Big Day For Int'l News; Ground Offensive Begins In Gaza....

[Sue U]

There's more than enough blame to go around on both sides of this conflict. The current round of rocket attacks did not come out of nowhere, and Israeli policy toward Gaza -- especially since the Hamas electoral victory eight and a half years ago -- has been decidedly unhelpful. The larger strategy of strangling Gaza/Hamas while easing up on the West Bank/Fatah has been unevenly applied and has had mixed results at best. Israel has launched multiple military strikes in Gaza over the last decade in various efforts to destroy rocket capability, retaliate for terrorist attacks and "weaken" Hamas (i.e., assassinate its leadership and demonstrate to the population at large that Hamas cannot even protect itself, let alone the people). But the only thing this has really proved is that military action is not particularly effective at protecting Israelis, either (see "Operation Cast Lead" and "Operation Pillar of Defense").

Nobody (even in most of the Arab world) thinks Hamas is a bunch of good guys. And although the Fatah leadership would surely like to see Hamas bumped off for good, the military action puts them in the awkward position of having to support Hamas as the tangible expression of resistance to Israel -- a widely popular sentiment among all Palestinians.

[Sue U]

Another view:

Destroying Hamas is only way to peace

Op-ed: Israel must advance agreement with Palestinian Authority while eradicating – rather than weakening – Islamic organization in Gaza.

Latest Update: 07.23.14, 19:11 / Israel Opinion

The Israeli political left says that an agreement and compromise with the Palestinian Authority will destroy Hamas. In my opinion, it's quite the opposite: Destroying the Hamas regime is a condition for a compromise agreement with the Palestinians.

It's not a sufficient condition – there are many other conditions and moves (for example, freezing settlement construction instead of releasing Hamas terrorists) – but it is a necessary condition.

Israel can make Hamas collapse, but Israel doesn’t want it to collapse and has even declared so in advance. From this we can conclude that the existence of a "weakened" Hamas serves all kinds of interests, matches all kinds of outlooks, both personal and ideological, makes the political compromise unachievable and intensifies the suspiciousness and dissention.

Millions of Israelis are rightfully asking themselves: If all the Palestinians are like Hamas, how can we agree to withdraw from even one more kilometer? And the conclusion is: Let's settle, let's annex and let's forget about the dreams.

Some believe Hamas is suffering from a youth revolt syndrome and is acting like an adolescent hooligan. The more it grows up, the more it will calm down, become domesticated, become tamed and make rational decisions. Rational, meaning decisions Israel would like it to make.

I see it as a false hope stemming from a deep misunderstanding of the reasons for Hamas' existence as a fanatic Islamist military organization.

It's not that Hamas is operating aimlessly. Its aim is to make the lives of both the Israelis and the Palestinians miserable and to increase the hatred between them up to the point of no return.

The big wave of terror attacks carried out by Hamas began shortly after the Oslo Accords, about 20 years ago, and was quite successful as far as the organization was concerned. Hundreds of Israelis were killed, the public lived in fear, radicalization spread and grew stronger, Israel's prime minister was murdered and the realization of the agreement ran aground.

Since that wave of terror, our governments have sent the IDF on several operations aimed at weakening Hamas rather than, God forbid, eradicating it.

After every operation we hear that Hamas has been weakened, so much that it can now fire rockets at all parts of Israel and dig a network of tunnels which make the border fences look like a joke. It's better not to think about what its current "weakening" will lead to.

Hamas' big day – and Israel's big missed opportunity – arrived when it took over the Gaza Strip. The takeover put Israel in danger and gave us a recognized international right to intervene and prevent the border area from turning into a terror compound.

But the Israeli government openly avoided that. It even avoided helping the Palestinian Authority, Gaza's legitimate landlord. Why should we care that the Palestinians are fighting each other? It doesn’t concern us.

According to that same perception which has not changed since then, Israel doesn't have to worry about who controls Gaza, but only about the type of weapons in Gaza. As if weapons fire on their own.

Accepting Hamas' takeover of Gaza was a first-class strategic mistake. It got us entangled in every possible trouble, starting with Gaza turning into a rocket arsenal to the decision to impose an economic and environmental siege on the Strip, a siege which affected a poor and helpless population and is perceived in the world as a horrible crime. Even worse than the rockets. Hamas used the siege to justify its acts of war, including the latest one.

The Israeli government eventually began letting go of the siege, secretly, gradually, at an extent which wasn't enough to create an economic perspective for Gaza's residents. According to a public opinion poll conducted recently, Hamas has become much less popular than Fatah in Gaza. This is the motive and the explanation for its recent actions.

There is a fear that in the post-Hamas era, worse and more dangerous jihad forces will rise to power among the Palestinian public. They may indeed rise to power, but only if we fail to do anything to advance an agreement with the Palestinian Authority while eradicating the Hamas rule.

If we make progress towards a diplomatic agreement, clearing Gaza of Hamas will also clear the long road to peace.

First Published: 07.23.14, 18:56

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 ... 42,00.html

[Sue U]

On the other hand:

Why Israel should accept Hamas' terms

Op-ed: In order to win public opinion, Israel must adopt all of Islamic organization's conditions for ceasefire and add sections benefitting Gaza's residents – in exchange for Strip's demilitarization by an international force.

Published: 07.23.14, 00:39 / Israel Opinion

We are witnessing unnecessary and irritating bloodshed. It could have ended long ago. It can be ended, maybe, just maybe, as soon as tomorrow.

The conditions were already written almost a decade ago – the Quartet conditions. No to violence, yes to recognizing Israel and past agreements. These conditions would have obligated Hamas to work solely on the political track, and would have obligated Israel to lift the siege.

Hamas' refusal has led to two extremely violent rounds, and we are now in the midst of the third one. We are not in Syria, but the sights are becoming similar: Havoc and destruction. It happens in every place controlled by the radical Islam.

The Strip's residents were sentenced to this fate the moment they elected Hamas, in the first stage, and the moment Hamas carried out a violent takeover, in the second stage. Since then they have only been suffering.

Hamas belongs to the Muslim Brotherhood movement, which has been moving back and forth between the more radical Islam, like al-Qaeda, Taliban and ISIS, and a slightly more moderate version, like the one controlling Tunisia.

So far, Hamas has made it clear that it's on the Taliban side. The section dealing with the annihilation of Jews in the Hamas charter, the clear and murderous anti-Semitic content of its official television station and the declarations of many Hamas leaders about "conquering Rome, London and the two Americas" clarify Hamas' place.

It's safe to assume that not everyone who voted for Hamas supports every section in its murderous ideology. But as always, what the majority thinks is not important – it's important what the jihadist faction does.

In the current conflict, Hamas turned down the Egyptian ceasefire proposal and presented its own conditions. They include lifting the siege, opening a naval port, etc, etc. They should be accepted, down to the very last one.

Not only should they be accepted, but Israel should even adopt them and add sections which will benefit the Strip's residents – as long as Hamas agrees both to demilitarize the Strip and to accept the Quartet's conditions.

There is no need for the IDF to perform a violent removal of the weapon arsenals: If the Western countries are so concerned about peace in the Middle East, they should send NATO soldiers to implement the demilitarization.

Hamas, so far, has proved that it favors the armed struggle and the violence over prosperity. The Strip's residents are paying a heavy price for that.

A generous Israeli proposal will only benefit Israel. if Hamas surprises us and accepts it, it will be a turning point. What Israel wants to achieve through the IDF will be achieved in an agreement. If Hamas rejects the offer, Israel will receive further justification to continue the operation.

Let us not delude ourselves: The difficult images from Saja'iyya, which are already flooding foreign networks, will increase the pressure on Israel. This is only the beginning.

And as always, in the first stage the protests are staged by the jihadists, the radical left and the far right. In the second stage come the articles turning Israel into a war criminal. In the third stage, the leaders join the media too. We have already been there. It will happen to us again.

When Israel embarks on a battle of this kind, it is waging a double battle: One on the ground, the other over the global public opinion. Israel should know that it will not succeed on the ground without succeeding on the public opinion front. The world is not interested in the mass murder committed by ISISI, as we speak, in Syria. Nor is it interested in the abuse of Christians in Musul. The world is only interested in Gaza, because that's where the cameras are.

So Israel must make a move: It must accept Hamas' conditions, add to them, and announce its agreement to a ceasefire, in exchange for the Strip's demilitarization by an international force.

The bank of targets remains important, but we must not, under any circumstances, give up on the bank of justifications.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 ... 19,00.html

[oldr_n_wsr]

no other nation would take rockets being fired at them without a response;

Oh, I think our current "community organizer in chief" might not respond.
"We, The People" may respond though.
yes, I am getting more and more pessemistc about our "leader". Have a nice vacation Mr Obama

[BoSoxGal]

[MajGenl.Meade]

False equivalence much?

[Big RR]

False equivalence much?

Perhaps, but then he has first hand experience with both the holocaust and the current situation with the Palestinians in Israel so I am inclined to give his opinion more weight than that of someone who does not have those experiences.

[Econoline]

Right. If there's anyone who's entitled to set their own terms for equivalence--comparing what he himself went through (in Romania, pre-Israel Palestine, and present-day Israel) to the current suffering of Palestinian children--Reuven Moskovitz would have to qualify. You don't qualify, and neither do I, but Mr. Moskovitz does.

[MajGenl.Meade]

There's a difference between (say) Dachau and Gaza. The one was a camp designed by Germans to contain Jews and exterminate them - the other is a 'country' with a beach and a fence on only two "sides". Egypt has control of the third side.

Bergen-Belsen was not a sheltered home for persons determined to assassinate Germany men, women and children and provided with the arms to do so. Gaza is. Sachsenhausen was not run by the inmates. Gaza is. The camps of Europe were not filled with people busy reproducing and free to do so - Gaza is. And so on.

The Jews and other minorities in the camps did not place their children on rooftops in an effort to stop the Nazi war machine - Hamas does. The camps were not organized by inmates dedicated to the elimination of another ethnic group - Gaza is.

And in which camp exactly was Mr. Moskovitz imprisoned? I am unable to find anything that indicates he was ever in one. He is a Holocaust 'survivor' apparently because he's Jewish and didn't die. He appears to have been in a Romanian ghetto and was expelled from the country, no doubt undergoing many harrowing moments. I hope someone can give more information on this.

The situation in Gaza is terrible - but it goes far beyond trite comparisons with German programmes of the 1930s and 40s

Meade

[Big RR]

Well Meade, my guess is that he is comparing Gaza more to the Jewish ghettos established to contain the jews that the germans found dangerous to their reich, so whether he was in an extermination camps immaterial. I would almost bet he was in a ghetto--you know, something akin the palestinian enclaves in Gaza and the west bank, run by the inmates and all. You can draw all the distinctions you want, but the ghettos were full of people reproducing, many of whom would have been happy to eliminate the Nazis.

Yes, the nazis were worse toward the jews than the israelis are toward the paestinians, but that doesn't make Israel right. And that is what, I think, Mr. Moskovitz is saying. We cannot accept persecution and oppression in any form, and those who siffered at the hands of the Nazis should be the first to stand up for their fellow human beings and not repress them.

[Lord Jim]

Excellent post Gen'l....

The context for how the two situations emerged is central; Jewish terrorist groups weren't sending suicide bombers into Berlin, or firing rockets at German civilian population centers; there were no Jewish para-military groups refusing to recognize the right of Germany to exist or committed to its destruction.

Well Meade, my guess is that he is comparing Gaza more to the Jewish ghettos established to contain the jews

When you read the quote that's the impression that one gets, (that he isn't referring to the Final Solution) but it's still very unfortunate that he chose to do this...

He uses the term "Holocaust" and this sort of language, especially coming from a Holocaust survivor, will be seized on and taken out of context by anti-Zionists and anti-Semites to point at and say, "See? Even a Holocaust survivor thinks the Israelis are just like the Nazis"...

He has inadvertently made himself into a propaganda tool for the enemies of his people and his country. I'm sure that was not his intention, it's what he has done, nevertheless....

[Big RR]

there were no Jewish para-military groups refusing to recognize the right of Germany to exist or committed to its destruction

that depends on who you believe; read the Nazi propaganda (all bullshit IMHO, but many believed it), and the jewish banking conspiracy was responsible for all the pain after WW1 including the horrendous inflation and recession; "they" were determined to destroy the aryans as they feared them taking their rightful place in the world order. Many in Germany believed this fervently, hell hitler might even have, hence their actions were "justified"--jews and Aryans could not coexist in the same space.

this sort of language, especially coming from a Holocaust survivor, will be seized on and taken out of context by anti-Zionists and anti-Semites so to point and say, "See? Even a Holocaust survivor thinks the Israelis are just like the Nazis"...

Perhaps, but I think his remarks are more aimed at his fellow jews, saying "because of what we went through during the holocaust, we shouldn't even think of inflicting any of these policies on others; it's never justified". People can always distort what's said and use it for propaganda purposes, but I personally respect this man for standing up and saying "it (the ghettoization) was wrong when it was used against our people, and it's wrong now as well. Again, he lived through it, so I give his opinion more weight than those of persons who did not.

[Lord Jim]

I was not familiar with Mr. Moskovitz, so I did a little reading up on him...

He is not a quiet private citizen who was suddenly motivated by recent events to speak out...

He is a long-time political activist who has for decades been involved on the left fringe of Israeli politics, making a name for himself by being a constant critic of Israeli policies.

[BoSoxGal]

I was not familiar with Mr. Moskovitz, so I did a little reading up on him...

He is not a quiet private citizen who was suddenly motivated by recent events to speak out...

He is a long-time political activist who has for decades been involved on the left fringe of Israeli politics, making a name for himself by being a constant critic of Israeli policies.

Hyperbolic much?

I agree with those who have said Mr. Moskovitz is far more 'entitled' to his opinion on Gaza than any of us . . . but truly, there must be a way to give a much higher quality of life to the Palestinian people. There just must.

