Middle East - what's next

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Edward64

You are absolutely right, let me try the right POV. Lets try again to clearly specify the parameters of what the GLT theory states and lets agree on some baseline facts of the GLT before we discuss more, otherwise I suspect we will go around in circles.

1) GLT is specific to the US military
2) GLT is specific to current US military
3) GLT is specific to current US military in Iraq
4) GLT supposes that with enough political/civilian "will" the US military can accomplish anything in Iraq

My additional suppositions are

A) GLT is not specific to the US military
B) GLT is not specific to current (ex. within 50 yrs)
C) GLT is not specific to Iraq scenario
D) GLT does not exclude "civil wars"

The provided link http://yglesias.tpmcafe.com/blog/ygl...of_geopolitics does not specifically exclude A,B,C,D.

MrBigglesworth. Does our discussion of GLT include my suppositions of A,B,C,D? Can you please specifically state include/exclude to the 1-4, A-D statements so I understand your interpretation of GLT? Feel free to add to either category.

Again, just trying to establish a baseline of understanding before we proceed any further.

I'm not sure that I follow why or how you are setting up the parameters. GLT states, in short terms, that a nation's military can accomplish anything, it's just a matter of will (military or civilian or political will, in a democracy they are one in the same). It can apply to anything you or anyone else wants to apply it to, that's part of the beauty of it. Someone could say that Hezbollah could invade Israel and wipe them off the map, it's just a question of their will to do so. You might think that is insane, but it can't be proven wrong. Any failure of Hezbollah to actuall destroy Israel could just be explained away as a lack of sufficient will. Replace Hezbollah with America, Israel with Iraq, and 'wipe them off the map' with 'install an American style democracy', and the same could be said of that situation. Certainly the American military is very good, the best in the world, but there are some jobs that it can't do for the sole reason that militaries are limited as to what they can accomplish.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I'm not sure that I follow why or how you are setting up the parameters. GLT states, in short terms, that a nation's military can accomplish anything, it's just a matter of will (military or civilian or political will, in a democracy they are one in the same). It can apply to anything you or anyone else wants to apply it to, that's part of the beauty of it. Someone could say that Hezbollah could invade Israel and wipe them off the map, it's just a question of their will to do so. You might think that is insane, but it can't be proven wrong. Any failure of Hezbollah to actuall destroy Israel could just be explained away as a lack of sufficient will. Replace Hezbollah with America, Israel with Iraq, and 'wipe them off the map' with 'install an American style democracy', and the same could be said of that situation. Certainly the American military is very good, the best in the world, but there are some jobs that it can't do for the sole reason that militaries are limited as to what they can accomplish.

MrBigglesworth. Again, I am clearly trying to define our baseline for what GLT says as it does not seem to exclude my suppositions of A,B,C,D. I am trying to establish this baseline because you differed from my opinion that there is plenty of historical examples where GLT is true.

ex. When I mentioned historical, you added "within past 50 yrs"
When I mentioned civil wars, you mentioned "foreign intervention"

I just though it would be worthwhile to clearly define the parameters before proceeding and not give each other "easy outs/wiggle room" in our future discussions.

Under the assumption that A,B,C,D is not excluded by your interpretation of GLT, I would again state that GLT is true. Without a clear response from you on my above question of A,B,C,D I will assume this discussion of GLT with you is complete.

Mojo. Thanks for your analysis on GLT and your understanding of my wish to establish a baseline of understanding. I agree, without A,B,C,D the GLT is hard to "prove with contemporary historical evidence" due to (1) lack of clear examples due to lack of overwhelming foreign military force/conflicts and (2) existence of UN and East/West polarization of major powers that have made such GLT conflicts untenable.

Regardless, I think you agree with me that with suppositions A,B,C,D that GLT is true?

[Edward64]

It looks as if Italy will take the lead.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,209724,00.html

Good for them.

Disappointed the French did not step up. I can understand the risks (ex. it can go sour quickly) to them but it would seem they would want to play the leadership role and establish their eminence in Europe. Using the Foreign Legion would minimize the negative domesitc impact if it became a shooting conflict with Hezbollah.

Also disappointed with the Chinese. At least with India they have a large Muslim population that could complicate their internal politics. With China this would seem to be a perfect opportunity to present themselves as the emerging world leader.

(It would be a sight to see a bunch of Orientals in the Holy Land).

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I know this was not directed to me but feel it was related to my discussion with MrBigglesworth on GLT and how, given enough "will", the US military can subjugate a population.

Yes, my reply wasn't directed at you specifically, though it is tangential. To be completely honest, I checked out of your discussion with MrB about GLT (mostly because I don't have the time to read it all, not necessarily because of its merits).

(1) I did not study the use of the word subjugate. Use what ever you wish, the point is that there are plenty of historical examples where a population was force to accept a military force's will for a long period of time.

First of all, I don't want to seem nitpicky, but in any conversation like this, one's choice of words can often be very important. Subjugate means one thing, but your subsequent description of a generalized military occupation is something else entirely.

Secondly, I must go back to MrB's requirement that you choose examples from the last 50 years. There's a reason for this. On one topic alone, technology, we can say that the playing field for guerilla warfare has changed immensely in the past 50 years. Today, a people under military occupation have a large number of tools at their disposal which make it easier for them to keep in touch and/or wage war against an enemy which has superior technology. Iraq is a very good example of this.

(2) Your point of "secret police" is well taken, however I would contend that the military force came first, then the "secret police" continued environment of "subjugation". Same difference to me.

But it's not the same difference at all. Compare these two scenarios:

1. Iraq's security situation as it exists now.

2. Iraq's security situation with a "secret police" of native Iraqis, loyal to the U.S. military, who have the ability to infiltrate any sector of Iraqi society and "correct" people at will.

Which, do you think, would result in a more subjugated Iraq?

Imagine Nazi Germany without the Gestapo & SS. Imagine the Soviet Union without the KGB.


Which brings me back to my original point. Under realistic conditions, I don't think you can have a miltary force alone that will effectively subjugate a people in this day and age. Case in point: Iraq. Under hypothetical conditions (such as putting 5 million U.S. troops into Iraq), you might, but the problems inherent with realizing such a hypothetical scenario suggest deeper flaws with such a plan.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

First of all, I don't want to seem nitpicky, but in any conversation like this, one's choice of words can often be very important. Subjugate means one thing, but your subsequent description of a generalized military occupation is something else entirely.

Understood.

Secondly, I must go back to MrB's requirement that you choose examples from the last 50 years. There's a reason for this. On one topic alone, technology, we can say that the playing field for guerilla warfare has changed immensely in the past 50 years. Today, a people under military occupation have a large number of tools at their disposal which make it easier for them to keep in touch and/or wage war against an enemy which has superior technology. Iraq is a very good example of this.

No problem. It was not clear from the article but I now believe the GLT applies specifically to contemporary (ex. 50 yrs) foreign intervention (ex. no civil wars).

Question, under the assumption that GLT also applies to "civil wars", do you still believe the GLT is not true? My example is the Khmer Rouge, they effectively overthrew the Cambodian royalty/government and controlled the country (and would probably still be in power without Vietnamese intervention).

But it's not the same difference at all. Compare these two scenarios:

1. Iraq's security situation as it exists now.

2. Iraq's security situation with a "secret police" of native Iraqis, loyal to the U.S. military, who have the ability to infiltrate any sector of Iraqi society and "correct" people at will.

Which, do you think, would result in a more subjugated Iraq?

Imagine Nazi Germany without the Gestapo & SS. Imagine the Soviet Union without the KGB..

No arguments with which is better. I can easily believe a "secret police" is better than pure military force alone. I would add in your two examples of Nazi Germany and USSR that there would not have been a "secret police" without the military force first. I view the "secret police" as a subset of the military force and/or a direct result of the military force ... hence my "same difference".

Which brings me back to my original point. Under realistic conditions, I don't think you can have a miltary force alone that will effectively subjugate a people in this day and age. Case in point: Iraq. Under hypothetical conditions (such as putting 5 million U.S. troops into Iraq), you might, but the problems inherent with realizing such a hypothetical scenario suggest deeper flaws with such a plan

My problem is that I can't really argue for GLT (ex. show examples) without the 2 added suppositions of B or D. Remove the B-50 yrs or throw me the bone of D-Civil War and I think I can show plenty examples in the past 50 yrs.

I state again that the GLT link did not specifically say 50+ years or not include civil wars. It seemed pretty general in its stated theory.

[Buccaneer]

Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah said in a TV interview aired Sunday that he would not have ordered the capture of two Israeli soldiers if he had known it would lead to such a war.

