Meshal: Hamas ready for truce, but only as 'tactic'

[oberliner]

Hamas' political leader Khaled Meshal on Saturday said the Palestinian militant group would accept an Egyptian-mediated cease-fire with Israel but it would only be a "tactic" in the group's conflict with Israel.

"It is a tactic in conducting the struggle - It is normal for any resistance that operates in its people's interest... to sometimes escalate, other times retreat a bit," Meshal said in an interview with pan-Arab Al-Jazeera television.

"The battle is to be run this way and Hamas is known for that," he added.

The Hamas leader said his group was ready to cooperate in the six-month truce Egypt had proposed a between the Hamas rulers of Gaza and Israel. He also warned of an explosion of violence in Gaza if Israel rejected the truce.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/977839.html

[bemildred]

1. What else would it be?

A truce is not a settlement, or an armistice, or a treaty. It's an agreement not to shoot for a while. What else would it be but a tactic?

[Vegasaurus]

2. A tactic to rearm with bigger weapons

so that Hamas can complete its goal of obliterating Israel.

That's the tactic, and Hamas brags about it.

Israel should run as fast as possible from that kind of "truce".

[bemildred]

3. You think they should rearm with smaller weapons?

What do you think the IDF is going to be doing in the meantime? They won't be looking for smaller weapons. Do you think that Israel, should it agree to a truce, would not be using it as a tactic too? The question will be who uses the time better. I suspect the citizens of Sderot would be willing to take a chance on it.

[Vegasaurus]

4. I don't think Israel has to regroup to get bigger weapons

we all know that it has the firepower to wipe out anyone it wants to.

It could have obliterated the Palestinians a hundred times over.

The fact is, Israel doesn't use its big weapons. It shows restraint.

The fact is, Hamas has a singular goal, and it is to obliterate Israel.

Give them enough time, and they might succeed.

[bemildred]

5. So, what happened in the 2nd Lebanon War?

Too much restraint?

[subsuelo]

6. or about 6 weeks ago when they massacred well over 100 Gazans

another example of "restraint" I guess

[Dick Dastardly]

8. So you consider the militants who were the majority of the 100

as being massacred. So Israel should not protect itself from rockets and terror and has no right to kill militants

[Violet_Crumble]

9. The majority were not militants...

Contrary to Israel's Chief of Staff, at least half of those killed in Gaza did not take part in the fighting

B'Tselem expresses grave concern at the large number of children and other uninvolved civilians among those killed and wounded in the Gaza Strip in recent days.

According to B'Tselem figures, from 27 February to the afternoon of 3 March, 106 Palestinians were killed in the Gaza Strip. Contrary to the Chief of Staff’s contention that ninety percent were armed, at least fifty-four of the dead (twenty-five of them minors) did not take part in the hostilities. In addition, at least forty-six minors were wounded.

In response to the Defense Minister's initiative to probe the legality of firing at areas from which rockets were being fired, even if the area is populated, B'Tselem reminds the military that attacks on legitimate military targets are prohibited if they are likely to cause disproportionate harm to civilians, or to breach the duty to take caution not to harm civilians. If the military’s intention is to allow shelling of general areas or whole neighborhoods from which rockets are fired, such an attack would be indiscriminate and a grave breach of the laws of war.

Given the heavy fighting that only ended this morning, B'Tselem has not been able to conduct a thorough examination of the events. However, initial examination of a few of the many incidents in which civilians were killed raise the grave concern that the Israeli army used excessive and disproportionate force, and failed to distinguish between uninvolved civilians and Palestinians who took part in the fighting. Such attacks may constitute a breach of the laws of war.

For example:

The killing of four children – ‘Ali Dardona, age 8, Muhammad Hamudah, 9, Dardona Dardona, 12, and ‘Omer Dardona – and wounding of two others while they played soccer in the street, east of the Jabalya refugee camp on 28 February. B'Tselem’s investigation indicates that Qassam rockets may have been fired earlier about 100 meters from where the children were. However, no armed Palestinians were killed or injured in the incident.


The killing of Iyad and Jacqueline Muhammad Abu-Shabak, brother and sister, 16 and 17 years old, when they were watching the fighting from the window of their house east of Jabalya. According to testimonies by family members, the two were shot in the head and chest.


The killing of six-month-old Muhammad al-Bur’i, at the family’s home in the Rimal section of Gaza on 27 February, and the wounding of others, in the shelling of the nearby Interior Ministry building. The building is a civilian office building, and not a legitimate military target.
B'Tselem calls on all sides to the fighting, Israeli and Palestinian, to comply strictly with the law, and to do everything in their power to protect civilians who are not taking part in the fighting. Israel has the right and the obligation to protect its citizens from rocket fire, itself a war crime, but it most do so only through legal means which abide by the principles of proportionality and distinction in International Humanitarian Law.

http://www.btselem.org/english/Press_Releases/20080303.asp

[msmcghee]

15. He said - he said. n/t

[hack89]

18. I am assuming you are familiar with the enormous killing power

of modern weapons, so I find your statement curious. Israel could kill a hundred people a minute for days on end if it wanted. Even the most partisan observer must admit that Israel used a small fraction of their military power in Gaza.

