Israel, Hamas & the Gaza Strip

[TinyRedLeaf]

Breaking news:

Israeli ground troops enter Gaza

GAZA (Jan 4, 2009): Israel has sent ground forces into the Gaza Strip after a week of air strikes to try to halt rocket attacks by Palestinian militants. Its troops were reported to be engaged in heavy clashes with Hamas fighters in northern Gaza. Both sides have reported casualties in the fighting.

As dawn broke in Gaza a large plume of black smoke could be seen rising from part of the northern strip while the sound of exploding artillery shells - could also be heard. The shelling had continued through the night.

Advancing Israeli tanks were reported to be in battles around Gaza City and the northern towns of Beit Lahiya and Jabaliya, the Agence France-Presse news agency reported. Hamas fighters replied with mortars and rockets, witnesses said.

The Israeli army said 30 of its soldiers had been wounded in the ground offensive, two of them seriously. Palestinian medical officials said eight Gazans had been killed by Israeli troops, five of them gunmen.

- BBC NEWS

My sympathy to Palestinian civilians caught in the crossfire.

[iLney]

This is totally BS.

Why must Israel make that move?

To wipe out Hamas? Don't make me laugh. They know they cannot achieve that goal; in fact, they are nowhere remotely close to it. Then for what? To teach them a lesson? But Hamas doesn't learn. To retaliate? That equates to even more violence. To test the nerve of Obama? Hey, this sounds reasonable!

I take back the lines before those last two. Everyone loves politics!

[yezhanquan]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

ahhhh, so much idealism. I don't know if laughing to this one would be rude or just appropriate.

He just forgot to add a disclaimer: The disbanding comes AFTER the Holy Land has been throughly ravaged by war and disease until no one can live there in our generation.

@iLney: You're on the right track. It's more of Israeli politics, though. Ehud Barack is putting his career on the line for this operation.

[Anh_Minh]

I don't see how it "tests Obama's nerve". It won't be his problem for weeks. By then, the situation will have changed.

[yezhanquan]

And that should be the case. We should remember that before 20 Jan, George Bush is still the man in the White House.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Breaking news:

Israeli ground troops enter Gaza


My sympathy to Palestinian civilians caught in the crossfire.

The turning point. This operation was ( for Israel) a succes, but when they start using gound troop we probably go to a disaster like last time ( when the israelian body bags start pilling up). This operation might stop soon.

[ZephyrLeanne]

You know, it's what the people of Israel want, a show of force. Somehow, the Israel side of this is that they were attacked first by Hamas 8 years ago.

[TUndead]

Originally Posted by ShimatheKat

You know, it's what the people of Israel want, a show of force. Somehow, the Israel side of this is that they were attacked first by Hamas 8 years ago.

not 8 years ago for 8 years

and id just like to remind u guys of 9/11 yes this was 1 if not the biggest act of terrorism and what was the US response an ongoing war...

for us it might not be as big as 9/11 but in the years 2000-2003 we had a lot of terrorist acts, muslims blowing up in bus's and near malls... and ppl lived in fear...
and in some ways its worse then 9/11

more over let see anyother country live near ppl who want to kill u and send about 300 rockets every day to 1 of our city's. we had to do something this operation is a last resort, we told them again and again that if they dont stop we will atk and we waited for 8-7 years, more over about the death in gaza yes its sad and if it was up to us we wouldnt kill civilians but we cant because the hamas almost use them as a "shield" they put them in harms way so we wont atk... for god sakes they use their shelter for themselfs(hamas) and for ammo.
and they actually fake some of the injuries (for baby's) so they would get more sympathy for the world.

[LeoXiao]

If Israel was going to send in ground forces they shouldn't have done the airstrike in the first place.

more over let see anyother country live near ppl who want to kill u

Well that sucks but thinking about it from Palestine's view, wouldn't having a bunch of people who have 2000 tanks, hundreds of attack aircraft, nukes, and the backing of the most powerful nation on the planet, who want to blockade you to death be even worse?