In other words, they would have been deterred to capture Israeli soldiers knowing the response. Or perhaps, if the IDF did not do what it did, Hezbollah would not have had second thoughts now?

[flere-imsaho]

Or perhaps Nasrallah's acting contrite now, knowing full well that Hezbollah now has the opportunity to earn the respect of the radical islamic world by rebuilding most, if not all, of southern Lebanon before the international community can get itself in gear?

Just because he's a radical doesn't mean he can't have good PR.

[MrBigglesworth]

There is no way this can be spun into a victory for Israel. Both sides are worse off, that's what usually happens in war. Knowing what they know now, Israel wouldn't have escalated the conflict either. This is not the end of the greater conflict.

[Edward64]

Although too early to tell, the current situation seems to have stabilized. With UNIFIL (and EU participation), Syria's pledge to back the embargo (wonder if the UN will be monitoring this?), Olmert's domestic disenchantment/distractions ... the odds are probably much lower that another conflict will flare up.

Charles Krauthammer had an interesting article but hard to gauge the accuracy of his text. It would be nice if this was true but hard not to think Krauthammer is looking through rose-colored glasses.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/C...hollow_victory

Hezbollah was seriously hurt. It lost hundreds of its best fighters. A deeply entrenched infrastructure on Israel's border is in ruins. The great hero has had to go so deep into hiding that Nasrallah has been called ``the underground mullah.''

Most importantly, Hezbollah's political gains within Lebanon during the war have proved illusory. As the dust settles, the Lebanese are furious at Hezbollah for provoking a war that brought them nothing but devastation -- and then crowing about victory amid the ruins.

I do think its good that other non-Middle Eastern muslim countries are participating in UNIFIL (ex. Indonesians).

[MrBigglesworth]

I would love to know what Krauthammer bases his thinking on, because the facts say something different:

A poll released this week by L'Orient Le Jour, a French-language Beirut daily, found that 84 percent of Lebanon's Shi'ite Muslims, the largest religious grouping in the country, think Hezbollah should hold on to its arms in defiance of a U.N. cease-fire agreement that is being implemented.

By contrast, more than three-quarters of Lebanon's Christian and Druze communities -- the two largest religious minorities -- said they want to see Hezbollah disarmed. Opinion was more evenly split among Lebanon's Sunni Muslims, with 54 percent favoring disarmament.

Overall, 51 percent of those polled were in favor of disarming Hezbollah, and 49 percent were opposed -- a statistical tie given the survey's margin of error.

The poll, conducted Aug. 14 to 17 by the French firm Ipsos-Stat, comes amid a fierce domestic debate over Hezbollah's role in provoking the war with Israel and in Lebanon's fragmented political system.

...

A poll by the Beirut Center for Research and Information, conducted Aug. 18 to 20, found that a majority of Lebanese think Hezbollah had "won" the war with Israel, surviving a fierce ground and air attack by one of the world's most potent militaries.

That poll found that 84.6 percent think Israel had planned the war long before and had used the raid as a pretext.

Seems like the same situatin as before the war, with the Muslims backing Hezbollah and the Christians not. Plus, with 84% of Lebanese believing that Israel had planned the war beforehand, it's tough to say how they can simultaneously be furious at Hezbollah for provoking the war.

[Dutch]

I found this line of thinking worth noting here.

``We did not think, even 1 percent, that the capture would lead to a war at this time and of this magnitude. You ask me, if I had known on July 11 ... that the operation would lead to such a war, would I do it? I say no, absolutely not.''

-- Hasan Nasrallah, Hezbollah leader, Aug. 27

So much for the ``strategic and historic victory'' Nasrallah had claimed less than two weeks earlier. What real victor declares that, had he known, he would not have started the war that ended in triumph?

As for the "Lebanese", it's a bit ambiguous. Does it mean the Lebanese Government, prominent Lebanese, or Lebanese citizens in general. Who knows.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I found this line of thinking worth noting here.



As for the "Lebanese", it's a bit ambiguous. Does it mean the Lebanese Government, prominent Lebanese, or Lebanese citizens in general. Who knows.

I think it means Ralph Nader.

[MrBigglesworth]

What real victor declares that, had he known, he would not have started the war that ended in triumph?

Pyrrhus?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Pyrrhus?

"One more such victory and I shall be lost!"

[Edward64]

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas told the U.N. General Assembly on Thursday that the planned national unity government will recognize Israel.

