Qassam hits residential building in Sderot, lightly wounding 3

[pelsar]

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/860935.html

Palestinians fired some 30 rockets on Israel on Thursday, and about the same number on Tuesday. One of the rockets fired Thursday slammed into a high school on the outskirts of Sderot, lightly wounding two people. Two others were wounded Tuesday, one of them in moderate to serious condition.

how about some suggestions from the "pro humanitarium crowd" on what israel should do?

• ethnically cleanse sederot of the jews? (evacuate?)

• shoot back (war crimes, civilians might get killed)

• missile assassinations of planners (war crimes)

• artillary...war crimes

• invade gaza....and in the ensuing battles, where civilians will be killed, since the urban areas are the battlefields.....war crimes

____

or the ever popular: do nothing and let the israelis be terrorized/killed because anything the IDF does is.....well a war crime.


and for those who disagree with my conclusion.....any suggestions that might work? ........or will the responses be.......nothing

pretty quiet around here, now that its black and white who the guilty party is...and what their "moral values are and intentions

ambulances shot up, hospitals shot up, journalist attacked, universities bombed, unarmed protestors shot down, school kids targeted....have i missed anything? (and thats just palestenian violence on palestenian.....brother on brother if you will)

[dave_p]

1. How about a viable peace proposal?

59 years of this, and it isn't going away. The destructive potential on both sides just becomes greater.

You're asking the solution to conflict? How about peace?

Israel holds all the cards. Nobody else can offer much - they've nothing left.

[pelsar]

4. viable peace proposal?

with hamas or fatah? i'm not sure which one has the control of the palestenian society (they're kind of busy shooting at each other in case you didnt notice)

[dave_p]

5. That's not another nation's concern

A peace proposal extends to a nation. It's for them to accept or reject it, or to negotiate something more agreeable. If they break it subsequently, that's to be dealt with appropriately.

Countries don't offer deals with parties, it's beneath them.

[pelsar]

6. so its hamas then....

since they are the govt....and hamas has been attacking israel....guess that means they've declared war on israel

(you are aware of the missiles coming down on sederot correct?) i guess that means that they've kind of rejected out of hand any proposal
_____

actually your answer is relativly humorous...gaza is in the middle of a civil war and you say israel should ignore it and negotiate with (who????)

[dave_p]

9. The govt's divided

... all too obviously. So offering deals to a party's rather pointless.

I'm aware of the missiles, and the violence that's come from the other side over the years. That's what conflict does.

Declaring war on anyone doesn't enter into it. This is an ongoing conflict. It will remain so until there's something usable on the table.

[ohio2007]

40. ..is a house divided

dysfunctional toy rocket tossers have declared war on "the opressor zionists" yet they are eating each other while the world fails to comprehend the state of obsurdity they refer to as "a palestinian government".

[bemildred]

2. I don't have any suggestions as to what might work.

I think you are screwed, to be honest, along with the people in Gaza. But it seems worth pointing out that the people on the other side in Gaza shooting the rockets seem to be trying to imitate Hizbullah in the Second Lebanon War, the goal is political pressure, X number of rockets a day and you can't stop us. If they are able to keep this up for a while, it might result in Olmert finally being kicked out on his ass. If the PNA is destroyed or rendered inoperable, that is going to have unpredicatable consequences too, not least of which is further "emboldening" the perps. The IDF may be forced to re-enter Gaza to try to impose some semblance of order, and that is not going to be a pretty sight.

But like I said, it think all of the answers suck at this point.

[pelsar]

3. an honest answer.......

i agree very much that hamas has learned from hizballa...and the IDF/govt are being very careful about what to do..in fact they dont really know at this point, nor do any of us. I think Olmert is already "gone"..its just a matter of when the next elections come around. But I dont think the IDF will/can enter gaza. With everyone with guns in every apart building the ensuing gun battles would cause hundreds of dead not to mention "reconnect" hamas and fatah against israel....and what we would get is (as in lebanon) a few dead israeli soldiers every week or so

yes all the answers really do suck at this point...and for citizens of gaza, they're lives are going to get a lot worse: without the UN to run the schools and feed them (will karni remain open?..thats where the food and fuel arrive from). Egypt sure doesnt want them running around the sinai.

We're probably going to have wait this out and see who "wins" in gaza, though the reports arent good...it seems hamas seems to "have the lead."....will there be palestenian refugees trying to get into israel?...will they be ethnically cleansed by their own?

an interesting side note: i've been trying to find info on the westbankers and what they think of the situation. As a rule they think "down" upon the gazans, but I dont know if they believe it can affect them.

[dave_p]

7. It takes two sides to make a peace

In this case, perhaps three. Though Israel itself is scarcely united.

There's an unresolved external conflict underlying the internal Palestinian one. Nobody seems to be doing anything to resolve it.