If the USA had been supporting Palestine instead for the last 40 years, the Israelis would be in the same situation, launching a few unguided rockets every now and then, and getting their asses blockaded and bombed.

not 8 years ago for 8 years

Israel was also attacking Palestine for the last 8 years in that case.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by TUndead

not 8 years ago for 8 years

and id just like to remind u guys of 9/11 yes this was 1 if not the biggest act of terrorism and what was the US response an ongoing war...

for us it might not be as big as 9/11 but in the years 2000-2003 we had a lot of terrorist acts, muslims blowing up in bus's and near malls... and ppl lived in fear...
and in some ways its worse then 9/11

more over let see anyother country live near ppl who want to kill u and send about 300 rockets every day to 1 of our city's. we had to do something this operation is a last resort, we told them again and again that if they dont stop we will atk and we waited for 8-7 years, more over about the death in gaza yes its sad and if it was up to us we wouldnt kill civilians but we cant because the hamas almost use them as a "shield" they put them in harms way so we wont atk... for god sakes they use their shelter for themselfs(hamas) and for ammo.
and they actually fake some of the injuries (for baby's) so they would get more sympathy for the world.

The roots of this go back far more than 8 years...

As for your comparison to 9-11, what the US did wasn't a smart move. The details are best left to another discussion though. Pointing to it doesn't help your case.

Also, you can't blame Hamas for the civilians Israeli bombs kill. I don't know about Gaza, but in 2006 during the invasion of Lebanon, Israel used clusterbombs over civilian areas. Not exactly the actions of a nation concerned with avoiding civilian casualties. They might not be using clusterbombs now, in all honesty I haven't heard anything on it, but you have to understand, the civilians have nowhere to go. The border with Israel is obviously closed, as is the border with Egypt. Unless the have a boat, they're not going anywhere. Even if Hamas is using innocent people as human shields, in the end it's the Israelis who make the decision to drop the bombs.

It's easy to dismiss Hamas as just a bunch of terrorists, but the Palestinians do have legitimate grievencies with Israel. Instead of blaming each other for everything, Israel and the Palestinians need to realize something. Both of you are wrong. Both sides to stop pointing fingers at each other and come to terms with what they did, then stop doing it again. That's the only way to move forward.

[yezhanquan]

If you want to go back, a nice place to start would be 1948. The Shoah was probably the single most important event that helped created modern Isarel (which btw is smaller than Israel today). The expulsion of Arabs living in the area is one of many grievances on the list.

[Shadow Kira01]

Originally Posted by LeoXiao

If Israel was going to send in ground forces they shouldn't have done the airstrike in the first place.

Disagree. That is a strategic move by Israel. The actions behind the 8 days of air raid was to show the world that Israel is not weak and is not a victim of the Hamas, instead they are the real bad guys who are terrorizing the lives of innocent civilians living in Gaza. Originally, Israel turned to the US for a resolution to deal with the Hamas rockets, but considering what kind of an economic recession that US is facing, they naturally ignored their plea for support. The consequences of the inconsiderate US brought for another military conflict in the Middle East region. Sadly, most people don't really care considering that it occur during Xmas, a time of relax and enjoyment in most nations and places.

[FateAnomaly]

When you throw rocks at people armed with guns thats what you are going to get. The Hamas is as much responsible for their deaths as the Isrealis. More in fact.

[Irenicus]

"Do you hear the people sing? Singing a song of angry men?"

I thought it was incredibly uplifting, until I realized what kind of songs they like to sing. Songs of blame they sing, songs of bloodthirst, songs of war...

Nowadays I just laugh at this particular display of homo sapien dead babies comedy (oh sure they faked it) and make crappy poetry to match it. And did I mention it's America's fault?

Originally Posted by yezhanguan

If you want to go back, a nice place to start would be 1948. The Shoah was probably the single most important event that helped created modern Isarel (which btw is smaller than Israel today). The expulsion of Arabs living in the area is one of many grievances on the list.

If you really want to go back...nah, I shouldn't go down that path. Let's just say that 1948 was a pivotal year but it was hardly the Beginning of Time. Big things happened before it, big things after; a thousand factors, same result. Nobody ever thought of anything but who's to blame. Even here, in a fucking anime forum, we see the same display.

[yezhanquan]

@Irenicus: Well, there are signs that the newer generation of Israelis do NOT want to live like their parents did, in a state where security is a "myth", and the war never ends despite successful battles. Hence, the talk of a Palestine state is now quite acceptable.