[azurnoir]

7. Hamas needs a truce to get bigger weapons

according to the media they've been doing quite well at that with no truce. Truce does not mean unguarded borders or that Israel will will shut it's eyes. If any thing Israel will use the time to increase pressure in other ways.

BTW Israel uses restraint because it can't "afford" to do otherwise, if Israel were to use cluster bombs against Gaza even America might be forced to do something, the EU almost certainly would at least on both accounts (America and EU) in the form of sanctions. Other at least in America I see the price of gas rising from the $3.50-3.80 we're paying now to $5+ a gallon and with it the crippling rise in the prices of everything else.

[Vegasaurus]

11. Are you blaming high gas prices on Israel?

:crazy:

[azurnoir]

20. No

Obviously not the ones we're paying now. In the scenario I posted however the use of cluster bombs in Gaza, there could/would be a spike in gas prices, any escalation in violence in the ME is an excuse to raise prices, Operation Hot Winter was too short lived for that to happen.

[msmcghee]

21. Cluster bombs would have little useful effect in Gaza.

As I understand it, in Lebanon there were dug-in hidden emplacements (bunkers) where rockets - more sophisticated than Qassams - were being fired repeatedly from permanent launchers that had accurate azimuth and elevation controls. Many of those were dug into farmers' fields in lightly populated rural areas.

Since the IDF could not pinpoint the hidden launchers that were covered up right after the launch they used cluster bombs on those targets. That made it more difficult to reload and service those sites by making any foot travel or light vehicle travel in the vicinity very dangerous. In contrast, the relatively inaccurate Gaza rockets are fired from vacant lots from hastily set up launchers between buildings like schools and hospitals in heavily populated areas and are immediately removed or abandoned.

Cluster munitions would have little effect on the Qassam launches in Gaza but would likely kill many Palestinain civilians - probably many kids. The IDF would only give Hamas a PR victory by using cluster bombs there and would do little to slow the Qassams. From watching their actions it seems clear to me that Israel has no interest in killing Palestinain civilians and would not choose a weapon that might result in excessive civilian casualties when there is no clear defensive gain or purpose for it. That the IDF is not using cluster munitions in Gaza somewhat affirms this observation.

[azurnoir]

45. sorry but

the only reason that Israel has not resorted to the use of cluster bombs is what I outlined above ie PR and it would be too gross a violation of international law to be overlooked.
Also perhaps you are confusing "cluster bombs" and "bunker busters" they are not the same thing there for your assertion about why they are not used in Gaza is false.

Cluster munitions or cluster bombs are air-dropped or ground-launched munitions that eject a number of smaller submunitions ("bomblets"). The most common types are intended to kill enemy personnel and destroy vehicles. Submunition based weapons designed to destroy runways, electric power transmission lines, deliver chemical or biological weapons, or to scatter land mines have also been produced. Some submunition based weapons can disperse non-munition payloads, such as leaflets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_bomb

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunker_buster

[msmcghee]

47. I did not confuse the terms, but thanks for the correction.

I did not say the Israelis were using (or not using) "bunker busters". I never mentioned the term. A bunker OTOH is . .

A fortification set mostly below the surface of the ground with overhead protection.

I this case the overhead protection was mostly lightweight panels providing camouflage - but these were close enough to the typical bunker that I thought it would help explain my position. They are dug below ground level and are largely invisible from the air when the covering panels are in place.

Since the IDF were sometimes able to locate the general area where the rockets were fired from - but not the actual firing positions (the bunkers) - the IDF used cluster munitions to blanket the area hoping that one or more submunitions might find the target and penetrate the overhead panels. I also assume that the possibility of unexploded munitions on the ground would make servicing the bunkers and reloading them more difficult.

Bunker busters OTOH are bombs designed to penetrate several feet of earth and reinforced concrete before exploding. I doubt the IDF would find those useful against rockets fired from shallow pits with lightweight removable covers. Also, bunker busters require high accuracy to be effective - making them useless in this instance since Israel did not know the precise location of the bunkers.

As far as your claim that: "The only reason that Israel has not resorted to the use of cluster bombs (in Gaza) is what I outlined above ie PR and it would be too gross a violation of international law to be overlooked." - is farcical. Why would they use cluster munitions in S. Lebanon but not in N. Gaza? It seems to me the PR problems would be the same. The difference is in the nature of the target and the resultant difference in the likelihood of killing civilians unnecessarily. As far as I know these munitions were not used in populated areas in S. Lebanon. I can look up the current stats if you like but I'm sure relatively few civilian casualties have resulted from those munitions.

