and unlikely Israelis will give continued support for such a long term endeavor. Even if this was to work out as planned, quite probable that a new outfit will take Hamas's place as soon as the space clears.

There are no magic solutions here - Israel can either accept the reality of ongoing hostilities on the current level, or attempt to re-conquer the Gaza Strip and stay in charge, or, alternatively - find a diplomatic solution (preferably one which makes the Hamas redundant while addressing most of the Palestinian grievances).

I agree with you, Morch.

An Israeli re-occupation would be very costly in lives (both sides) and another loss in the global PR stakes.

I know Israel has security issues, but the most sensible way of resolving that is not to back Hamas into a corner saying they must disarm or else...they won’t. They should try some diplomacy. Tit for tat goodwill..as long as the rockets don’t come as the weeks and months go by, a gradual easing of the blockade with the ultimate goal of ending it, plus a port and an airport if all is well after a year. Throw in some provisos such as PA/UN/NATO/IDF inspecting trucks at the Egyptian crossing, and a hotline to leaders, to sort out any rogue firing, while at the same time no provocative assassinations by Israelis.

It could be a win win..prolonged period of quiet for Israelis, and a better life for Gazans.

And during that quiet time, start negotiating a serious final peace agreement. If Hamas won’t recognize Israel, who cares? Many Zionist fanatics will never recognize a Palestinian state either. Both sides’ extremists would be sidelined in a majority referendum.

Shalom

The thing is you (and others) try to make it seem as if this is all up to Israel, which is not the case. Hamas is not all that open to the idea of inspections, and not getting the port/airport right away (mind, the Egyptians are

far from keen on both, for their own security issues). Both sides try to drive a hard bargain and "win" something they can present to their people. Goodwill does not come into this, goodwill does not even live in this neighborhood.

I have less confidence that if things come to a referendum there will indeed be a clear majority for peace on both sides. A related issue being leadership on both sides being either unwilling or unable to deliver when it comes to peace.

It does not matter that Hamas was democratically elected (insofar that this is even possible in an Arab locale). No one, not Israel, not the West, no one... should negotiate with Hamas. Hamas met, meets, sustains, propogates all that defines terrorism. Moreover, Hamas significantly represents other regional players who wholeheartedly do not want peace. Are those of you advocating peace with Hamas aware who/what Hamas is? Really. I mean no disrespect. This is not a valid partner to find a solution. Hamas raison d'etre is destruction of Israel. Its goals for the local arabs are secondary.

There can never be a sustained solution to the current problem through Hamas. They simply will not go down this road. However, in Islam, there is a core pillar that allows lying to enter treaties, etc, with your enemy to further your goals in Islam. Of course, all wrap up there various and personal actions by rationalizing they further Islam. If the local arabs are serious they must first clean their local house and put forth a legitimate representative council that reflects fully the will of the local arabs, not foreign players not radical islam.

[Morch]

With what's going on with ISIS, Israel needs to resolve this quickly, one way or another, before being attacked on more than one side.

Might find themselves with some "unusual" allies soon.

ISIS is not a direct threat to Israel at this point. Some hostile Arab forces between them and Israel which would need to be dealt with first.

Israel's "second front" threat was more to to with Hezbollah, but as these are tied up with the fighting in Syria, it seems a bit unlikely they would divert their attention to another front anytime soon.

The ISIS threat could become a reality if and when they take charge of either Syria or Jordan. On another level, increased presence on the Gaza Strip, West Bank and Sinai Peninsula could raise the stakes, but not quite there yet.

I am aware of your in-depth knowledge of this region, and agree totally with your above post. However, I would just like to add one thought for context: Why is IS not a threat to Israel at this stage? Its rhetorical; I know you know. People are often unaware that the primary target of radical Islam is not first Israel, or Jews, it is other Muslims (shia, blasphemers, arab strongmen, those who enter into treaties with infidels, etc).