Hamas, on the other hand, has no reason to exist if peace does come to the land. Also, angry, unemployed, hungry, young men (and women) abound in the area. What better way to keep them in this state than to continue the "war"? State building is all too difficult compared to finding distractions.

The solution, as I see it, is a Palestine state, and the acceptance on the part of Arabs that not all (heck, not even the majority) of those who were forced out in '48 can return to Israel. Of course, there's always the "no one gets it" solution, by making the land deader than the moon so that it would be pointless to fight over it.

Both sides are pointing at their laundry lists of grievances, where in reality, demographic changes will force change, whether either side finds it agreeable or not.

[Irenicus]

Originally Posted by yezhanquan

@Irenicus: Well, there are signs that the newer generation of Israelis do NOT want to live like their parents did, in a state where security is a "myth", and the war never ends despite successful battles. Hence, the talk of a Palestine state is now quite acceptable.

Anecdotal, I know, but the statements of our Israeli member here in this thread does suggest a certain prevalence of an attitude to the contrary.

*sigh*

No offense to him or her, but, yeah. The Israeli right is strong, and, to be fair, it tends to be ironically enough stronger the stronger and more aggressive Palestinian radicals are, and vice versa.

Originally Posted by yezhanquan

Hamas, on the other hand, has no reason to exist if peace does come to the land. Also, angry, unemployed, hungry, young men (and women) abound in the area. What better way to keep them in this state than to continue the "war"? State building is all too difficult compared to finding distractions.

The solution, as I see it, is a Palestine state, and the acceptance on the part of Arabs that not all (heck, not even the majority) of those who were forced out in '48 can return to Israel. Of course, there's always the "no one gets it" solution, by making the land deader than the moon so that it would be pointless to fight over it.

Both sides are pointing at their laundry lists of grievances, where in reality, demographic changes will force change, whether either side finds it agreeable or not.

So are you suggesting redoubling efforts to militarily and financially support Fatah, despite the Palestinian people choosing Hamas over them? Or to try and address Palestinian grievances so the more moderate would turn away from Hamas -- or even perhaps for the more moderate within Hamas would challenge their radicals? Quite frankly, moderate talk is hard when rockets are flying and soldiers are fighting. How should anyone go around telling an angry young man in the middle of a battlefield that his dead mother and sister and friend and brother and father should not be avenged and that peace can only come from talks, not guns? Deprive him of all his means to fight? Deprive him of his grievances, though the other side would right now not accept half of them? Deprive him of his life?

It took incredible will and effort for the oft-compared situation in Northern Ireland to finally settle down, and a lot of bombs were still being set off after massive steps were taken towards peace back then. On one hand I perfectly see Israel's point that its citizens are being attacked by terrorists and its very security as a state at risk, on the other hand revenge and retaliation is a common denominator on both sides in the cursed Holy Land, and the deep oppression that exists for the common Palestinians -- whoever is to blame -- does not help...

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by LeoXiao

If Israel was going to send in ground forces they shouldn't have done the airstrike in the first place.

Why? It's common sense to soften the target before sending ground troops.

[iLney]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Why? It's common sense to soften the target before sending ground troops.

Target?.... What target? If you mean Hamas' hideouts and/or potential bunkers, then one has to level down all buildings in the area, civilian or whatsoever. This is, in fact, a total war, which is to say either one must destroy everything, what Israel has been doing under the disguise of collateral damage, or surrender.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by iLney

This is, in fact, a total war, which is to say either one must destroy everything, what Israel has been doing under the disguise of collateral damage, or surrender.

Nice false dichotomy there. Even if it was a total war, there would be other options than destroy everything or surrender, like say a negotiated settlement. In fact, even if it's not a total war that negotiated settlement thing still sounds like a good idea. Of course to accomplish that, both sides need to admit they share some of the blame and sit down to actually talk.

[yezhanquan]

Aye. That's the "idealistic" way. The other option is, of course, the "wasteland" option.

But, seriously, a Palestine consisting of only the Gaza Strip and West Bank is not a solution. The strip is slightly bigger than half of Singapore, and my country is not well known for its open spaces.