You know, it's pretty obvious to anyone who looks objectively at the situation that Israel is being far more careful about the lives of Palestinian civilians than almost any nation engaged in war in modern history. They spend a lot more of their citizens tax money avoiding those deaths when cheaper but more lethal methods are available to them. And they suffer more IDF casualties because of their caution - casualties that could easily be avoided by simply hitting the ares where the rockets are coming from with artillery and reducing those areas to rubble. But they don't do that and they pay the price both in dollars and Israeli lives for that choice.

And what do they get for their efforts to save Palestinain lives? People like you and others here condemn them and call them bloodthirsty murderers of innocent civilians. And if you are ever forced to admit that Israel did anything that resulted in fewer Palestinain deaths - you say they only did it for the PR value or because to do otherwise would bring too much condemnation. It seems impossible for you to believe that Israelis are human beings with consciences and ethical beliefs who maybe would prefer not to kill Palestinain civilians if they could otherwise defend themselves.

It's posts like this that cause me to see how strong emotions can so easily overpower simple reasoning - and why such irrational bitterness and hatred for "other" people will continue to be the primary cause of violence and death in the world, even when reasonable and peaceful alternatives are available. It's a sad realization.

[oberliner]

10. A tactic toward what eventual outcome?

It seems to me that the ultimate outcome for Hamas is the "liberation of all of historic Palestine." That is to say, the elimination of Israel in its current incarnation. That a temporary cease fire is one tactic in this struggle suggests that Hamas would not have a problem returning to violence as a tactic at some point in the future (Meshal, in fact, made this very point).

Instead of alternating between these tactics, Hamas ought to renounce the intentional killing of Israel civilians as a viable element of their liberation struggle. In addition, the Hamas leadership ought to declare that if a two-state solution, negotiated and accepted by both parties, is reached, then they would no longer pursue the goal of eliminating Israel.

If Hamas were to make those policy changes, it could go a long way towards creating an environment where a peaceful solution to this conflict could truly seem possible.

[Vegasaurus]

12. I agree with Oberliner here

Hamas has always been clear in its goal to take back "all of greater Palestine".

Any lull in violence is temporary, since the goal is not peace with Israel (this has been stated by the Hamas leadership time and time again) but getting rid of Israel altogether.

There will be no "peace" with Hamas. They are clear about that.

[bemildred]

13. What is a truce if not an agreement to stop killing?

Must an agreement to stop killing claim to be permanent for it to be worthwhile? Does Hamas demand that Israel stop the killing before it will talk? Isn't a permanent end to the killing exactly what any talks would be about?

As for the other thing, they have already said they would accept the results of a vote of the Palestinian people on ANY 2-state solution negotiated by Fatah/Abbas.

Now, will Israel agree to stop pursuing it's goal of emiminating Hamas?

[msmcghee]

14. This is not a game of checkers. People are dying,

. . lives are ending, families are being destroyed. As long as one side (Hamas) has as their intention, the "elimination" of the other side using violence - Israel has only one responsibility - to prevent that from happening. All their decisions are justifiably made toward that end. If a temporary cease fire would be logistically advantageous to Hamas in any way - then Israel would be making its own demise more likely by agreeing to it. If Hamas calls for a temporary cease fire I'd say a good response from Israel may well be to increase the attacks on Hamas - but it's not for me or anyone else here who is not a citizen of Israel to say what their response should be.

The government of Israel has a responsibility to its citizens to do whatever makes its own demise less, not more likely. I realize this greatly enrages some here but it's up to Israel to decide what their response will be - not some horde of keyboard warriors cheering on Israel's enemies from thousands of miles away.

[oberliner]

16. But we are talking about the intentional killing of civilians

Hamas has identified attacks on civilians in Sderot and Ashkelon as well as "martyrdom operations" such as the suicide bombing in Netanya (the Passover Massacre) as legitimate tactics in their fight for liberation.

Promising to put attacks such as these on hold for six months, with a pledge that such tactics will later resume indicates that Hamas continues to find nothing illegitimate about using acts of terror against civilians as part of their arsenal.

As for your other claim, various Hamas leaders have made various statements in that regard. Many have stated that the eventual goal would be the liberation of all of Palestine, viewing the 2-state solution as a possible interim step towards that eventual goal.

I think that if Hamas takes steps to transform itself from a terrorist organization to a peace partner then Israel will stop pursuing its goal of eliminating Hamas.

As I've said many times, both sides have the potential to take bold steps that could lead to peace. Hamas, for instance, could completely alter the dynamics of the conflict by rejecting terrorism and embracing peaceful coexistence with Israel.