Palestinians agreed last week to replace the Hamas-led government with a unity government of Hamas and Abbas' more moderate Fatah faction.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14946254/

How did I missed this brewing?

Abbas seems willing to take chances for peace, hopefully he will turn out to be a Palestinian George Washington instead of a politician that sold out a people.

I don't understand why he would do this without first exacting some concessions/understanding with Israel. Or maybe they already have a secret agreement negotiated?

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I don't understand why he would do this without first exacting some concessions/understanding with Israel. Or maybe they already have a secret agreement negotiated?

Abbas and Fatah already recognized Israel. They've been holding out on forming a unity government with Hamas until Hamas also recognized Israel. Apparently Hamas has now agreed to that...

[Edward64]

The Palestinians’ ruling Hamas group will not join a planned coalition government if recognizing Israel is a condition, a close aide to Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas said Friday.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14946254/

Sorry, forget it. Back to the same old grind.

[Flasch186]

and today Hezbollah thumbed their nose at the UN agreement they agreed to to stop the conflict and will not disarm. Imagine that. Biggles? Should we trust them again, next time?

[Buccaneer]

Israel completed their pullout and ended the blockades. How come they haven't gotten the two prisoners back and how come Hezzbollah have/will not disarm?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

and today Hezbollah thumbed their nose at the UN agreement they agreed to to stop the conflict and will not disarm. Imagine that. Biggles? Should we trust them again, next time?

I don't know why you can't see that this is Israel's fault.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

and today Hezbollah thumbed their nose at the UN agreement they agreed to to stop the conflict and will not disarm. Imagine that. Biggles? Should we trust them again, next time?

They're in violation of the UN decree, but Hezbollah never agreed to disarm...

[Flasch186]

...yet they'll site UN doctrine and law when accusing Israel of warcrimes like using the cluster bombs in civilian areas, which, should be investigated by the UN and followed up on just like anything else should be. Neither side is immune from the laws that we all agree to. What I have noticed about this is what is good for the goose is NOT good for the gander in the eyes of Nasrallah.

[Edward64]

Time for a post mortem analysis on the latest conflict?

Hezbollah = 1, Israel = 0
Hamas = 0, Israel = 1
Hamas = ?, Fatah = ?

Hezbollah vs Israel. Not militarily, but hard to argue that Hezbollah did not emerge stronger it this most recent conflict. The pro-West government has not been too vocal/public, not a good sign.

Hamas vs Israel. I don't see any significant shifts in advantage, more or less the same status quo.

Hamas vs Fatah. I don't know.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Hamas vs Israel. I don't see any significant shifts in advantage, more or less the same status quo.

I agree the fighting didn't make much difference, but Hamas may be starting to feel the impact of having foreign aid cut off (it's been half a year now). As I noted earlier in this discussion, they were ready to deal on recognition of Israel at the beginning of this round of fighting, and might be again. I know they just bailed on Abbas, but Abbas must have had some reason to believe what he did. Most likely there is some internal conflict... I don't think they can hold out forever, recognition is not a popular enough political issue for them (i.e. most Palestinians appear to be willing to recognize Israel).

Hamas vs Fatah. I don't know.

Advantage Hamas. Before this fighting Abbas and Fatah were waiting for Hamas to come to them, and Hamas were the ones leading the charge for a unity government. Now, the reverse is true. Abbas and Fatah have to make nice with Hamas to show their street cred. At least in the short term, fighting always helps the hawks, no matter how stupid or pointless it is.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Time for a post mortem analysis on the latest conflict?

Hezbollah = 1, Israel = 0
Hamas = 0, Israel = 1
Hamas = ?, Fatah = ?

Hezbollah vs Israel. Not militarily, but hard to argue that Hezbollah did not emerge stronger it this most recent conflict. The pro-West government has not been too vocal/public, not a good sign.

Hamas vs Israel. I don't see any significant shifts in advantage, more or less the same status quo.

Hamas vs Fatah. I don't know.

A 6+ month update just to see how things are shaping up.

Hezbollah = 1, Israel = 0
Hamas = 0, Israel = 1
Hamas = ?, Fatah = ?

Still no basic change to my Sept evaluation but some interesting things have happened.

