So Hamas blows up a bus in Jerusalem and kills over 20 people, including a ton of kids, and openly claims responsibility for it.
When Israel takes out a Hamas leader in retaliation, Hamas declares that the cease fire is now broken.
Does anyone else see any logical problems with Hamas' argument?
Since when does logic have anything to do with it? The ceasfefire was a joke because the terrorists still carried out attacks and the Israelis were obliged to respond which lead to even greater attacks from the terrorists. Pretty meaningless for a ceasefire. The biggest joke was pretending the ceasefire was still on for the last few weeks, both sides seemed to think retaliations were exempt.
Just before Israel declared independence, the National military organization (Etzel) which was the second largest jewish resistance group then, sent a munition ship from Europe to Israel. This was during a short cease fire period. The sending of this ship was opposed to an aggreament which was signed by the Etzel and newly founded IDF (Israeli Defence Forces). According to the aggreament, Etzel members would enlist to the IDF, and Etzel will cease all military action.
There is a lot more to this story, but the bottom line is, when the ship arrived at Israel, there was a gun fight, some of the weapons were unloaded and taken by the IDF and the ship escaped with the rest headed to Tel Aviv.
At Tel Aviv four cannons were waiting and the ship was sunk, the remaning weapons lost, and the crew arrested.
Since then, there is only one military force in Israel.
I guess you can all make your own comparison to the situation now.
Edited double post.
No, I'm afraid I can't. I have no idea how the Altalena affair as an element of the chronology of the formation of the state of Israel figures into current headline news in Jerusalem. If you were trying to argue that the Irgun, Etzel et al factions were terrorist organizations along the lines of the PLO and Hamas in contrast to the IDF then I could see a point. Your post seems to communicate the opposite feelings, however, which leaves me to scratch my head and wonder where on earth you are coming from.Originally Posted by marxeil
But... but... but it's all Israel's fault! They are to blame for all deaths in the region! Especially the children! :roll:
Well, not any logical problems; the cease-fire is quite clearly broken. Other problems with the sequence are pretty obvious, though.
Comparisons are easy. However, if you are suggesting that the PA should control the Palestinian extremists, you're overestimating the PA, and dramatically underestimating the extremists.
Nuke 'em all.
Worked in Japan.
Do people just not get this? Hamas blows up a bus, but the cease-fire's not broken yet. ISrael, however, breaks the cease-fire by retaliating(!).Well, not any logical problems; the cease-fire is quite clearly broken. Other problems with the sequence are pretty obvious, though.
I'd have thought nobody could miss this irony, but the "Boston Globe" reported it straight, too. Then I thought I must be missing something in reading it, and the next day the BBC anchor talks about how Israel broke the cease fire by responding to the blowing up of the bus.
Even if you think that Israel shouldn't have killed the Hamas guy, I don't understand how you can argue that the cease-fire was broken when Israel killed him. (And if you want to argue that the bus being blown up was in reponse for an earlier Israeli killing of two Hamas guys, then you've still got a problem arguing that the cease-fire was only broken AFTER the bus bombing).
If you think the PA cannot control Hamas et al, why should Israel negotiate with them at all? Or maybe you think Israel shouldn't, I dunno. There's plenty of folks in Israel who'd agree with you, but I didn't peg you for such a right-winger.Comparisons are easy. However, if you are suggesting that the PA should control the Palestinian extremists, you're overestimating the PA, and dramatically underestimating the extremists.
It's pretty clear that the PA does need to have some sort of Alta Lena-type showdown at some point, if they want to be a legitimate government. I can't think of a stable state where the government isn't in control of the military. Btw, IIRC, nobody thought Ben Gurion had the power to destroy the Irgun, either.
Gav
Do you think that the hebrew leadership before the forming of the Israeli state state had more athourity then the PA? Why?
The only difference is that Ben Gurion (Our Arafat / Abu Mazzen if you please) knew that in order to form a state, the jewish population must have one leadership and one army. People who can't speak in one voice, despite inner disagrements will accomplish nothing. If you can't keep any agreemnet, because anybody can blow it up, then how will anybody make any agreement with you?
Does the PA have the power to do same as Ben Gurion did? Maybe they do, and maybe they don't. The point is that while Hamas, Gduday Al Aktza, and every other group can do as they please, there will be no solution.
I guess that at this point somebody want to say: "Ha, but what about the israeli settlers. They do as they please without any regard to the law and whatever". I'll tell you this. Basically, the settlers have allways operated with governmet approval. But if settelments are to be evaquated according to an agreement, they will be. The last time this happaned was after the peace ageement with Egypt. The whole of Hevel Yamit was evaquated by the army since the the people who lived did not agree to leave. It was quite violent, but the agreement was kept. Guess who was responsible for the evaquation. That's right - Ariel Sharon.
Idar Thorvaldsen's musings are fast reaching the point of reprehensibility.