[msmcghee]

17. Your statement . . .

"Hamas, for instance, could completely alter the dynamics of the conflict by rejecting terrorism and embracing peaceful coexistence with Israel."

That would not be just a "bold step that could lead to peace". It is the only step, except perhaps Israel's capitulation - that could possibly lead to peace.

[bemildred]

19. So you oppose the truce? nt

[oberliner]

22. Anything that reduces the amount of violence is a positive step

I would support a truce, however I would remain skeptical about any long-term hope for a negotiated final settlement with Hamas unless they were to dramatically alter their positions as I indicated.

Six months of calm would certainly be better than six months of attacks.

Where, though, do you feel the breakthrough might come that will lead us to a real and substantive long-term peace in the region?

Where do you see the areas for compromise? What do you see as a good beginning point for negotiations? What role do you think the United States should play in all of this?

[msmcghee]

23. You say . .

"Six months of calm would certainly be better than six months of attacks."

Not if those six months of calm were used by Hamas to solidify their military position, train their cadres and concentrate their efforts on bringing in more lethal weapons, unimpeded by IDF operations. That could make a long term solution even less likely. Those are the choices Israel is facing. Laying down one's weapons is not always the path to peace. This is especially true when your enemy seeks your total destruction - and not some political settlement as part of a long term peace.

[oberliner]

26. Aren't they doing that anyway?

Hamas seems to be able to do those things that you listed with no truce in place. It seems like if they can be convinced to stop shooting rockets at Sderot and Ashkelon and to stop attempting suicide operations inside Israel for six months then that would be a good thing for the people of Israel.

If Hamas spends those six months preparing for a more severe military conflict with Israel, well, then, it will be clear to Israel and the world that Hamas has no real interest in any kind of long or medium term peace.

If Hamas wants a large-scale military confrontation, then, at some point, that is what they will most likely get, but maybe six months of calm could open up some space for a different approach.

[msmcghee]

27. I appreciate your even-handed approach to this conflict.

I especially appreciate your intentions - which seem unfailingly to seek a reduction in the violence and a peaceful settlement - something you reiterate in almost every post. I share your goals - and I strongly believe the majority of Israelis share them as well.

However, I don't believe that it's at all clear that agreeing to a temporary ceasefire would further that purpose. It could well have the opposite effect of making any long-term peace less likely. I am not saying that I have any special knowledge in these matters - only that it seems counter-productive to me, for people several thousands of miles from the conflict, safely ensconced behind their keyboards and with little to lose in the long run - like their lives or the sovereignty of their state - should so blithely second-guess the people whose lives and country are at stake in this conflict - the people who actually have been under attack for sixty years by an enemy sworn to its destruction.

As long as Israel sincerely desires peace and is engaged in proportional defense - and as long as Hamas sincerely desires to destroy the state of Israel and is engaged in offensive operations to reach that end - and I think there's little doubt on either of those propositions - then second-guessing Israel's actions from this side only makes their job of defending their citizens' lives and reaching a long-term peaceful solution that much more difficult.

The best way to achieve peace in the world is to condemn aggressors and support those who defend against aggression. Trying to find some middle ground - attempting to compromise with aggressors and give them some of what they want - only prolongs the inevitable. By getting part of what they want by killing, violence and implacable belligerence - they will naturally decide they can get even more with a little more of that.

I think you and some other liberals make a serious error in believing that people who purposely target civilians will wake up some day and decide that compromising their goals in order to live in peace with their sworn enemy suddenly makes sense to them - no matter what Israel does to placate them. Didn't Israel's complete withdrawal from Gaza pretty much prove that beyond any possible doubt? Hamas will stop trying to destroy Israel only when they themselves are destroyed to the level where they can not do so any longer. (Feel free to show any evidence at all that contradicts this prediction in any way.)

This is part of our liberal philosophy that I find so difficult to fathom. Sometimes in life a conservative approach makes more sense. Reality does not selectively provide us with problems that can always be solved with one set of tools. There are people in the world who value peace and are willing to give up a lot to achieve it. When such people are in conflict the liberal tools of negotiation, reason and compromise are invaluable - and I'd always prefer that approach. But, there are some, who have no problem with attacking and killing others to get what they want, even when a peaceful compromise is available. When dealing with the latter - that's definitely one of those times when the tools in the conservative toolbox make more sense, IMO.

The sooner Israel takes care of the task of effectively destroying Hamas, IJ, aAB and the others - the sooner there will be any chance for peace in the region. Playing along with Hamas' "phased strategy" for Israel's destruction is the worst possible path for Israel to follow - IMHO - and will only make Israel's demise (and the deaths of millions of civilians on both sides in some final war) more likely. Surely you would avoid that nightmare scenario if you could. I strongly believe that is what Israel is trying to do.

