So far as I understand, the Palestinian rocket fire hasn’t killed any Israelis, but has caused some injuries and property damage.
Anyone care to defend Israel here? I’m not sure what the right thing for Israel to do here is, but airstrikes against civilian areas can’t be it. Even just in terms of Israeli interests, I don’t see how they’re helping themselves. Having images of dead Palestinian children on the news just alienates their allies and encourages further attacks.
I hear this sort of thing all the time, and I’ve never really understood it. Why should a country not be able to defend itself from rocket fire? What earthy difference does it make that the country starting the fight has crappy weapons compared with yours? War isn’t “fair” - it isn’t as if Israel is under some sort of moral obligation to allow Hamas an equality of killing, is it?
What alternatives does Israel have? It can:
(1) Give in to Hamas demands.
(2) do nothing, just suck it up when Hamas kidnaps and murders its civilians, and fires rockets at them.
(3) Attack the rocket launchers with airstrikes.
(4) Invade and physically root out the Hamas militants with boots on the ground.
(5) Invade as above and set up a permanent occupation & policing of Gaza.
Any I’ve missed? Which would you do, if it was your country?
I’m curious. How many Israeli civilians need to be killed by unguided Hamas rockets before Israel is allowed to effectively retaliate? Is there a sliding scale where the Israelis are allowed to become more and more effective as the count grows?
That isn’t what Hamas is demanding. There is no proof that getting out of settlements - which are in the West Bank and not in Gaza - and the Palestinians obtaining full statehood would, in fact, prevent Hamas from continuing attacks.
In fact, history would tend to demonstrate the reverse. Israel used to occupy Gaza and had settlements there. Ariel Sharon famously handed Gaza back to the Palestinians and abandoned the settlements in Gaza. Rather than bringing an end to the attacks, it only exacerbated them.
To be clear, abandoning settlements & handing over statehood may well be good things in and of themselves - but they are not a realistic “answer” to rocket attacks from Gaza.
And out of the realistic options, which one would you choose?
I tend to fall within the pro-Palestinian side on this debate, but I don’t think simplistic arguments wiill take us anywhere. The Palestinian attacks are wrong. Israel has a right to retaliate. The only problem is that their retaliation, once again, is brutal.
Suppose you knew that giving them their own state would give them the opportunity to build up more powerful military capabilities which they intend to use to attack you further.
War is brutal. Can you scale this in the context of war situations? E.g. the US has killed quite a few civilians in its various wars. Do you have any examples of countries who have waged war in non-brutal ways as examples?
Bear in mind that by all accounts the militants have weapons in civilian areas. What to do in a non-brutal manner? Do you have to allow your own civilians to be attacked rather than risk the other side’s civilians being harmed? Or an you describe some non-brutal way that the Israelis could wage this war?
I agree that Israel has a duty to attempt to minimize civilian casualties from its retaliation while still retaliating effectively, but I don’t think we have enough evidence to state as to whether it is meeting that obligation or not.
Again, I would restate that a mere imbalance in casualties isn’t per se “proof” of “brutality”. Any battle between Israel and Hamas will be unbalanced as to casualties, for the obvious reason that Israel has a modern military and Hamas has a bunch of rockets imported from Iran, operating out of a densely populated civilian area. For Hamas to operate “in the open” away from civilians would be suicide on its part - in open battle, Israel would pulverise them. Their only option is to hide among civilians, and any Israeli retaliation will, perforce, risk civilian casualties.
… those are the reasons that make this the most complex political issue on the planet. But I get the distinct feeling that many in Israel have no interest in reducing even preventable, unnecessary suffering. Hell, just the other day I read an Israeli newspaper that called for Gaza to be returned to the Stone Age. That kind of attitude, in one of the most heavily-armed countries on the planet, worries me quite a lot
But a “distinct feeling that many in Israel have no interest” in something is not the same thing as saying the people who run the campaign are committing avoidable brutality. When a large percentage of the country is spending a lot of quality time in bomb shelters because of rockets whose goal it is to kill them, you can expect a lot of calls to destroy the other side. But if you want to criticize the military for actually doing this you need something more specific and factual.
You asked what I would do, not what would bring peace to the middle east.
If America treated Mexico and Canada the way Israel treated Gaza and the West Bank, I suspect that we would also be conducting airstrikes against Toronto and Cancun before long. I mean what choice would we have after Mexico and Canada fire a few rockets into the USA causing lots of property damage and injuring some folks. So I guess Israel is on the side of the angels and really shouldn’t be criticized for anything.
Why is a two state solution not a realistic option?
Of course the Hamas attacks are wrong. But they’re understandable. If I was in that situation, I might do the same thing, so might you.
So I should keep my boot on the other guy’s neck because if I take it off it will give him the “opportunity” to build up the strength to attack me more effectively? By that logic I can never take my boot off his neck and I might as well kill him.
Its been 60 fucking years, these Palestinians are not showing any signs of just rolling over and playing dead. If the Israelis can’t reconcile with the Palestinians, they might as well just get it over with and implement a more final solution.
Sure, a country can defend itself, but there’s such a thing as a disproportionate response. For instance, if Israel were to bomb Gaza until every man, woman, and child within its boundaries was dead, that would end the rocket attacks, but I think hardly anyone would consider that morally acceptable. So somewhere between that and doing nothing, there’s a line where they’re going to far. Right?
I’m also not convinced that the Israeli airstrikes will actually be effective in ending the attacks (assuming they don’t go with the kill every man, woman, and child approach). Doing nothing might be bad, but if all they manage is to kill a bunch of innocent people and some Hamas members (while motivating others to take their place), then that’s even worse, isn’t it?
If it were my country, I guess I’d hold off on military action, and try to get my ally (the U.S.) to lean on their allies in the Muslim world to try to broker some kind of peace. Which probably wouldn’t work… but I’m not sure it’s any less likely to solve things than the current approach, and it kills a lot fewer children.
You’re wrong about that. Hamas has survival instincts like anyone else. In the past they have made cease-fires - although these go against their credo - in response to Israel bombardments.