In this equation the cui bono inferred. It is always better to have a war with single players rather than wide-scale asymmetrical threats. Whether its tracking deploying armies or managing collateral damage, its advisable to have a single entity to manage.

Fracturing the artificial state lines that now exist in the mid east and restoring them to ethnic/tribal/sect faults allows the true threat players to distill and consolidate and facilitates a manageable threat to emerge. It sounds, at first, counter intuitive, but considering the psychology of warfare and the players involved, it is a brilliant stroke of genius. This is why, irrespective of al baghdahi's final intention, he clearly aids and abets his enemies now. I personally think he is not as manageable as the west might imagine. You cannot ever reason with a man who is confident his god commands his actions.

Someone earlier mentioned Israel might be squarely behind motivating IS. At the time I considered, perhaps peripherally. Now I am less certain. There really is a stroke of both madness and genius in the utility of IS. The fact that it is not garnering the widespread condemnation that even Saddam's fictitious WPD did, this is suggestive. If what I am saying is even partially true, even 10%, or true by omission of actions of the west, or sitting on intelligence, or entirely provoking the IS threat, then the West is guilt of genocide! I do assert this is true (IMO).

Well....seems like we're doomed to repeat that old argument regarding Evil Designs vs. Short-sightedness and Stupidity. I usually do not put much trust in the former.

Without taking this into OT areas - my point was that regardless of IS aims, it would be a while before it could effectively pose a direct threat to Israel. If this proves to be untrue, and the powers that lie between IS and Isreal capitulate quickly, then IS would already be a certified global threat rather than a regional one, and therefore - a whole different ball game.

[Jean Pierre Jacquot]

Well, unfortunately there will be never ever peace between the Jews and their neighbours. Just look at the attitude and hatred in the comments of our zionist friends and these might be guys who even don't live in Israel. As long as these thickheads fully accept such crimes against the humanity as deliberately killing innocent children and bombing schools as being fine because Israel needs to protect themselves. How could peace ever happen? Is really sad but this is the reality. Right now Israel has the military power and use it to kill 'Arabs', who knows one day the other side will have more power and they will kill of the Jews. As a matter of fact both are fools.

[boomerangutang]

Mentions of 'exterminating Hamas' are completely unreasonable. Even if most of Hamas leadership were eliminated, it's likely something worse would rise from the ashes. At least Hamas engages in some dialogue. If more radical elements take over, they may not even do that. They may embark on even more suicidal trends than we're seeing now.

[Seastallion]

From JT's linked article, we learn that Israel knew it was unlikely that Deif was with them.

That is not what the article says. The journalist was speculating on the likelihood of them being together right now. However, none of us - including him - knows what Israel knew. We also don't know if he actually survived. Hamas lie at every opportunity.

Talk about nitpicking! It's a pro-Israeli article, quoted by our resident (self-proclaimed) Jew, and says "The likelihood that Deif would be with his wife and son when the conflict had re-escalated does not seem particularly high, ". I think Israel knew better than any journalist.

Israeli officials also lie at every opportunity.

[boomerangutang]

Well, unfortunately there will be never ever peace between the Jews and their neighbours. Just look at the attitude and hatred in the comments of our zionist friends and these might be guys who even don't live in Israel. As long as these thickheads fully accept such crimes against the humanity as deliberately killing innocent children and bombing schools as being fine because Israel needs to protect themselves. How could peace ever happen? Is really sad but this is the reality. Right now Israel has the military power and use it to kill 'Arabs', who knows one day the other side will have more power and they will kill of the Jews. As a matter of fact both are fools.

It's plain you lean to one side of the conflict. That's ok, as it's hard to be nonchalant about it, particularly for anyone who cares about fellow humans, even if they're half a world away. Frankly, I lean to the Israeli side, but I agree reluctantly agree with your opening sentence; "...there will be never ever peace between the Jews and their neighbours."

For there to be a chance at improvements there, here's what I suggest:

>>> start with the children. Try not to indoctrinate them with hate, revenge and vindictiveness. As is it now, every child growing up in that region has ironclad prejudices hammered in by their parents, teachers, religious teachers, politicians, and others.