[oberliner]

33. What can Israel do to get the rockets to stop?

I come back to that question, because, in spite of the fact that, at this point, there is no truce, and Israel is relatively free to conduct operations in Gaza as it sees fit, there are still rockets falling on Sderot and Ashkelon on a fairly regular basic.

It seems like this in-between situation that the region is in just leaves everyone treading water in a sea of violence, hatred, and distrust.

Either there is going to be movement towards a peace agreement or there is going to be movement towards an all-out war.

I don't see a scenario where Israel can somehow make those groups you mentioned cease to exist without either rendering their ideology unattractive to the Palestinian people (by, theoretically, reaching some kind of mutually acceptable peace agreement) or by engaging in a protracted large-scale military conflict that would undoubtedly result in countless civilian deaths on both sides and would keep the Palestinians (and the Arab word generally) in a state of hostility against Israel for generations to come.

At least with a cease fire, Israel gets six months without those rocket attacks.

Eventually, however, Israelis and Palestinians are going to have to finally either make some serious compromises in the name of peace or go ahead and have the full-scale war that some on both sides seem to be itching for.

[msmcghee]

37. To answer your questions I need to . .

. . back off a bit and look at the whole picture. And I'm just speculating as I am not Israeli. It's Israel's view that's important. That said . .

It seems to me that Israel sees the sporadic and mostly ineffectual Qassam fire as a form of quasi-stability they can manage for a while. I suspect they believe that by maintaining the siege at the current levels they can force Hamas and the other militants to expose themselves sufficiently - that the IDF can periodically enter Gaza and kill enough higher level militants and destroy enough military capability - that such an ongoing campaign will be painful and damaging enough that Hamas will run out of options, fervor and/or the support of more Gazans as time goes by. As Hamas sees its options and chances decreasing - they may well decide to change their tune (and their Charter) or more likely, simply become irrelevant. They are in a position already where they must constantly increase the effectiveness of their attacks against Israel or lose credibility - and that's what's been happening to some extent. Demanding a cease-fire on their terms - and Israel accepting it - would give them a big credibility boost, which is another reason why Israel would be foolish to go along. Also, I suspect that life is not easy for Hamas leadership in these times. One of those air to ground missiles could hit their SUV at any time. Just the fact that they are encouraging a cease-fire tells me that's probably true. I'm sure they're not looking for a cease-fire to "give peace a chance".

At the same time I assume that Israel is planning for a large scale assault on Hamas and the militants should the rocket attacks become more deadly - which they well could given enough time. I think a six month respite could bring that day measurably closer. I suspect Israel hopes to postpone that decision for as long as possible to give any reconciliation or movement toward a two-state solution with Abbas - as much chance as possible. Whatever is decided along those lines will probably look a lot like a WB version of Taba - with reconciliation with Gaza left open for the future.

If an all-out attack on Gaza is necessary (hopefully it is not) then it will be good for Israel if the WB is not just a source for counter-attacks. If such an attack places the PLO in effective control of Gaza of course, that would be good for Israel (as the PLO is currently aligned) and that's at least a possibility. Violent conflict is always a coin toss to some extent.

As far as compromise - that's what Taba was - that's what leaving Gaza was. I know it's hard for some people (us liberals) to admit that there are people in the world who prefer killing and dieing to peace - but I think that we are looking at one big example in Hamas.

In summary, no change in policy is also an option that Israel has available. In some case that's the best option. Israel seems to be accepting sporadic rocket fire. I'm assuming they see that as their best option right now.

Again, these are just guesses on my part that have no importance on the matter and I don't pretend to have any special insight.

[eyl]

51. asdf

If Hamas spends those six months preparing for a more severe military conflict with Israel, well, then, it will be clear to Israel and the world that Hamas has no real interest in any kind of long or medium term peace.

If their actions so far haven't done this, I doubt resuming attacks after a six-month truce will do so.

[bemildred]

30. I think a resolution will have to be imposed.

I don't see Hamas and the Israeli government ever working out a deal that both accept on their own, at least not as things are now. But in saying "not as things are now", I am lead back to "imposed", that is the result of outside forces. Neither side is in a position to impose it's will, and neither is politically in a position to compromise to the necessary extent. If fact it's even contentious to work towards that end, to attempt to ratchet down the violence and the rhetoric. As with this truce offer.

(For those who will say "Israel could militarily crush the Palestinians", I say that I can go shoot my neighbor for pissing me off too, but that doesn't mean that is going solve my problems, it will just create newer and worse ones.)

[msmcghee]

32. Only if your neighbor . .

. . was not trying to shoot you and your kids at the time. In a sane universe you'd be seen as a hero.

