I think the supposition is they had second thoughts afterwards. The Israelis never expected Hamas to win the Palestinian leadership.
What would be the point of that? It’s like your state legislature passing a resolution that “crime is bad.”
That’s an oversimplification. It would probably be more accurate to say that after they returned the territory, and it was being used for terrorist attacks, then they began looking at how to stop the attacks. But yes, they probably drew up contingency plans once a terrorist group was elected to power.
Still, I don’t think that the UN resolution is even approaching a basic level of intellectual honesty. They talk about Israel planning this as if there was no act of war commited against them first. To paraphrase: “Israel planned to fight terrorists if we were using state sponsored terrorism, again, as a means of political change. We began launching terrorist attacks, and those crafty Zionists wouldn’t let themselves be attacked. They must be condemned!”
And are you certain this win was unexpected, at least by the political/military folks in the Isreali government? I mean… I knew that this would happen, surely with Mosad, they did too?
This attitude, actually, is a large part of the problem. Just like people saying “well, things need to change, so it must be the Israelis fault since it’s just wacky to ask the Palestinian terrorists to stop murdering women and children.”
If Hamas won’t stop the attacks, there should be sanctions. I said much the same thing in the thread a while ago about Hamas’ election to power. Stopping terrorism should not only be a prerequisite for negotiation, but for international recognition.
This double standard gets old really fast.
It’s reasonble to expect that Israel be punished for acts of self defense, but not reasonble for sanctions to be invoked against a terrorist regime. It’s reasonable to expect that Israel continue to offer land for peace and other solid gestures of negotiation, but it’s not reasonable to expect that the Palestinians government stop sponsoring terrorists. Etc…
Why? We in the U.S. have bad relations with Iran because, among other things, we accuse them of sponsoring terrorism – but no one has ever seriously suggested de-recognizing their government.
Save that judgment for when they actually issue a resolution. It’s only in the talking stage now, and under the circumstances you can’t seriously expect them to just ignore the Palestinians’ demand for one.
The way all the media portrayed it, the results of the Palestinian election came as a total shock to the Israelis.
Well, to begin with, not all terrorist regimes are the same. They’re not fungible.
Moreoever, in many cases it would be a very good idea to invoke sanctions. If one country launched a war of aggression against another, they’d run afoul of the Nurenberg Principles. If, however, they launch a war of aggression via terrorists they sponsor/train/equip, then they’re fine and dandy.
And why do you keep talking about a “double standard”? You cannot justly or reasonably apply the same standard to judge the actions of two parties whose relationship is as unequal as that of Israel and Palestine. The Israelis have their own country and are in no danger of losing it; the Palestinians are occupied by the Israelis. Israel has a real, stable government that, for the most part, can effectively control the actions even of its most hotheaded factions; Palestine . . . doesn’t, to put it mildly. Really, this is like demanding the same standard be applied to the government of Apartheid South Africa and the ANC.
Eh, judging from the UN’s track record, I don’t have high hopes.
Yes, actually I can. I can expect that a terrorist regime which launches a war won’t, then, have the UN seriously debating how to punish their victims.
I’ll see if I can’t dig up some polls. It might be an accurate portrayal… but it just seems, well, off.
That kind of thinking is why I talk about a double standard. Because there is one.
The double standard I was refering to was that Israel will be condemned for defending itself, but Palestine will be given a pass for deliberately murdering women and children.
No discussion over statehood justifies the deliberate murder of civilians.
No. It’s like saying that aggression and terrorism are wrong.
But Israel is also murdering women and children, or almost certainly will have done before this is over. They accepted that when they moved across the border. When a recognized state’s army does that, it’s called “collateral damage.” When an undergound organization does it, it’s called “terrorism.” There’s a double standard for yo’ ass!
No, that’s more rhetorical obfuscation on your part.
There is a difference between targeting civilians, and attacking military targets.
There is also a difference between acting in defense, and acting out of aggression and a campaign of genocide.
Horse puckey.
Walking into a pizza shop and blowing yourself up is murdering children.
Firing rockets at a kibutz is murdering children.
Dropping a bomb on the guys shooting the rockets and killing children nearby is an accident.
If the guys weren’t shooting the rockets, they wouldn’t be bombed.
If the children didn’t live in Israel but in Warsaw, they wouldn’t have rockets shot at them.
Well, it’s all the same for the women and children, isn’t it?
I can’t decide to make a snide remark about surviving Warsaw or the Palestinian woman who dressed her baby in a suicide belt, so I’ll agree, yes, it is the same if you are murdered or killed as a bystander for those who die.
Was this a plan that was preplanned and just waiting to be triggered by the inevitable provocation or merely a response to a particular action?
The arrests, at least, were allegedly in the works and not exclusively a quid pro quo. Destroying bridges and power plants, punishing the civilian population, eliminating any governing infrastructure even one as ineffectual as Hamas and Fatah, hardly seem like actions calibrated to pressure a specific terrorist subgroup and that alone. In this case the Palestinian ambassador seems on target: this action was premeditated, aimed at sabotaging Palestinian unity and at destroying any chance Hamas had of forming a ruling coalition.