Hezbollah was able to flex its power and have popular demonstrations in Lebanon against the pro-west government. The general in charge of the Israeli war resigned/fired, a tacit acknowledgement that Israel did not achieve its military goals. But Israel did get its international buffer zone and relative peace (haven't heard of any incidents). However, Hezbollah's influence seems to be as good as ever, if not increased.

Hamas and Fatah continue their fraticide even after 2 cease-fire agreements between the top leadership and Egyptian mediation (read the Egyptian colonel said Hamas broke the initial cease-fire).

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16940679/

Even if the leadership wants peace, it seems the lower minions find a way to break the cease fire, one way or another.

Unfortunately, even with new elections, I doubt the loser would respect the people's vote and the power struggle will continue. I know there would be alot of bloodshed, but it seems that one side or the other just needs to militarily overwhelm the other and impose its will on the loser ... then the Israelis will know who to negotiate with.

[Raiders Army]

17 pages. Wowza.

[Buccaneer]

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip — Hamas said Saturday it was shocked Arab countries have decided to attend next week's U.S.-backed Mideast peace summit and underlined its opposition with a threat to launch deadlier rocket attacks on Israel.

And there you have it.

[Edward64]

Call me an optimist ... but I see the planets lining up ... this is the best chance in recent memory for some sort of peace between the 2 (Hamas excluded of course).

[Buccaneer]

From Time.com, of all places

President Bush

He was the biggest surprise. His speech opening the conference was one of the best of his political career, certainly his finest on the Middle East. Discarding the hubris and fantasy of his early Iraq addresses, he asserted America's leadership in ending the region's core conflict through the creation of a Palestinian state. Bush pledged "to devote my effort during my time as President to do all I can," knowing that many in the room have been critical of his lack of any such commitment until now. Bush spoke of the promise — and obligations — of peace for both the Palestinians and the Israelis, and he demonstrated keen awareness of the risks of continuing the present stalemate. "If Palestinian reformers cannot deliver on this hopeful vision," he warned, "then the forces of extremism and terror will be strengthened, a generation of Palestinians could be lost to the extremists, and the Middle East will grow in despair." At last, Bush seems to get it, but whether he follows through remains open to question.

Winners were also Olmert and Abbas, and Rice.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Call me an optimist ... but I see the planets lining up ... this is the best chance in recent memory for some sort of peace between the 2 (Hamas excluded of course).

Okay, I was wrong. What a waste ... no significant movement anywhere.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Okay, I was wrong. What a waste ... no significant movement anywhere.

Sheesh. What a fu*king waste.

Air strikes on Gaza continue as deaths rise - CNN.com

1. Why can't Hamas stay content with their defacto government in the West Bank and keep their wads in their pants?
2. Why can't the Israeli's stop overreacting?
3. What the hell has Rice done the past 4 years?
4. Arafat, why didn't you take that opportunity 8 years ago?

[ISiddiqui]

De facto government in Gaza, not the West Bank.

[Buccaneer]

What would be the appropriate level of response from Israel? Lob Russian-made mortars back at them?

Where was Rice? Where was anyone the past 1300 years? You think Clinton will do anything more than a few photo ops and the promise of a future agreement without violating Obama's pro-Israeli stance?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Why can't the Israeli's stop overreacting?

They've exercised too much restraint for too long, which is why this mild response was necessary.

They live next to a den of rattlesnakes & from time to time you have to at least kill a few of them. Pity they haven't wiped out the entire nest.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

What would be the appropriate level of response from Israel? Lob Russian-made mortars back at them?

Where was Rice? Where was anyone the past 1300 years? You think Clinton will do anything more than a few photo ops and the promise of a future agreement without violating Obama's pro-Israeli stance?

How about surgical strikes, targeted assasinations?

Bill got us close, did Bush try to close the deal? Nope, not willing to (this was before 9/11). So what did Rice do in the past 4 years in ME?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

They've exercised too much restraint for too long, which is why this mild response was necessary.

They live next to a den of rattlesnakes & from time to time you have to at least kill a few of them. Pity they haven't wiped out the entire nest.

I don't disagree with your analogy about rattlesnakes and wiping out the nest. To kill/maim children is uncalled for. Sure they weren't specifically targeted but there was bound to be collateral damage with those strikes. Send in your animal control and wipe them out.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I don't disagree with your analogy about rattlesnakes and wiping out the nest. To kill/maim children is uncalled for.

Occasionally there's a less harmful critter caught in the vicinity when you take out snakes. Shit happens. And let's be realistic, it's not as though there's never been the use of children as weapons in the region either.

