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.

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 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.

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/

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

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.

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.

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).

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.