A viable peace offer would separate haters from Palestinians who want peace, dignity, security and justice. Why won't anyone do the obvious?

[pelsar]

8. stretching it?

In this case, perhaps three. Though Israel itself is scarcely united.
..so did i understand the hint that israels political process is simaler to that of hamas and fatah?

[dave_p]

10. They haven't killed a PM yet

[pelsar]

11. i always find it interesting...

how far people will go to compare the palestenian society/govt with israels. no matter how obvious it is...in fact as i write this they are quite busy shooting up each other, their ambulances, journalists, politicians, kidnapping UN personal, killing homosexuals, couples that hold hands, bombing resturants that sell liquor etc etc etc......and somehow someway someone will attempt to explain that israel has simaler problems and that both societies are `equal"

as time goes on, and the palestenians have gotten more and more freedom, it gets hard and harder to do it, but they keep on trying.

[dave_p]

14. That's their problem

I pointed out that Israel too suffers from deep division over compromise. You're denying that?

Dripfeed autonomy doesn't work: it's Transkei, as others have alluded. That too was a nightmare for those condemned to live in it.

59 years of failure, and things are worse than ever. Offer a viable, just solution, and demand success. I'm tired of the fetishization of failure.

[pelsar]

16. negotiate with ?

how can it be "their problem"...theres nobody in "power" to negotiate with. I think its kind of obvious that nobody on the Palestinian side has control of their society right now....and negotiating with someone who cant honor the agreement is rather a waste of time....

as far as israels division of compromise.....thats part of any society, we're not just shooting each other up over it (thats the difference in case you missed it).

Yes, things for the Palestinians are worse then ever (not for israel)....guess they might want to change tactics....

[dave_p]

19. "We're not shooting each other up"? Tell Rabin

Israel's done its damnedest to destroy the PA's prospects. Don't complain to me that there's nobody in control. Israelis have an interest in an orderly PA that they can do business with. So far their interest has been betrayed.

[pelsar]

21. keep trying with the comparisons....

no matter how much you want to believe it.....the palestenians are using guns on the milita level to decide their govts policy.....israel uses a voting system. The assassination of the PM is obviously not a tradition in israeli politics.

as least you've now admitted that nobodys in control in the PA...took you quite a few posts to get there.

[dave_p]

24. Exchange or stop wasting my time

I "admitted" nothing of the kind. It's you seem intent on equating Israel with a nonstate body as a prospective negotiating partner. I'd rather have an adult exchange, thanks. It seems I have more respect for Israel.

[Shaktimaan]

38. Well, America has had several leaders assasinated.

Would you then say that our society resembles that of Mogadishu.

[msmcghee]

17. I haven't had much time to post lately, but . .

. . that's good because it offers a somewhat different perspective than when one is constantly in the trenches.

One thing that becomes even more obvious is the constant subtext from the leftists in these posts where there is some moral equivalence between the two sides.

You say, Offer a viable, just solution, and demand success. I'm tired of the fetishization of failure.

Doesn't it ever occur to you that one side here is attacking the other. The defending side - the side that left Gaza and removed all settlements - has allowed hundreds of rockets to fall on their cities and schools over the last few months and has done almost nothing about it - so as to not make the situation worse - hoping that their forbearance will eventually produce peaceful results.

And when that doesn't happen, when thing just get worse - and even more rockets fall on Israeli schools and neighborhoods - instead of condemning the actions of those who are doing everything they can to destroy any possibility of peace or reconciliation - you bizarrely ask why don't they just make up and be friends - as if they are both equally responsible for the carnage. Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

Such denial IMO could only be explained by a pretty blatant disregard for actual peace - and a hope for the eventual defeat of Israel by ME Islamist forces. Or do you not see that any suggestions that would lead in that direction (like some enforced detente) would likely result in an extremely deadly war in the region that would kill hundreds thousands of innocent civilians - mostly on the Arab side?

I know that many Islamists see that as some kind of glorious jihad and well worth the chance to finally rid the ME of Jews (hasn't that always been their refrain?) but it is always interesting to see western leftists buy in so eagerly to that narrative for similar reasons (some mythic defeat of purported western imperialism).

[dave_p]

23. With respect, that's utter hogwash

You say, "Doesn't it ever occur to you that one side here is attacking the other?".

Doesn't it ever occur to you that in an ongoing conflict hostilities are exchanged pending its resolution? Does it occur to you that today's Palestinians are party to an unresolved conflict dating back to 1948 (or 1936, or 1921, take your pick). This is not "one side attacking the other", Israel has been as keen to attack as its opponents in a decades-old war. Israel can offer a lead in ending it, but has failed to.