[Noop]

Reverse Terrorism.

[ISiddiqui]

Israel's already tried that.

[Oilers9911]

You poke the lion with a stick enough times and the lion is going to rip an arm off. That is what happened here. The collateral damage of children is a shame but Hamas should have thought of that before they started poking the lion again.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

They've exercised too much restraint for too long, which is why this mild response was necessary.

You may be interested to learn that you agree with Alan Dershowitz, writing in March.

Originally Posted by Edward64

Bill got us close, did Bush try to close the deal? Nope, not willing to (this was before 9/11). So what did Rice do in the past 4 years in ME?

Who knows?

Generally, there's two levels of diplomacy, the overt & public kind, and the backchannel kind. Since the Bush Administration has generally been disinclined to put serious effort into backchannel efforts, one must assume that the bulk of their efforts have been in the form of Rice's overt & public diplomacy. However, the problem with this approach is that ever since 2003 U.S. diplomacy in the region has been seriously hampered by the baggage saddled onto it by our Iraq misadventure.

So, while I'm sure Rice has been putting an honest effort in, it's like the meek 5'0" teacher telling two 17-year-old boys not to fight when you know, as soon as her back is turned, that they're going to try and knock each other out.

Contrary to popular opinion, I think the U.S. actually exercises a lot of control over Israel from the standpoint of getting them to exercise restraint. I think if the U.S. let them do their own thing, they'd be a lot more brutal in their responses than they are.

On the flipside, the U.S. obviously exercises very little control over Hamas because, well, the reason should be obvious.

So, no matter which administration is in power, you're not going to get Israel to back down (the best you can do is to convince them not to engage in wanton bloodshed on a regular basis) and you're not going to get Hamas to the negotiating table. In fact, it's in Hamas' best interest to provoke Israel even more, because it lends legitimacy (at least among their supporters) to their own actions).

I think the only avenue to "peace" would be to, in a very, very covert & backchannel manner, maneuver someone to the top of Hamas eventually who might be inclined to some sort of settlement. This would probably take forever and is pretty unlikely, but there you go. Otherwise, I think you're left to hope that eventually the Palestinian population en masse would reject Hamas and promote leaders inclined to a settlement, which also seems unlikely.

The other avenue everyone talks about is letting Israel engage in a "scorched-earth" policy which, although cathartic for the bloodthirsty, has still never been a successful strategy against terrorists/guerrillas/insurgents/etc....

Originally Posted by Oilers9911

You poke the lion with a stick enough times and the lion is going to rip an arm off. That is what happened here. The collateral damage of children is a shame but Hamas should have thought of that before they started poking the lion again.

I honestly don't think Hamas cares who dies, even among Palestinians. In fact, to them the death of Palestinian children is a good thing, as it lends support to their cause against Israel.

[ISiddiqui]

I feel Ezra Klein puts it well:

EzraKlein Archive | The American Prospect

WHO STARTED IT?

The Israeli Narrative: After the temporary ceasefire ended 10 days ago, Hamas began launching rockets into Southern Israel. This echoed not only Hamas's actions before the ceasefire, but Hezbollah's actions in the weeks leading to the 2006 war. The rockets may have proven harmless, but they posed a continuing threat and were, under any standard, an act of war by the sovereign government of a neighboring territory. Israel's attack on Gaza was a response to this provocation.

The Palestinian Narrative: For the past year or so, following Hamas's victory in the Gaza elections, Israel has sealed the border to Gaza, cutting off both humanitarian aid and commercial traffic. In June, a coalition of eight international non-profits released a report demonstrating that conditions in Gaza were worse than at any point since 1967. 80 percent of the residents were now on food aid, more than 40 percent were unemployed, water and sewage systems were in collapse, and hospitals were suffering power shortages of up to 12 hours a day. The situation has only worsened. The U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA) has been unable to get needed medical supplies into Gaza for more than a year because of Israel's blockade on border crossings. It is this enforced poverty and immiseration that Hamas's rocket fire was a response to.

The point is simple: You can argue, as Israel is arguing, that their air strikes are a response to Hamas's missiles. But to the Palestinians, Hamas's missiles were a response to the blockade (under international law, a blockade is indeed an act of war). Israel, of course, would argue that the blockade was a response to Hamas's past attacks. And Hamas would argue that past attacks were a response to Israel's unceasing oppression of the Palestinian people. And Israel would argue that...