[Lord Jim]

Some interesting poll results:

Poll: What Americans think about the Israel-Gaza crisis

Updated by Zack Beauchamp on July 24, 2014, 6:30 p.m. ET

Gallup has released the results of a poll on American views of the ongoing Israeli ground incursion into Gaza and larger Israel-Palestine issues, which it conducted on July 22 and 23. Gallup asked Americans whether they thought Israel's actions in Gaza were "mostly justified" or "mostly unjustified." Americans are split on that question, but overwhelmingly think Hamas' actions are "mostly unjustified." There are a number of other findings: Americans who have more education are more likely to support Israel's Gaza incursion, for example, while Americans under age 30 oppose it by a two-to-one margin.



There's a big partisan split. 65 percent of Republicans said Israel's actions were "mostly justified," while only 21 percent said they were "mostly unjustified." By contrast, only 31 percent of Democrats said Israel's were justified. 47 percent chose unjustified. Independents held similar views as democrats, with 36 to 46 saying justified versus unjustified.

Older Americans take Israel's side, younger Americans don't. A 24 point majority of Americans over 65 say Israel's actions were justified (55-31 justified-unjustified), while a 26 point majority of 18-29-year-olds said the reverse (25-51 justified-unjustified).

Americans who follow the conflict "very closely" overwhelmingly take Israel's side. Americans who care enough about Israel-Palestine to follow the story closely tend to be overwhelmingly pro-Israel. An enormous 71-24 percent of Americans following the situation "very closely" say Israel's actions are justified. Israel also wins a majority among Americans following it "somewhat closely," losing only among voters who describe themselves as "not closely" following.

More educated Americans also tend to support Israel. When you segment by education, the only group of Americans who don't think Israel's actions are justified are those who had only a high school education or less. Voters with some college, a college degree, or postgraduate degree all tended to see Israel's actions as justified. In fact, the more education someone had, the more likely they are to say they see Israel's actions as justified. A big majority (53-27) of Americans with post-graduate education say Israel's actions were justified.

The top-line takeaway here is that Israel seems to be in a very strong position with the American public in the near term with regards to its Gaza incursion. The sorts of voters most likely to be politically engaged — older, more informed about the situation, more educated — took Israel's side in the largest numbers. That may help explain why the US is so pro-Israel, although there are a lot of other forces at work there as well.

Israel's weak numbers among the young and Democrats may be a long-term problem for the country. But right now, in the current conflict, some crucial components parts of the American electorate seem to be taking Israel's side.

http://www.vox.com/2014/7/24/5934837/ga ... -americans

So I find myself in the camp of the more mature, better educated people who are paying attention to what's going on...

(As of course, is so frequently the case... )

[Econoline]

As we have seen in other polls on related matters, there is a significant gap between Republicans and everyone else:

It is striking how evenly divided the public is on this question when there is total uniformity among political leaders in the U.S. that Israel is justified in what it has been doing. There is always a significant gap between popular and elite views on foreign policy issues, but it is still fairly unusual for a view held by almost 40% of Americans to have virtually no representation in Congress.

The generational divisions on this question are almost as great: [Not to mention the gender and racial divisions!]

I noted in a previous post that Americans under 50 were relatively less sympathetic to Israel than their elders, since the Israel they know about is very different from the one that older generations knew. These results help to explain why that is happening. Younger Americans evidently have less patience with Israeli military operations, and they appear to be less inclined to accept the standard rationalizations for those operations. According to Gallup’s findings, most Americans under 50 don’t believe Israeli actions in Gaza are justified, and it seems likely that the operation in Gaza is making these Americans even less sympathetic to Israel. If this trend continues in the future, Israel will eventually find itself with few sympathizers in the U.S.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/gaza-and-u-s-public-opinion/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=gaza-and-u-s-public-opinion

So I find myself in the camp of the more mature, better educated people who are paying attention to what's going on
old, white, male Republicans...

(As of course, is so frequently the case... )

Fixed that for you, Jim.

[BoSoxGal]

I'm no fan of the tactics of some Palestinian organizations . . . but I can't help but empathize with the regular Palestinian people, many of whom would just like to live their lives and watch their children and grandchildren grow, and not be subject to endless war . . . and yes, in some cases, to affiliating themselves with bad guys in order to protect their families.

What a horrible life.

[Lord Jim]

I see nothing to disagree with there BSG...

The history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is littered with missed opportunities, miscalculations, and wrong-headed decisions, and various Israeli governments over the years have certainly made a share of the mistakes on those counts...

So I find myself in the camp of the more mature, better educated people who are paying attention to what's going on
old, white, male Republicans...

(As of course, is so frequently the case... )

Fixed that for you, Jim.

[Crackpot]

So you're comparing yourself to Kim Jog Un instead?

[Lord Jim]

Kim Jog Un

"Now get on that treadmill and jog or I'll kill you..."