An "imposed" solution is the same as saying the UN should prevent Israel from defending itself. The UN has had the option of moving in to Gaza and the WB for 40 years to defend Israel from outside attack by terrorists. I've seen nothing but resolutions condemning israel for its self defense. You think they're going to come in now that Hamas has loaded up with anti-tank rockets from Iran - and knowing that if they got in the way of Israel's defense in any way they'd likely be killed? That's funny.

Based on their siding with Hisb'allah in the last few years I don't think Israel would even allow them the airspace to try to bring in troops.

[bemildred]

35. Actually I was thinking the US and the EU, not the UN.

The UN can't do diddle by itself, it has no independent means to enforce anything. There are other possibilities too, depending on how the decline of the Western powers continues, or does not continue. As it is the US is hamstrung in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that affects everything else.

[msmcghee]

38. Right, I can see NATO or any other . .

. . force existing of those elements bombing and killing Jews in Israel for defending themselves from rocket attacks.

Afterthought: Maybe Obama should include that in his platform for ME peace.

[bemildred]

39. I'm sorry, I have no idea what you are trying to say.

However, taking a guess, are you asserting that NATO really gives a crap about such things? Nations have interests, not friends, as the saying goes. Whatever US or EU support of Israel is based on, it isn't a love of principle, international law, or human rights.

[msmcghee]

41. That's quite a revealing statement.

I may answer it more fully later - but for now I think it deserves to stand on its own as a testament to the "anti-Zionist" left.

[bemildred]

42. You are most amusing today.

What ever happened to "This is not a game!"?

[LeftishBrit]

24. I support the truce; but don't see it as an enormous step forward

A small step forward, yes. And anything's better than nothing

It would be great if someone from the Hamas leadership made a much bolder offer. I suspect that there may well be some who would consider doing so -except that it would currently present a major threat, not just to their political lives, but their literal lives. We know what happened to both Sadat and Rabin, at the hands of compatriots who didn't care for their approaches to the other side - and there is much more internal political violence and instability in Gaza than there was in Egypt or Israel.

But here's hoping for something better for the future.

[bemildred]

28. I'll answer you rather than Oberliner.

We more or less agree, I think. It's not a big step, it doesn't really do anything great to resolve issues. But precisely because there is nothing much at stake, neither side's position will be much improved whether the fighting continues or not, then you might as well not fight. One can make a good argument that Israel would benefit from it more than Hamas, simply by virtue of not having the continuing stream of negative news and imagery for a time, not having the expense of continuing military operations, not having ones attention distracted from other necessary matters for a while. Meanwhile, Hamas might manage to accumulate better arms and become better trained, yet they still have no chance to achieve any offensive capability beyond the guerilla tactics they already employ, and one result of such better training and organization would better control of whether there are rockets or no rockets, in other words Gaza could become less chaotic. But I'm not going to defend that there. One ought to at least consider the possible advantages of such a truce, it's never that simple, instead of knee-jerk rejection because it came from Hamas.

[oberliner]

29. Why don't you want to answer the questions I posed?

I'd be genuinely curious to read your responses.

[bemildred]

31. I have. nt

[Vegasaurus]

25. I don't oppose a truce

I am skeptical of a truce, because Hamas has never changed its goals, and has never made any effort at all to reign in all the militants.

It can't stop the rockets from falling, even if they aren't being shot from members of the Hamas "armed wing".

There is so much inner turmoil among the Palestinians, and they can't even get on the same page regarding how to commemorate their "nabhka", so I am doubtful that they can agree on or follow through on a truce.

And, as long as Hamas is clear that they plan to take back all of Israel, what is a truce? A time for them to rearm.

Israel is wise to tread slowly.

[bemildred]

34. Skepticism is a good thing.

So is no rockets. To me no rockets carries more weight than worries about Hamas' cability to build it's own wehrmacht.

[oberliner]

36. Why use a word associated with the Nazis there?

Any particular reason for that word choice?

[bemildred]

40. Not of the sort you are thinking

Although I can see why you ask. The term does predate WWII, and it is THE exemplar of modern aggressive total war. If one wants to indicate the notion of developing a machine for military conquest, that is the example that comes to mind. It means "war machine", roughly. I suppose you could mention the Japanese, who were a good example of that, but there is no equivalent term for the Japanese military machine, as far as I know. The Italians were largely a joke. It would be divisive in this venue to bring up the US military or the IDF. So it was the term that came to mind. If I had been more sensitive I might have hunted around for a lesser equivalent, but basically I don't care, when it's the correct term, I will use it.

[Lithos]

43. Wehrmacht

Means "defense force" and is more of a euphemism for "army". If it meant war machine, it would be something akin to Kriegsmaschine. As for it being the exemplar example, I'm afraid not. Germany never really took the idea of total war seriously until well after the start of WWII. I think they finally shifted from a civilian economy to a war economy around late-1940/early-1941 and never really instituted the type of discipline that the Soviets, the UK or the US engaged in from the absolute beginning of their respective entries into the War.