The provocations and cassus belli travel as far back as anyone might care to trace. And whether you believe Israel, the Palestinians, or the international partitioners originally at fault, starting the clock on December 10th, when the ceasefire expired and Hamas's missiles crashed into the fields around Sderot, is merely an Israeli press strategy. This is the latest tactic in an ongoing struggle over land and freedom and security and money and politics and religion and elections and oppression. It did not begin with the rockets, and it will not end with this attack.

[flere-imsaho]

Yep.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

The thought of the U.S or European powers negotiating peace in that region is on the same level as the financial institution bailout hoopla. At some point, shit happens. Stop trying to make short term gains by creating peace that is bound to fail. Let 'em fight it out, regardless of who is right. If there's any hint of intentional killing of civilians with the purpose of exterminating the other side, then you step in.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Yep.

Yep, what? Hamas should just continue it's rocket attacks and Israel should not respond?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Yep, what? Hamas should just continue it's rocket attacks and Israel should not respond?

At some point, Hamas' leaders have to take some responsibility. Israel didn't put up a blockade because Hamas was egging their cars.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Yep, what? Hamas should just continue it's rocket attacks and Israel should not respond?

Yep I agree with ISiddiqui's post.

Edit: Both sides are going to fight and there's precious little anyone else can do about it. To think otherwise is to ignore what, 1300 years of history now? More?

Additionally, although I'm sure majorities on both sides would actually prefer peace, there's a heavy disincentive to actually stand up and say so, since those who do tend to get killed.

Honestly, we'll have cold fusion before this conflict gets resolved. Come to think of it, we'll probably also have magical flying unicorns as well before these people stop fighting.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

At some point, Hamas' leaders have to take some responsibility. Israel didn't put up a blockade because Hamas was egging their cars.

Isreal should have done what the Brits did in Northern Ireland when they allowed Sinn Fein to rule. As soon as Hamas got elected, Isreal decided to throw up a blockade and what do you think is going to be the result of that? If even humanitarian aid can't get through, they are going to lash out. Should have at least allowed them to govern to see if they'd moderate as Sinn Fein did when they got into power.

This way solved nothing. And around and around it goes.

[flere-imsaho]

Well, bear in mind that Sinn Fein ruled (rules) in a power-sharing agreement with the Unionists, and only did so after Gerry Adams did everything in his power to disassociate Sinn Fein from the Provisional IRA.

But I agree. It would have been interesting, at least, to, once Hamas got elected, suddenly have the Israeli government do a 180 and treat them as an actual state. Worst case scenario Hamas starts bombing Israel again and now Israel can say "Look, we sent an ambassador and everything! WTF?! This is no different from Egypt invading us!" and they've got a ton more legitimacy on their side.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Well, bear in mind that Sinn Fein ruled (rules) in a power-sharing agreement with the Unionists, and only did so after Gerry Adams did everything in his power to disassociate Sinn Fein from the Provisional IRA.

But I agree. It would have been interesting, at least, to, once Hamas got elected, suddenly have the Israeli government do a 180 and treat them as an actual state. Worst case scenario Hamas starts bombing Israel again and now Israel can say "Look, we sent an ambassador and everything! WTF?! This is no different from Egypt invading us!" and they've got a ton more legitimacy on their side.

Ligitimacy? Do you honestly think that is there for the taking if and only if Isreal makes all the right moves? In whose eyes? The western world? They already give Israel legitimacy. The Middle Eastern world? No way. Jews attacking Muslims because they are sovereign would make it even worse, not better. Keep in mind that the ultimate goal for the majority of the Middle East is to destroy Isreal. Not figure out ways to get along with them in a beat down of another Muslim state. Give the Muslims an inch and they will take a mile. Isreal simply hasn't the real estate to deal like you think they should.

Israel has a responsability to provide Palestinians a voice (either by giving them Isreali citizenship or by giving them their own state) but I'd caution you not to confuse the Palestinians terroristic ways as legitimate diplomacy that demands and deserves Isreal immediate attention.

And if getting Palestinians humanitarian aid is truly the issue of their rocket attacks, how is it possible that the Palestinians can get a hold of rockets and weapons so easily but not food and medicine? I wouldn't put too much stock in the Palestinian grief that they can't get anything in or out of their territory. I'd say they are pulling a fast one on the sympathetic international community.