"any suggestions that would lead in that direction (like some enforced detente) would likely result in an extremely deadly war in the region that would kill hundreds thousands of innocent civilians - mostly on the Arab side"

"Some enforced detente"?? Well, I'd rather see reciprocal voluntary detente. But there's little sign of that. Why would it result in such enormous loss of life, mostly Arab?

[msmcghee]

26. The number of your misconceptions exceed the time . .

. . I have to respond - but how about this one?

This is not "one side attacking the other", Israel has been as keen to attack as its opponents in a decades-old war.

Tell me once when Israel has clearly initiated an attack against Arabs since the inception of the state of Israel - an attack that was not defensive in nature.

Then tell me of one attack against Israel by Arab forces that was defensive in nature - an attempt to prevent Israel from a non-defensive attack against Arabs - an attack that was not launched in hopes of destroying the state of Israel.

Your underlying myth is that of moral equivalence. IMO it is nothing but a convenient canard that allows you to feel good about your enmity for Israel and your hopes for its eventual defeat.

[dave_p]

29. Don't be absurd

Israel is a colonial venture. Please tell my why 725,000 Palestinians were denied re-admission to their homes after 1948. And why their succesors live under an occupation regime distinguishable from apartheid only by its severity.

I have no enmity for Israel. I want a just peace. You can closet yourself in some paranoid fantasy all you like.

[msmcghee]

30. I notice you did not answer. n/t

[dave_p]

31. Answer what?

Offer a coherent question and I'll answer it.

[msmcghee]

32. You say Israel is a colonialist venture.

I say that's BS. It's Islamist propaganda and it's their sympathizers playing the victim card for all its worth.

What colonialist state sponsored the enslavement of the indigenous people of Palestine? The indigenous people of Palestine were Arabs and Jews - many of both recently immigrated by 1947.

The UN came up with a plan to divide the territory between them. Israel accepted the plan - the Arabs chose war. The Arabs lost - the first time and every time since then.

They keep on trying because it suits the politics of their corrupt mafia-boss leadership - who could care less about the suffering of their people. The "resistance" has nothing to do with Palestinian suffering or the occupation. Arafat proved that beyond any doubt. It's a con job to keep certain militias and their strong-men in power and keep them wealthy.

I find western leftist support for the thugs and killers who hide behind their own civilians for protection - while spending the humanitarian aid western nations send them, on weapons - totally disgusting.

Israel isn't even close to a colonial enterprise. But what the Arab leadership has been doing vis a vis Israel since 1947 is genocide - short and simple.

[dave_p]

33. Why can't you talk anything but war?

Oh, don't give me the "empty Palestine" nonsense: I recall similar claims from apartheid South Africa, with even sparser evidence to the contrary.

The UN plan required the acceptance of both parties. Rejection by either made it defunct. It wasn't a "Whoever accepts, wins" proposition. Arabs were, incidentally, the majority. Ever heard of a thing called "democracy"?

"Genocide" is a preposterous claim. Israel has spent the past decade killing Palestinians at a far greater rate than Palestinians have been killing Israelis. Now what remains of autonomous Palestine is a strangled bantustan with oustsiders backing a party rejected in democratic elections.

Israel can easily demonstrate any adversary's commitment to its people's destruction by offering a viable peace. Why won't it do it?

[msmcghee]

34. Do you read the posts before you comment?

I said nothing about an "empty Palestine". I said, "The indigenous people of Palestine were Arabs and Jews - many of both recently immigrated by 1947."

Do some reading. I don't have time to educate you. Genocide has nothing to do with numbers.

[dave_p]

35. How many is "many"?

How many Arabs? Let's see what you read.

[Shaktimaan]

37. Israeli Arabs live under an apartheid regime?

I'm guessing you've never been to Israel. I'm right, aren't I?

What part of the Israeli Arab's existence resembles Apartheid in your opinion?

[Shaktimaan]

39. I don't understand.

This is not "one side attacking the other", Israel has been as keen to attack as its opponents in a decades-old war.

When has Israel been the side to instigate a war?

Going back to the dates you mentioned, each is an example of Arabs instigating violence against Jews. In '21 the Jaffa riots occurred followed by the smaller riots in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, neither instigated by the Jews. In '36 there was the Great Arab Uprising. (Notice it wasn't called the Great Jewish Uprising. Because it was not started by the Jews.) And in '48 there was the first big, international war, which really began in '47 as a domestic conflict initiated by the Palestinians. The violence started the day after the UN approved the plan for Partition by attacking several Jewish civilians who were riding on a bus.

The fighting kept on going following Israel's declaration of Independance when Israel called upon the Arab states around her to accept her offer of peace and cooperation towards the advancement of the whole middle east and also asked the Arabs who now found themselves living in Israel to stay and help them build a new nation together under the ideals of equality, freedom and peace. Despite Israel's call for peace, the surrounding Arab states now attacked with soldiers representing the Palestinians, the Arab league, Transjordan, Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Yemen.