But even wackier than Idar's "other problems with the sequence" is the following tidbit from the Palestinian Authority, via CNN:
Palestinians put crackdown on terror 'on hold'
Referring to those plans, according to an aide to Palestinian Authority security chief Mohammed Dahlan, the missile strike came shortly before Palestinian police intended to launch raids on Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
Elias Zananiri, Dahlan's spokesman, said Palestinian security forces had been given new rules of engagement, which would have allowed them to arrest militants and confiscate weapons. He said the new measures would have stripped Hamas and Islamic Jihad of their military wings.
When did Joe Isuzu become head of Palestinian security forces?
Well, this is what I get for not paying attention, and being unintentionally vague.
But, I mean, give me some credit here. I might be European and all, but there's no good reason for just immediately assuming the worst, and calling me reprehensible and stuff. At least ask for a clarification first or something; looking back, I see that what I wrote makes no sense at all.
As in, why, no; I don't believe it's all Israel's fault, and yes, it is quite clear, even to me, that Hamas broke the cease-fire first.
Also, apologies for causing the misunderstanding.
Yeah, sure. If you believe that then call me, I've got a little place in the Everglades for sale.the missile strike came shortly before Palestinian police intended to launch raids on Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
Strip them of their military wings........that's funny.
Morris, weren't you the one who boldly proclaimed that Hamas was in their death throws? Not feeling so optomistic this week, are we?
Hamas is always close to extinction, their members are dying every day. If they don't blow themselves up, then Israel will get them. That is, unless the PA gets there first !
"Death throes" refer to the violent, spastic reactions of an organism as it expires. This is indeed what you are seeing from Hamas -- an effort to undue peace by any means.
Because peace, as you must know, Tim, is incompatible with the stated aims of Hamas. In fact, a lasting peace, almost by definition, brings about the end of Hamas as a political organization. They've no interest in peace. Indeed, they've a vested interest in endless strife and conflict.
There is a simple gravitational relationship between peace processes and Hamas attacks -- the history of this conflict (going back to Oslo and beyond) is a perfect correlation between breakthroughs in the peace process and renewed terrorist outrages by Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
The mass majority of Palestinians are ready for an end to the conflict, a compromise with Israel, and the fruits of a stable peace. Abu Mazen and the Road Map have brought visible, substantive progress in the Palestinian territories -- autonomy over key neighborhoods; the opening of major commuter thoroughfares into Israel -- most of which will now be yanked away due to Hamas' outburst.
The structure works like this:
A) Tangible, encouraging improvements result from Abu Mazen's work toward fulfilling the Road Map.
B) Tangible, painful setbacks result from Hamas mayhem.
You wargame the rest, Tim -- and tell me what you see.
If this is true, then why does there seem to be an endless supply of Palestinian youth lining up to be martyrs?The mass majority of Palestinians are ready for an end to the conflict, a compromise with Israel, and the fruits of a stable peace.
It doesn't take a majority of a population to foment terrorism.
Has a government ever successfully stamped out terrorism? It seems rather that terrorists lose interest or the cause they rally behind loses appeal and that's what results in fewer terrorist acts. The British had armored vehicles patrolling the streets in Northern Ireland and couldn't put an end to the IRA.
Endless supply? You're talking about 2 or so suicide bombings a week with a population of tens of thousands. That's a negligible number.
Not only that, but their environment is the perfect breeding ground for the sentiments that lead one to being susceptible for brainwashing by a terrorist organization.
Frankly, I'm amazed they don't have enough "ammo" for a suicide bombing every day.
It's interesting how you conveniently leave out the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. He was killed by an ultra-orthodox Jew. Rabin lives and chances are none of this insanity would have even got going.
That killing really started the current round of violence, since it completely altered the makeup of the Israeli government. Within months, we went from moving forward with the peace plan to the Israelis stalling on almost every front to the take it or leave it ultimatum at Wye River to the start of the second intifada to suicide bombings and missile strikes. Oy vey.
And if you really want to buy into the tit for tat thing, let's take it back to the settlements. Oh, they were established because the Arabs were going to attack in 1967? Okay, let's take it back to 1956 and the Suez crisis when Israel invaded the Sinai. Oh, that was in retaliation for a potential shipping blockade on behalf of Egypt? Okay, let's take it back to the -- and so on.
For fuck's sake, does every argument have to revolve around who did what to whom first? The situation is what it is. Both sides have to accept responsibility for atrocities. The Israelis have to evacuate the West Bank and Gaza like they did the Sinai. The Palestinians have to become a democratic state. They also have to be given some room to go through growing pains, as awful as they might be, because right now the Palestinians don't have enough infrastructure left to take on the militants. Period.
All this childish crap about stuff like a "gravitational relationship" (what the hell does that even mean, Dan?) results in nothing but eye for an eye vengeance.
I think the point many people are making, Brett, is that they agree with your sentiment--both sides need to take responsibility and stop the violence. But it often seems to be the Palestinian side (if you include organizations such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad on their "side") that doesn't do this. For example, when a cease-fire is declared, that means both sides stop shooting, even if the other side shot you last and you'd really like to take a shot just to "even the score" or whatever. You're both agreeing to, in a sense, let bygones be bygones and try to work forward from where you are now. Blowing up a bus doesn't do that.
