Irsael & Hamas Agree to a 72 hr Cease Fire

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:This is interesting:

http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/.premium-1.608108

"In a briefing on Tuesday with reporters, a senior officer of Southern Command said that the IDF had not given the order to evacuate the kibbutzim near the border so as “not to give Hamas a victory.” He emphasized that the IDF was totally capable of defending the civilians there, and that in none of the seven attempts thus far by Hamas to use tunnels for cross-border attacks was there any contact between the Hamas fighters and civilians."

So, neither the tunnels nor the rockets present a true threat to Israeli civilians, who are supposed to remain in their homes so as to "not to give Hamas a victory." Either this is correct and the threat has been greatly exaggerated, or those civilians are "human shields."

Israels ability to defend against a threat doesn't negate the threat. Wearing a bullet proof vest doesn't make it ok to shoot someone.

That's fine, but then perhaps the IDF shouldn't be telling the folks to stay there in order to "not to give Hamas a victory". That's kind of human sheildy.

I don't understand why you think that. Telling civilians to stay bc thry will be protected is very different that stay there bc either thry will abort the attack or you'll be a martyr.

You can't have it both ways. If the tunnels and rockets present such a threat to Israeli civilians that Israel can only respond by killing over 1,300 Palestinians, then Israeli civilians should not be encouraged to remain in the targeted areas. If there is no threat to the civilians, then the mass slaughter of Palestinians doesn't seem justified (not that it seemed that way in the first place, but now even less so).

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:This is interesting:

http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/.premium-1.608108

"In a briefing on Tuesday with reporters, a senior officer of Southern Command said that the IDF had not given the order to evacuate the kibbutzim near the border so as “not to give Hamas a victory.” He emphasized that the IDF was totally capable of defending the civilians there, and that in none of the seven attempts thus far by Hamas to use tunnels for cross-border attacks was there any contact between the Hamas fighters and civilians."

So, neither the tunnels nor the rockets present a true threat to Israeli civilians, who are supposed to remain in their homes so as to "not to give Hamas a victory." Either this is correct and the threat has been greatly exaggerated, or those civilians are "human shields."

Israels ability to defend against a threat doesn't negate the threat. Wearing a bullet proof vest doesn't make it ok to shoot someone.

That's fine, but then perhaps the IDF shouldn't be telling the folks to stay there in order to "not to give Hamas a victory". That's kind of human sheildy.

I don't understand why you think that. Telling civilians to stay bc thry will be protected is very different that stay there bc either thry will abort the attack or you'll be a martyr.

You can't have it both ways. If the tunnels and rockets present such a threat to Israeli civilians that Israel can only respond by killing over 1,300 Palestinians, then Israeli civilians should not be encouraged to remain in the targeted areas. If there is no threat to the civilians, then the mass slaughter of Palestinians doesn't seem justified (not that it seemed that way in the first place, but now even less so).

Jeff, the slippery slope on that one is then Israel should just let the rockets continue to fall and not respond at all since the rockets aren't a threat? This is without commenting on the appropriateness of Israel's response.

[Anonymous]

Does anyone really think that Israel in it current form is sustainable? The world is changing and so is the technology of war. Who knows what Israel's nieghbors will look like in 10 years. It is one thing to send troops in when you know you will win. If Israel had to take on a really country, all kinds of unforeseen thing can happen. What would the world think if Israel nuked a neighbor? The demographics in the US are going against Israel(Latinos and other minorities are not supporters of Isreal), US is tired of War and has budget concerns. These are just few the external forces working against Israel.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
This is interesting:

http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/.premium-1.608108

"In a briefing on Tuesday with reporters, a senior officer of Southern Command said that the IDF had not given the order to evacuate the kibbutzim near the border so as “not to give Hamas a victory.” He emphasized that the IDF was totally capable of defending the civilians there, and that in none of the seven attempts thus far by Hamas to use tunnels for cross-border attacks was there any contact between the Hamas fighters and civilians."

So, neither the tunnels nor the rockets present a true threat to Israeli civilians, who are supposed to remain in their homes so as to "not to give Hamas a victory." Either this is correct and the threat has been greatly exaggerated, or those civilians are "human shields."




Israels ability to defend against a threat doesn't negate the threat. Wearing a bullet proof vest doesn't make it ok to shoot someone.


That's fine, but then perhaps the IDF shouldn't be telling the folks to stay there in order to "not to give Hamas a victory". That's kind of human sheildy.


I don't understand why you think that. Telling civilians to stay bc thry will be protected is very different that stay there bc either thry will abort the attack or you'll be a martyr.


You can't have it both ways. If the tunnels and rockets present such a threat to Israeli civilians that Israel can only respond by killing over 1,300 Palestinians, then Israeli civilians should not be encouraged to remain in the targeted areas. If there is no threat to the civilians, then the mass slaughter of Palestinians doesn't seem justified (not that it seemed that way in the first place, but now even less so).



Jeff, the slippery slope on that one is then Israel should just let the rockets continue to fall and not respond at all since the rockets aren't a threat? This is without commenting on the appropriateness of Israel's response.

Hamas was barely hanging on before this started. If Israel had show that Hamas rockets are easily defeated by Iron Dome and not responsed with force, Hamas would have been voted out of power. At that point, Israel could improve the conditions in Gaza by lifting the siege and work to give hope to the area. What Israel can not do is give veto power to a few radicals with their own agenda by attacking Gaza every time someone fires a rocket.

[Muslima]

Israel has a habit of crying wolf. They did that a few days ago , cried that rockets endangered their airspace and that's why they had to kill civilians. When the FAA banned flights to Israel for security reasons since Israel cried that they have been in so much danger, surprise., surprise, Israelis went bonkers and said they were the most secure ever and there was no threat to their planes, or populace.... You can't have it both ways, Israel. Keep crying, the world is watching and waking up. Free Palestine~

[Anonymous]

All I can say is wow....Israeli intelligence agencies are doing a great job! I can see why the US values the Israeli intelligence....who would have thought that Gaza would build tunnels.

[Anonymous]

PP, this article will help you understand why the tunnels were (and are) so hard to detect by intelligence. Certainly, Israel knew of tunnels, but nearly the extent to what Hamas created.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28430298

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All I can say is wow....Israeli intelligence agencies are doing a great job! I can see why the US values the Israeli intelligence....who would have thought that Gaza would build tunnels.

Is this sarcasm? Considering that they missed the building of all these tunnels despite the tremendous resources of their military and intelligence?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP, this article will help you understand why the tunnels were (and are) so hard to detect by intelligence. Certainly, Israel knew of tunnels, but nearly the extent to what Hamas created.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28430298

Wow, they have lame excuses for incompetence for their intelligence services there too? No wonder Americans relate so well to Israel!!

[Anonymous]

Detecting tunnels is very difficult. Particularly small, and deep tunnels. Ground penetrating radar can not see that deep. If finding tunnels was easy, don't you think we would find the tunnels along the SW border.

It is possible to find tunnels being dug, but it is expensive.

[Anonymous]

This will get worse before it gets better...

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/the-most-dangerous-moment-in-gaza/375434/

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:This will get worse before it gets better...

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/the-most-dangerous-moment-in-gaza/375434/

Admittedly, I didn't finish reading that article. But, it's initial premise is false (maybe this doesn't matter to the rest of the article). The soldier was not captured in Israel and carried back into Gaza. He was captured in Gaza.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone really think that Israel in it current form is sustainable? The world is changing and so is the technology of war. Who knows what Israel's nieghbors will look like in 10 years. It is one thing to send troops in when you know you will win. If Israel had to take on a really country, all kinds of unforeseen thing can happen. What would the world think if Israel nuked a neighbor? The demographics in the US are going against Israel(Latinos and other minorities are not supporters of Isreal), US is tired of War and has budget concerns. These are just few the external forces working against Israel.

That Economist piece was interesting. Apparently the huge wave of Russian immigration in the 90s tipped Israel's balance from being more liberal to hard liner and hawkish. They'd never known democracy.

The elephant in the room is that Netanyahu continues to break the law with illegal West Bank settlements and has no true interest in negotiating a two state solution. When the much larger, more powerful player in the game refuses to sincerely negotiate, nothing is left but violence.

[Anonymous]

Does anyone really think that Israel in it current form is sustainable? The world is changing and so is the technology of war. Who knows what Israel's nieghbors will look like in 10 years. It is one thing to send troops in when you know you will win. If Israel had to take on a really country, all kinds of unforeseen thing can happen. What would the world think if Israel nuked a neighbor? The demographics in the US are going against Israel(Latinos and other minorities are not supporters of Isreal), US is tired of War and has budget concerns. These are just few the external forces working against Israel.


That Economist piece was interesting. Apparently the huge wave of Russian immigration in the 90s tipped Israel's balance from being more liberal to hard liner and hawkish. They'd never known democracy.

The elephant in the room is that Netanyahu continues to break the law with illegal West Bank settlements and has no true interest in negotiating a two state solution. When the much larger, more powerful player in the game refuses to sincerely negotiate, nothing is left but violence.

In addition to that, the Israelis really need to worry about the next time. The technologies are really changing. Hamas already has drones. I am sure there are counties willing to test their new toys against American systems by giving them to Hamas. Iran has already hack a few US drones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone really think that Israel in it current form is sustainable? The world is changing and so is the technology of war. Who knows what Israel's nieghbors will look like in 10 years. It is one thing to send troops in when you know you will win. If Israel had to take on a really country, all kinds of unforeseen thing can happen. What would the world think if Israel nuked a neighbor? The demographics in the US are going against Israel(Latinos and other minorities are not supporters of Isreal), US is tired of War and has budget concerns. These are just few the external forces working against Israel.

That Economist piece was interesting. Apparently the huge wave of Russian immigration in the 90s tipped Israel's balance from being more liberal to hard liner and hawkish. They'd never known democracy.

The elephant in the room is that Netanyahu continues to break the law with illegal West Bank settlements and has no true interest in negotiating a two state solution. When the much larger, more powerful player in the game refuses to sincerely negotiate, nothing is left but violence.

That's not why. I mean, the huge wave of Russian immigration did take place but the reason they turned hardline is not because they've never known democracy.