What specific event are you thinking of when Israel initiated the violence? And while Israel has made many offers for peace to her neighbors, (and had almost all of them rejected), the surrounding Arab states have only made serious attempts at peace on two occasions, both of which Israel accepted. All of the peace or cease-fire agreements that Israel has had with the Palestinians have been broken by the latter, who seldom met any of the requirements that they had agreed to anyway. Thus, most peace agreements between Israel and Palestine have amounted to Israel making permanent concessions to the Palestinians while getting nothing in return.

Seriously, what are you referring to?

[bemildred]

12. Yah, you gotta make peoples lives work.

You can tell what an idiot NuttyYahoo is just by the fact that he thinks shutting off the water and power is going to improve the situation. People need to realize this is not as bad as it can get, not even close, it can get a lot worse.

The Israelis do seem to have realized, belatedly, that not supporting Abbas as fully as possible was stupid, but it's too late now. I fully expect Hamas to "win" this war, but I have no idea what leads to, nor do I think anyone else does either. The big danger, as I said elsewhere, is that this sort of thing will spread, it's not that hard to make these tin can rockets, and the knowledge is widespread. The one real action governments can take is to make Mahmoud in the streets life better real soon now, so he has something to lose.

The Yurpeans, or some of them, are urging the Israelis to intervene directly on the PNA's side, which would most likely finish them off as a legitimate force in Palestinian politics.

[msmcghee]

13. I don't have any unique insights here, but . .

. . it seems that your last sentence . .

The Yurpeans, or some of them, are urging the Israelis to intervene directly on the PNA's side, which would most likely finish them off as a legitimate force in Palestinian politics.

. . says it.

Don't you think the same thing would have happened when Hamas came to power if Israel had overtly sided with Fatah/Abbas? i.e. would that not have ended any chance of moderate forces having any political power in Gaza? Although, it seems to have ended up that way in any case - probably due to the simple military superiority of Hamas which they have been increasingly willing to exercise.

Even with Israel's arms length stance the worse has come to be while Olmert was probably hoping (against all precedent) that saner voices in Gaza could possibly prevail if given the chance sans any laying-on-of-hands by Israel.

[bemildred]

15. No, I don't think that.

I would not use "overtly sided", I would use "cooperated" in that context. "Overtly sided" was in the context of Yurpean calls for Israel to intervene now on the side of Fatah. That idea in itself is quite a hoot.

No Palestinian government can function properly without Israeli cooperation, and without a functioning Palestinian government, you will get what you have now. It could have been different, it could have been better.

[msmcghee]

18. I think you're dreaming.

As long as Hamas - the group that has vowed to destroy Israel and rid the ME of Jews - or at least factions within Hamas - as long as they have more guns and have been openly willing to even kill Palestinians who get in their way - there's no way it could have been better.

As usual, you are just making up justifications to blame Israel no matter what happens on the ground.

[bemildred]

20. Hey, you asked if I thought that.

I take the trouble to respond, and it doesn't suit you, so I must be up to no good. And heaven forfend that anyone suggest that current events are the consequences of past policies and decisions, what a silly idea.

[msmcghee]

22. I was taking exception to your statement . .

. . that it could have been better - if only Israel had acted differently. That's been one of your consistent views.

As far as current events being a consequence of past policies - that's a tautology of sorts - it means nothing.

Things continue and things change. What happens is the result of people with power seeking their desired ends. Only when a majority of Palestinians who have power decide they want peace with Israel - will peace have any chance to happen. Israel has consistently wanted peace since 1947.

[bemildred]

25. That seemed obvious from your assertion I was out to blame Israel.

You are the one asserting that it doesn't matter what Israel does, or did. You assert that what I said is a tautology, and then you say: "Things continue and things change. What happens is the result of people with power seeking their desired ends." So on the one hand it doesn't matter what Israel does, and on the other hand "What happens is the result of people with power seeking their desired ends." Well, which is it? I may state tautologies, but you are spouting contradictions. Tautologies at least have the virtue of making sense and being true.

[msmcghee]

27. It makes no difference if Israel wants peace . .

. . as long as people with guns and explosives and rockets on the other side don't.

As usual, those who are willing to use violence to get their way - get their violence if not their way.

[bemildred]

28. Now there is a tautology if I ever saw one.

So we have "defensive attacks" and "non-defensive attacks". Can we have "aggressive defenses" and "non-aggressive defenses" too, or is only with attacks that this sort of self-contradictory language is necessary?

[barb162]

36. That's a very clear and concise set of truisms.

Israel does want peace. What is it supposed to do if it is constantly attacked? It's doing what it had to do to stop the attacks.