It will accomplish that goal, and send the clear message to whatever hobbled governance is in place in the areas that Israel leaves behind that they better police their own. But is that really Israel’s best possible outcome? This response seems disproportionate and indiscriminate. I cannot believe that it is Israel’s best longterm interests, even as I understand its justifications. Israel is, if nothing else, squandering a point in time when world public opinion was behind her and fairly united in pressuring the Palestinian side to renounce violence and come to the table in good faith.
Why does it have to be either/or? They’re not mutually exclusive.
What are they doing to punish civilians? Because destroying bridges served to stop movement of Shalit and his captors, and taking out the power station was a wise strategic move if you’re going to have to invade.
Why don’t you think that attacking Hamas and their ability to commit organized terrorism could be directed at them?
Do you think this will do anything negative to Palestinian unity? How? Why isn’t it more likely to assume that there was a plan on some senior officer’s desk titled “What to do when Hamas shows their true colors”, or what have you? As Hamas has been orchestrating terrorism from Gaza, why doesn’t it make sense that there were plans in place to deal with it, and plans that were altered to deal with the kidnapping of Shalit?
Possibly not. Hamas was voted in with quite a bit of the populace behind them. I don’t see how making them martyrs for the cause will split the Palestinian people. It will, of course, send a signal that even terrorists who are part of the government aren’t off limits.
Why? The lack of bridges meant that Shalit couldn’t be easily moved unless his captors grew wings. The destruction of the power plant meant that troops with night vision would be at an advantage in urban combat, and that Hamas C&C network would be severely disrupted. Ditto for the capture of senior Hamas members in the government.
Eh… world opinion has been against the terrorist government of Hamas for quite some time now. Nothing’s really come of it, and I doubt that anything would have if Israel responded to an act of aggression by appearing impotent.
Oh c’mon. As Ha’Aretz put it
The goal of saving this one individual’s life would have been better served with more finely calibrated reactions more gradually ratchetted.
Hamas was elected in, but had just caved on some, to them, highly significant points, because they knew that they would have lost a referendum on policy. People voted less for them than against Fatah corruption. But a semblance of unity government was about to form, and one moving towards the negotiation pathway. The elements of Hamas involved in government were clearly guilty of failing to prevent this offensive act, but there has been no evidence of their planning it.
There is space between “appearing impotent” and responding with, as Olmert put it, “extreme measures.”
Pardon me if this has already been addressed, but it seems that with the power out, Gaza’s got a bit of a water problem:
I thought the legitimacy of the notion of collective responsibility had died in WWI, when Germans would mow down increasing numbers of French and Belgian townspeople in retaliation for acts of sabotage.
The mods seem content to preserve my dumbass status, so no danger! 
(END UNINTENDED HIJACK)
DSeid: bridges can be circumvented, but that takes time. If one is going to invade a region, it helps to have a landing zone.
On another note, even if the Hamas politicos didn’t have a direct hand in planning the attacks, they aren’t at all as divorced from their military wing as they pretend. I see nothing wrong with holding them accountable.
What would you have advised, in specific? Also keeping in mind that while this was about Shalit, it was also about Hamas.
Hamas has been orchestrating a terrorist campaign in Gaza. Then they captured an Israeli soldier. Was Israel supposed to negotiate with terrorists, and give them the clear signal that any time they want something, all they have to do is start kidnapping folks?
I’m not being flippant here, I’d honestly like to know what alternative plans there were that wouldn’t involve them caving in to terrorists or doing nothing.
It’s not an issue of collective responsibility. And your story doesn’t touch on the opening of the Karni passage and its use for humanitarian needs.
And the last time I checked, electrical stations that could be used by a military forces are legitimate targets of war. HRW certainly seems to suggest that power stations can be legitmate targets of war in certain circumstances. Would disrupting C&C abilities and gaining an advantage in night fighting not be a valid military objective?
Let’s see … a slower progression would be step one, especially since various Arab politicos and elements within the PA were tryng hard to get those who abducted the soldier to return him. Massing troops, fine. Going in far enough to destroy any tunnels, for sure. Bombing identified training camps. Then wait a few more days. Impress the world with your restraint.
Meanwhile this response has served the purposes of the Islamist extremists and made a negotiated solution with an independent and economically viable Palestine even farther out of reach than it already was. It serves the ends of those who desire nothing other than the eternal perpetuation of the conflict so that Israel can be used a scapegoat for all that is wrong in the Arab world, so that the Arabs have their Goldstein for the daily five minute hate. It allows images of Palestinians who had nothing to do with the abduction, children, lining up for water and huddling in hiding, and walking among rubble, to be platered across the world media.
It may even have made it less likely that this particular man will be returned alive.
From a selfish Zionist-sympatheitc perspective, from the POV of someone who believes that Israel’s best intersts are served by obtaining a fair enough negotiated solution, this was stupid.