>>> make less babies. Much less. It will have to be voluntary, because any other method will cause even more of an uproar than territorial disputes. Many studies have shown that: the more education a woman has, the less likely she'll have a carload of kids. Religion also plays a negative role, as we know.

>>> arrange to have cultural exchanges, including music, sports, art exhibits, choral groups, alternative energy symposiums, ....whatever it takes for people to get together and realize how they're 99.9% similar. It's only religionists and politicians who keep hammering their heads with the hammer of how different the various sides should be. One of the first things a power-hungry man learns when he wants to increase his sheeple flock: create demons.

[arjunadawn]

Thanks for your humility. Much appreciated, at least some of the Israel defenders are considering their position from time to time.

I cannot however agree with this blant statement: Moslems hate Jews. After all what the Jews did to them in the Middle East there are obviously a bit angry about them. (I have to control my anger about this arrogant, blood thirsty Israelis too and I am even not a Muslim). But just saying they hate Jews? No, you really can't. The problem with the Arabs and the Jews (as a matter of fact Jews are Arabs too), is that they are very tribe-oriented and very suspicioius towards anything else than their own tribe.

There is a solution: compassion towards each other. Israel needs to stop thinking that they can control 'the Arabs' in just eradicating and suppressing them, this creates only hate in them and plays into the hands of extremists on the other side, like Hamas. Palestinians need, though I understand it is very hard as the Jews kill deliberately their children, to be compassionate and understanding towards the Jews. This is what I meant with love can change things. Hate will never bring a real change.

Your solution is pie in the sky dreaming... and yet it is correct. However, your position has a poison pill, therefore the solution is invalidated.

Muslims do hate Jews. I personally have not only encountered it but as a private explorer of religions I have asked muslims many questions from Indo, to Paki, to Yemen, UAE, Oman, Amman, Iraq, Damascus, Afghanistan, Thailand, Egypt, etc. These are not stickers on my luggage. I actually lived, and worked amongst these muslims of varied ethnic backgrounds. To a man they hate Jews. Indeed, the few women I know from Lebanon also hate Jews. From the minarets and madrases around the world Jew Hatred is inculcated every day. I have rarely met muslims who could articulate why they hated Jews. Really. Though clearly some could.It would be burdensome, slightly unfair to do another's homework, redundant, and time consuming for me to post the numerous real facts to support what I assert. However, let me cite one source. (When someone comes forward and announces the Koran says "lo, even one be killed it is as if the whole human race..." (Paraphrase) you should ask them which sura this is? Suras (Chapters) are always peaceful in the beginning of the koran).

The Koran is arranged in a sequential way whereby sura that come second supersede in authority those that precede it. One can almost tell when in history a sura was written or related to Islamic history by year by its context. Indeed, when young Islam was starting out and vying to be treated equally and make inroads amongst the other polytheists in Medina, etc., it argued peace, get along concepts. Two of the local gods, among many, Al Lat and Al Lah- god and consort, were selected for whatever theological reasons Muhammad or revelation indicated, to be the Jehovah. After all, they do assert the same god, the same patriarchy of forebears as the jews, through Jesus, all the way to their personal father, Ibrahaim (Ishmael who was forced into exile by Sarah), to Adam. Yet Al Lah prevailed and whereas young Islam sought equality it had many verses based on tolerance and such. As Islam expanded many others would complain "We don't mind that you worship your god here, we only wish you would stop condemning us and insulting our gods." (Paraphrase) As Islam grew its mandate for violence increased dramatically. The subsequent verses became a clarion call for endless war. Islam is translated not as peace but submission.

As Islam expanded the suras take on a dark, foreboding context of military context and authority for heinous acts. Indeed, as the Jews were rounded up and slaughtered, and butchered in the 7th century eternal mandates were locked in the suras to always hate Jews, "Lo, even the rock shall cry out, come, look, there is a Jew behind me, kill him" (Paraphrase). You are incorrect. Deeply ingrained into Islam is the bedrock provision to battle and exterminate the Jew.

Edited August 20, 2014 by arjunadawn

[Scott]

A post in a foreign language has been deleted. Only English is allowed, with the exception of the Thai language section.

[Morch]

Ok, "what many detest about Israel," and you then make a valid point about the land, but you digress into the very thing under consideration as a declared fact, "Israel IS (I guess no ISIS pun intended) the aggressor."

It's convenient for an observer to arbitrarily decide "a bunch of rockets" doesn't deserve response; today, yesterday, last month, last year, every year, on the ground, in the air, overseas, on the coast. Because that the attackers aren't brilliant does not an excuse make. It's been a varying standard in war that you don't go into a gunfight with a knife. So, assuming this is known- and the whole world knows Israel will respond- why then does Hamas continuing using a knife? Doesn't reason and personal mental justice compel one to ask the question? "If Israel keeps rooting us out, forcing us to flee for our lives and hide amongst our citizens, in hospitals, in camps, why do we attack with a knife (a bunch of rockets)?" The answer is unambiguous. Hamas sacrifices Palestinians because their strategic warfare rests on the attrition of public perception. Every Sovereign since time immemorial had steadfastly guarded it's terrain. Your point is not invalid, it just doesn't seem complete, or it's lacking context. To me.

It's convenient to mask our deep seated position in what we believe by the conviction it's universally obvious to everyone. Your point is not that obvious to me. false analogy (a bit overdone)=Hamas is not a little waif off the streets. Rockets are not little pebbles. I can't comment on secondary scenarios to the waif; that one wiped me out. I hope your smiling because my intention is not unkind. I just think differently. Your position, if exercised, still produces war, conflict, or non resolution.

If Israel only return fired rockets in empty fields in response invariably Hamas would what... Get more precise. Then, extrapolating a scenario from your point, Israel would respond in kind? If Hamas rocket hit a bus and Israeli planners were considering target packets they should the correspondingly look for a target that wipes out.... Hrmmm there were 18 bus victims so... 18 Hamas fighters. You ask of Israel a standard not asked of anyone, anywhere, ever, as a tool of state.

Sorry my friend, you are using sophistry. Unintentionally, I'm sure. You concede the land issue is valid, you then go on to talk about the reality of going to a gunfight armed with a knife. So true and apt, but it avoids the issue of justice, and another reality; that of fighting to your last breath, tooth and nail, for your home. And if you hit below the belt, really, who uses Queensberry rules when the literal life of your entire community is at stake (not to mention your opponent doesn't fight by the rules either)?

You say it's a false analogy, that pebbles are not rockets. Helicopter gunships, white phosphorous, and tanks are not a knife and a club, either. Actually, to make the analogy more accurate, I should tie one of the waif's hands behind his back, and starve him of sustenance so he has low energy. I do not think I overdid it at all. You did not mention my cry, as I brutally bully the waif, of "I have a right to defend myself!". It was important to the analogy. Also important to the analogy was the fact that I want something that the waif has, and with him gone or incapacitated, I am free to take it.

I don't dispose of your point regarding proportionate responses. I think, though, you were a little disingenuous to suggest that I think Israel should kill 18, for the 18 Hammas killed. But there's proportionate and then there's vastly disproportionate, ie pebble harmlessly falling in my direction vs a severe beating with a knife and club. Surely if I had slapped the waif, or even boxed his ears I would not earn (as much) censure?

As you say, "It's convenient to mask our deep seated position in what we believe by the conviction it's universally obvious to everyone.".

I avoid the secondary points of your post and go to the heart.

And so you capture and define my weakest point; I am aware of it. If any reads my posts they could infer it. But you are correct. In a world of absolutes (suspend the relative for a moment), Israel took land from others. I often sidestep this issue by declaring there was no Palestinian State, ever. I declare that the Arab world never even recognized a Palestinian State previously. Yes. I do not do this to be evasive or sell a product. I believe this. But my mind operates from a singular perspective:

If we aren't going to kill all the Jews, and we aren't going to kill all the Arabs, how do we proceed. History should inform the future and the absolute fact of the land grab doesn't inform any current, relative choices.

I do find myself mixing relative arguments with absolute reality (land grab). I try to avoid it but then it becomes insufferable to defend my position when people introduce the issue of first cause- the land grab. It is at this point where my line item arguments come to an end, or don't connect. I am an honest man and I have an abiding respect for keeping my mind subordinate to reason. I try to have no opinion I cant defend with reason or self evidence. Every post I make I consider deeply and mean. Sometimes I am mistaken or post wrong and when shown, I hope my humility equals the observation.

I just deeply believe that the issue with the Palestinians is much more fundamental than land (Indeed for the remainder of Islam the land is a vehicle only; they hate Jews). I am an avid student of Islam having once written a book on the mystical similarities of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. The problem was after I began collecting my facts on Islam, reading the many suras, the hadith, islamic exegesis, etc., I became appalled and realized that I would be fitting a round hole in a square socket. I could not edit it nor publish it. Indeed, even Sufi suffered greatly. In my instance, I could not complete the comparison for the book but the knowledge, and the many years in these areas, informed me that there is a very deep, underlying maleficence motivating Arabs towards Israel and in another book I called that chapter The Thorn in Ishmael's Side. This is the issue. (Note: The Book in reference will never be mentioned).

Thanks for your humility. Much appreciated, at least some of the Israel defenders are considering their position from time to time.

I cannot however agree with this blant statement: Moslems hate Jews. After all what the Jews did to them in the Middle East there are obviously a bit angry about them. (I have to control my anger about this arrogant, blood thirsty Israelis too and I am even not a Muslim). But just saying they hate Jews? No, you really can't. The problem with the Arabs and the Jews (as a matter of fact Jews are Arabs too), is that they are very tribe-oriented and very suspicioius towards anything else than their own tribe.

There is a solution: compassion towards each other. Israel needs to stop thinking that they can control 'the Arabs' in just eradicating and suppressing them, this creates only hate in them and plays into the hands of extremists on the other side, like Hamas. Palestinians need, though I understand it is very hard as the Jews kill deliberately their children, to be compassionate and understanding towards the Jews. This is what I meant with love can change things. Hate will never bring a real change.

What, exactly, did the Jews do to the Muslims in the Middle East? Did you mean that as in all the Muslims in the Middle East?

Jews are Arabs? Really?

Compassion? Did you see much of it in evidence from anyone on the neighborhood?

[Morch]

Assuming, of course, that it is indeed feasible for Israel to re-conquer the Gaza Strip and destroy the Hamas. Not an assured thing on both counts and unlikely Israelis will give continued support for such a long term endeavor. Even if this was to work out as planned, quite probable that a new outfit will take Hamas's place as soon as the space clears.

There are no magic solutions here - Israel can either accept the reality of ongoing hostilities on the current level, or attempt to re-conquer the Gaza Strip and stay in charge, or, alternatively - find a diplomatic solution (preferably one which makes the Hamas redundant while addressing most of the Palestinian grievances).

I agree with you, Morch.

An Israeli re-occupation would be very costly in lives (both sides) and another loss in the global PR stakes.

I know Israel has security issues, but the most sensible way of resolving that is not to back Hamas into a corner saying they must disarm or else...they won’t. They should try some diplomacy. Tit for tat goodwill..as long as the rockets don’t come as the weeks and months go by, a gradual easing of the blockade with the ultimate goal of ending it, plus a port and an airport if all is well after a year. Throw in some provisos such as PA/UN/NATO/IDF inspecting trucks at the Egyptian crossing, and a hotline to leaders, to sort out any rogue firing, while at the same time no provocative assassinations by Israelis.

It could be a win win..prolonged period of quiet for Israelis, and a better life for Gazans.

And during that quiet time, start negotiating a serious final peace agreement. If Hamas won’t recognize Israel, who cares? Many Zionist fanatics will never recognize a Palestinian state either. Both sides’ extremists would be sidelined in a majority referendum.

Shalom

The thing is you (and others) try to make it seem as if this is all up to Israel, which is not the case. Hamas is not all that open to the idea of inspections, and not getting the port/airport right away (mind, the Egyptians are

far from keen on both, for their own security issues). Both sides try to drive a hard bargain and "win" something they can present to their people. Goodwill does not come into this, goodwill does not even live in this neighborhood.

I have less confidence that if things come to a referendum there will indeed be a clear majority for peace on both sides. A related issue being leadership on both sides being either unwilling or unable to deliver when it comes to peace.

It does not matter that Hamas was democratically elected (insofar that this is even possible in an Arab locale). No one, not Israel, not the West, no one... should negotiate with Hamas. Hamas met, meets, sustains, propogates all that defines terrorism. Moreover, Hamas significantly represents other regional players who wholeheartedly do not want peace. Are those of you advocating peace with Hamas aware who/what Hamas is? Really. I mean no disrespect. This is not a valid partner to find a solution. Hamas raison d'etre is destruction of Israel. Its goals for the local arabs are secondary.

There can never be a sustained solution to the current problem through Hamas. They simply will not go down this road. However, in Islam, there is a core pillar that allows lying to enter treaties, etc, with your enemy to further your goals in Islam. Of course, all wrap up there various and personal actions by rationalizing they further Islam. If the local arabs are serious they must first clean their local house and put forth a legitimate representative council that reflects fully the will of the local arabs, not foreign players not radical islam.

Oh, I do not think that there can be peace (as we understand it) between Israel and the Hamas. The most that can be hoped for are temporary agreements and understandings which sort of regulate the bouts of violence.

When referring to negotiations with Hamas, this is as far as it can get.

Could be different with the Fatah, although its an open question as to how much support it represents.

[Ulysses G.]

Well, unfortunately there will be never ever peace between the Jews and their neighbours. Just look at the attitude and hatred in the comments of our zionist friends and these might be guys who even don't live in Israel.

You mean as opposed to the understanding, fair-minded comments of folks like you? The pot is calling the kettle black and I am being extremely generous in the comparison.

[Morch]

Well, unfortunately there will be never ever peace between the Jews and their neighbours. Just look at the attitude and hatred in the comments of our zionist friends and these might be guys who even don't live in Israel. As long as these thickheads fully accept such crimes against the humanity as deliberately killing innocent children and bombing schools as being fine because Israel needs to protect themselves. How could peace ever happen? Is really sad but this is the reality. Right now Israel has the military power and use it to kill 'Arabs', who knows one day the other side will have more power and they will kill of the Jews. As a matter of fact both are fools.

And you somehow think that this hatred is a one way street? Or that Palestinians do not justify horrible things done by

Palestinians?

[boomerangutang]

When I was in high school, I volunteered for a student exchange program. I went from my suburban white h.s. to a black inner city h.s. for a week. Once at a private party, it was very dark, just enough light to see where the ladies were. Me and my (black) men friends showed up, and we each picked a gal and danced. They had LP's with completely slow songs. I danced with my entrancing gal for a long time, very sensuous. When the lights came on, she suddenly realized I was a white guy. She looked at her friends in embarrassment, and retreated away from me.

The reason I'm telling that story is: People are very subjective and governed by appearances (and pre-conceived notions). Imagine if 30 Palestinians and 30 Israelis got in a room together to study massage (or do an art/architectural project together), but all were wearing head covers and had their voices disguised (to not reveal accents, etc.). The Palestinians, in particular, would not be able to interact (or have bodily contact) because they would be stymied by not knowing who is Israeli and who is not. Preconceived notions are a powerful controller of minds and actions.

[Scott]

A Nazi reference has been deleted. Please don't make inflammatory remarks.