[bemildred]

44. In the US we call it the "Defense Department" too.

You are right it's not "war machine", I'm not much on German (obviously), or anything but English and a bit of French. And you are right about the dates for the use of the name. Mea culpa. Prior to 1947 the US' "Defense Department" was the "War Department" or "War Office". We were more honest before 1947.

For the purpose I used it, it still seems appropriate. Are you suggesting that WWI (one) was not a "total war" as the term is generally used? Are you suggesting that the Wehrmacht (1935-1947) was not an "exemplar" for mobilization for aggressive "total war?" I generally trace the rise of total war in the modern sense back to the French revolution and the levee en masse. But it is true that industrial war was a thing that developed over a long period culminating in WWII. It still develops, I suppose, but the consequences are such that it's been avoided since WWII. The application of industrial development to waging of war developed over a long time in parallel with the rise of modern industry itself. What would you suggest instead of "wehrmacht" for the purpose I had?

My purpose was to suggest how unlikely it was that Hamas could ever construct a force able to directly conquer Israel.

Edit: I mean, I was sloppy there, what else can I say? This is a sloppy venue here. But I'm still inclined to defend the usage.

[Lithos]

46. Total War

In somethings, the Wehrmacht exemplified total war, in other areas it did not or at least not initially. Germany did not enact a real draft until after Stalingrad in 1942, so their army was not "levee en masse". They also were very ill-prepared for the concept of strategic bombing. Yes, they did attempt some of that, but they waffled between commitment and towards using the air force for pure tactical measures.

However, I do agree with your assessment of the roots being with the French Revolution and the introduction of "levee en masse", though there were suggestions prior to that time. Jan Zizka of Bohemia, the Dutch during their fights with Spain, the English Civil War, and of course the American Revolution. Funny how total war and internal civil wars and wars of liberation seem to all be lumped together?

As for WWI, I think it was not initially a total war. I don't think it reached that state until about 1915 when it became obvious the winner was going to be the winner of the industrial game. This is when Germany launched the U-boat offensive and the Battle of Jutland occurred. It wasn't the new US troops that caused the Germans to launch their last offensive in 1918 using the Strosstruppen, but the fear of the US economy helping prop up the British and French.

Now backtracking to the issue of Hamas. The problem here is, does Hamas recognize that they are not ever going to be able to directly conquer Israel? They have never had the ability to do so in the past, but that has never stopped their rhetoric. Added to this, the use of suicide bombers does imply at some level their use of the idea of denial by force. Would Hamas conduct a scorched earth policy which while they would not win, deny Israel the same? Or does Hamas think they can actually win?

This is I think the fundamental issue concerning the official acceptance of the right of Israel's existence vs the defacto acceptance of the existance of Israel. It is sort of analogous to the issue of Northern Ireland where the Catholics accepted the existence of the Protestants, but never accepted they (and the British) had any right to be there.

[bemildred]

48. Paragraphs in order ...

1.) Well, yes, but it's a process, not a state of being. I don't want to defend the German war planners (highly competent though they were in some respects). Though it's worth noticing the continuity that existed in the German general staff throughout the period from 1871 to the end of WWII, which was part of what I had in mind, the professionalism. They clearly misjudged things in both WWII and WWI, or the political leaders did; but the Allied war planners were not so hot either. Churchill in his WWI history speaks rather ill (but politely and largely not aiming at anyone in particular) about the planning and tactics used in WWI (in between pointing out how right he himself was about everything).

2.) I think history is really a continuous process, and we make these demarcation points for our own convenience, or when a dramatic events occur. I've seen the US' Civil War mentioned as an early case of "total war" too, Sherman and all that, the industrial North vs the agrarian South, drowning the other guy in war production.

3.) Correct, they sort of made it up as they went along, and things "developed". These things seem to have a logic of their own, once they get going. Witness Iraq.

4. & 5.) I don't know what Hamas really thinks. I don't really think Hamas is an entity that can be said to have thoughts, so it's a convenient fiction to talk in that way. That said, some Hamas spokespersons have acknowledged that Israel "exists" and that they have not the means to remove it. But others of course like the purple rhetoric; that isn't a uniquely Palestinian political feature. I generally consider that Hamas can make themselves obnoxious in perpetuity; these things can drag on for decades and centuries, as you know, the names changing, the fundamental issues never addressed. I would be quite skeptical that the wiser heads, at least, in Hamas have any illusions about short term conquest. Time scale matters here, it's been said they are willing to leave the resolution to later generations, an indirect reference to the "demographic problem" I thought, and I have seen similar rhetoric regularly. But the truth is that the present generation, on either "side", does not have the power to compel later generations. We'll all be dead, they will do whatever they choose.