Even though I mostly agree with Brett's sentiments in his latest post, I just want to get nit-picky about some facts...
[quote="Brett ToddIt's interesting how you conveniently leave out the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. He was killed by an ultra-orthodox Jew. Rabin lives and chances are none of this insanity would have even got going.
That killing really started the current round of violence, since it completely altered the makeup of the Israeli government. Within months, we went from moving forward with the peace plan to the Israelis stalling on almost every front to the take it or leave it ultimatum at Wye River to the start of the second intifada to suicide bombings and missile strikes. Oy vey.
[/quote]
First, that should be orthodox, not ultra-orthodox, not that it really matters.
More importantly, though, if Rabin hadn't killed, he would've lost the next election. His popularity had been dropping like a stone, partly because of two buses being bombed, along with smaller stuff. (I was in Israel during that time, and I remember it pretty vividly).
When he died, though, there was a groundswell in favor of his policies, out of a feeling that we couldn't have this one loony dictating Israeli policy, and so Shimon Peres came into power with a good amount of support. Peres is more of a peacenik than Rabin was, and maybe that was his undoing, but there's no way to claim that there was a direct line from Rabin's death to abandoning Oslo, considering that Peres came in between.
This is the part I agree with. (Did you know that Begin wanted to give Gaza back as part of the Camp David accord? Sadat wouldn't take it)For fuck's sake, does every argument have to revolve around who did what to whom first? The situation is what it is. Both sides have to accept responsibility for atrocities. The Israelis have to evacuate the West Bank and Gaza like they did the Sinai. The Palestinians have to become a democratic state.
This is a sticking point, though. Put yourself in the Prime Minister's shoes. How are you going to sell the Israeli people on the idea that they should put up with Hamas's attacks because they're just growing pains? Is that even a responsible thing for a Prime Minister to do?They also have to be given some room to go through growing pains, as awful as they might be, because right now the Palestinians don't have enough infrastructure left to take on the militants. Period.
If the PA can't take on the militants, why should Israel negotiate with them? If the Israel gives the Palestinians a state, and then some Palestinians blow up a bus, could Israel consider that an act of war? What if it were 6 buses? What if the PA can't arrest the attackers? At what point could an Israeli government respond to protect its citizens? And would the Palestinian state be entitled to consider such a response an act of war?
These are all really tough questions, even if you believe (as I do, btw) that Israel should pull out of Palestinian territory as soon as possible.
Gav
Does anyone think the Palestinian PM could really stop Hamas if he wanted?
What, in your mind, follows from the conclusion that he can't?
That the entire thing is a sham? I mean, I can't really pick a side to sympathize with; both appear to be composed of morons, at this point. But at least the palestinians have a friggin' excuse; it's like bladerunner on their side of the fence. Getting all angry at the Palestinian PM - who probably honestly does want peace, just has no real way to bring it about without getting killed - is wierd.
My entirely-uninformed suggestion is that Isreal should just pretend they're dealing with an angry mob with no leadership, and let them sort it out. Dismantle the settlements, pull back across the west bank or whatever the hell it is, and then declare "hey, you've got a state, bye now."
Then, they have two choices as endpoints to move between:
1) Let all the people who want cross the border to work.
2) Don't let anyone cross the border to work.
Dunno. Can't get any fucking worse.....
The fatal flaw to that premise is that an organization does not exist to perpetuate its existence... that is only a means to an end. Hamas's end to their current identity is the destruction of Israel as a state. They'd have no problems with a "lasting peace" under those conditions.
Well, that's usually true at the beginning...
Peace wouldn't mean the end of Hamas. Hamas has lots of activities outside of terrorism--they run hospitals and schools, for one thing.
This is critical to understanding their popularity among Palestinians--Hamas does more for them than their legitimate government does. AFAIK, most Palestinians don't agree with Hamas's ideology on a whole bunch of fronts (in particular, Hamas is a religiously fundamentalist organization, and most Palestinians are secular), but they like the good works that Hamas does.
Gav
Hmm, Hamas as the Palestinian version of the mob.
I don't want to get into the he-said, she-said crap, but the Israelis never actually agreed to a ceasefire. Hamas and friends agreed to it with Abu Mazen. And the Israelis continued to act against the Palestinians during the so-called ceasefire, with a couple of assassinations. Or not act, as the case may be. The radical groups did bring down the level of violence, but they didn't see Israel taking steps like dismantling settlements, releasing prisoners, and so on. Not that I'm saying this gave some lunatic just cause to blow up a bus, but the Palestinians aren't fully to blame. The Israelis haven't been following the road map either. The situation has gotten so insane, though, that a lot of people (note: on both sides) feel that they have to respond to even the smallest provocations with insane levels of violence.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote