I still don’t understand your issue with military strikes against weapons deliberately positioned in civilian populations.
I’ve found a citethat states the Israeli military has made 900 strikes with 90 Palestinians killed. Leave aside that at least some of those killed are actual militants (I take it you have fewer issues with non civilian deaths) and lets up the rate x10 (to include injuries) we have a injured/killed per strike ratio of 1.
I’m not appalled by that.
IIRC, Israel is still at war with a lot of these countries.
But those are not the ones they’re facing an immenent threat from. To make peace with them and not with Hamas accomplishes very little.
I don’t think they know it, and even if they do, that’s not going to stop them from doing their best to make it happen.
So there is nothing Israel could do that would make hamas more willing? Or is Hamas supposed to sue for peace under current conditions?
What is a believable way?
So Israel with all their guns and military can’t control Hamas militants but a disarmed Palestinian government is supposed to do so? Or are you saying that the new Palestinian government could have its own military?
Despite at least some evidence to the contrary.
There is already a country called Jordan. I think the Palestinians want to call theirs Palestine. But if you want to go back in time to what we could have done differently, perhaps the Zionists shouldn’t have created a country for themselves in the middle of land that was already occupied.
Again, this part seems to me the key difficulty in your argument:
[Emphasis mine]
What if - just for the sake of argument - the Israeli actions actually ensured that the attacks weren’t “effective”? That there was a causal link between “Israeli attacks on Hamas rocket launchers” and “Hamas rocket launchers overall failing to harm Israeli civilians”?
Seems to me that - in this case - the very effectiveness of Israeli actions at protecting civilians becomes, in your view, proof of Israeli brutality.
What shot is that?
Unilaterally caving in? We should have adopted the same strategy with Germany and Japan after WWI and kept our boot on their neck. We’d be so much better off today. And before anyone gets their panties in a twist, I’m not saying they are exactly the same situation but sometimes keeping your boot on the other guy’s neck isn’t the best way forward. And your attitude that taking your foot off his neck is unilateral caving is the attitude I am talking about. Israel will have just as much military power the day after they “cave” as the day before they “cave”
If you assume the other guy is crazy and bloodthirsty then no there is no solution as long as you have the upper hand. Perhaps we should work towards changing who has the upper hand.
Were the arabs crazy and bloodthirsty before the creation of the state of Israel or did they have a latent form of crazy bloodthirstiness that blossomed into full bloom after the creation of the state of Israel.
Perhaps the Persians shouldn’t have invaded Judah 2500 years ago.
What sort of threat are they facing from Hamas?
We have had serial killers here in the USA that have been more deadly than Hamas over the last few years.
I’m not the one that started the stroll down memory lane. We need something equitable today. Not something that would be equitable 60 years ago or 160 years ago. I would guess that most of these Palestinian militants weren’t even born when Israel was created. But we can’t entirely disregard the recent history.
Um, you do realize that both Germany and Japan were forced to surrender unconditionally after WW2 - Japan after being nuked, twice - and the leaders of both countries mostly rounded up and executed in war crimes trials?
Is that really the pattern you want Israel to subscribe to vis. the Palestinians? It is, in fact, way harsher than anything Israel has ever attempted.
Right. Sometimes it’s not and sometimes it is.
True, but Hamas will have a lot more.
You’re saying if you assume the other guy is crazy and bloodthirsty you should change things to give that guy the upper hand? That’s an interesting strategy.
What’s the difference? You keep going further and further back in history, which suggests that you see events today based on what you perceive to be historical grievences. But it makes no difference. (You want to go that route, Jews were second class citizens in Palestine and all other Arab countries for hundreds of years.)
What counts is the current situation.
Um, you do realize that both Germany and Japan were forced to surrender unconditionally after WW2 - Japan after being nuked, twice - and the leaders of both countries mostly rounded up and executed in war crimes trials?
Is that really the pattern you want Israel to subscribe to vis. the Palestinians? It is, in fact, way harsher than anything Israel has ever attempted.
(I assume you mean “WW2” here, as Japan was on the allied side in WW1)
Edit: sorry about the double post!
Hamas has killed as many people as they could (other than to the extent that they’ve been pressured into ceasefires by bombings and invasions).
That seems pretty threatening to me. Making a peace treaty that they don’t subscribe to while leaving them strengthened as a result does not seem like such a bright idea to me.
Yes, I suppose that would make a difference. Do you think there’s evidence that this is why Hamas’s attacks have been ineffective? I guess it seems to me the main reason is just that their weapons aren’t very good – otherwise I would have expected them to start out as being more effective at causing Israeli casualties, and then those numbers would go down as the Israeli’s destroyed more and more of their weaponry.
I beg your pardon, I thought you did.
People don’t work that way, especially the people who live in and near the area.
I’d like to give the Palestinians part of Alaska and put in a Ford motor company factory to provide employment.
At least both sides would be out of range of each other.
Depends. Part of the reason for Hamas ineffectiveness, I have heard, is that the set up a firing location in some civvy’s property, fire a rocket or two, and skedaddle before Israeli counter-battery fire tracks back the missile and blows them to bits. If they were allowed the leasure of setting up a permanent firing post, without fear of retaliation, they would be more accurate and score more hits - or at least, so goes the theory.
If this is true (and it sounds credible enough), one would expect that this would be as true for the first rocket as for the last.
As for degrading the experience of Hamas crews, that is a long-term affair: this isn’t the first go-around between Israel and Hamas by any means.
The point being that if Israel should stop counter-battery attacks, the Hamas rocketeers could gain accuracy (by firing from more permanent locations) and experience (as Hamas crews would not be risking depletion by death).
All of which seems reasonable enough to me, though I admit I have no proof that it actually works this way.
Except clearly that’s not a majority attitude among Israelis, because if it was, they would have done it years ago.
It was, of course, an immediate response to this:
And now someone brings up the last 2000 years …
On the air strikes, I guess it was time for the periodic rattling of the cage - the very last thing Israel wants is a calm Gaza; that doesn’t serve the agenda at all.