I don't care much about the official recognition issue. At some point it has to occur, I don't feel that it's the first thing that has to occur. You begin the process of talking rather than fighting any way you can, and as many times as you need to. The more people you have positively employed, the fewer are likely to be making rockets or helping to shoot them or protecting the shooters.

I was thinking (when I wrote that) of the notion that one sees here of Israel being pushed into the sea, and the fact that the Palestinians don't have the means to do that, or anything like that, and are not likely to get them any time soon. I think if Israel fails, it will fail from within. And from there I was aiming at countering the fear and doubt that is spread about the prospects of negotiations and Hamas rearming etc. The basic point was that what is to be feared from Hamas is what (generally) they can do already, you don't have much to lose that is not already lost, in terms of means and tactics, and you are not likely to have much effect on the spread of means and tactics for "low level" war. They are already cheap, widespread, and low-tech. It's going to get uglier but stay just as inconclusive. If "War brings clarity", then "Low-level war brings murkiness". Cheap rockets, car bombs, and suicide bombers are only in the beginning of their technical and tactical evolution, IMHO, and the consequences will be far reaching in ways we don't know yet.

It's perfectly sensible for Israel to try to prevent Hamas getting heavy weapons, of course. I don't know how much luck they will have with that, and there are trade-offs between what you prevent and the costs of preventing it that I don't know how to fully resolve. If I was a Hamas person I would not have the slightest interest in acquiring artillery, for instance. But there is no escape from risk, so just telling the worry-beads of your fears won't get you anywhere.

I don't think the current Arab powers are still interested in re-conquest, so analogies to 1973 and earlier wars are misleading at present. I think they'd like to get rid of the refugees and do business with Israel, to the extent that they could get away with it politically.

I think if there is to be any peaceful resolution to this conflict, all these people will have to learn to get along and live together, which is not an impossible task, but which also is going to be a long term job. So I am motivated to discredit rhetoric that aims to make that look impossible.

[Lithos]

49. Hamas, WWI, Marshall, Churchill and the US Civil War

1.) Well, yes, but it's a process, not a state of being. I don't want to defend the German war planners (highly competent though they were in some respects). Though it's worth noticing the continuity that existed in the German general staff throughout the period from 1871 to the end of WWII, which was part of what I had in mind, the professionalism. They clearly misjudged things in both WWII and WWI, or the political leaders did; but the Allied war planners were not so hot either. Churchill in his WWI history speaks rather ill (but politely and largely not aiming at anyone in particular) about the planning and tactics used in WWI (in between pointing out how right he himself was about everything).

I always thought that the German planners were very good at puzzle solving, but they were not very strategic. They almost always blew scale - they never quite grasped the complexity and depth of the situation in play. A few variables too short. Good things for us. This is the level which General Marshall and company did very well and why I think the US won WW II.

Churchill was very single minded, but also suffered poor planning and tactics. Gallipoli in WWI was his fault. Same with the failure of the Allies to take advantage of the Italian surrender and instead getting a fair number of resources bogged down fighting up the boot.

2.) I think history is really a continuous process, and we make these demarcation points for our own convenience, or when a dramatic events occur. I've seen the US' Civil War mentioned as an early case of "total war" too, Sherman and all that, the industrial North vs the agrarian South, drowning the other guy in war production.

The US Civil War was the first Modern War where modern concepts of movement, control as well as the integration of the military aspects into the politics (propaganda/news & electoral), industry and infrastructure were complete. You can see in many respects how it foreshadowed both WWI and WWII in how war was fought.

3.) Correct, they sort of made it up as they went along, and things "developed". These things seem to have a logic of their own, once they get going. Witness Iraq.

For some reason, seems to also happen when you get politicians who are so ignorant they view War as a tool of the first resort rather than last. Perhaps an unfortunate coincidence.

As for Hamas. For all intents purposes, it is a political party of several related factions, some of which are more or less local to their environs (Gaza, WB) and a few of which are international. It is the local groups which are more in touch with the local population which have been more willing to negotiate. However, the international factions seem to be more allied with Iran and a lot less willing to deviate from the rhetoric. Most of the militants seem to be tied towards the international factions which is why Hamas tends to be contrary to the best interests of the people they claim to represent and why it so many "official" statements are made which tend to be conflicting.

I do agree that most current Arab leadership are not genuinely interested in re-conquest. There are those such as Assad and Ahmadinejad who for their own local political reasons are likely to continue supporting those expressing such a viewpoint. Personally, I do not ever think Israel will ever be conquered or pushed to the sea. However, I do see a situation where Israel could experience large and devastating loss of life due to the use of NBC type weaponry. And given the technologies being employed, there really isn't much longer until that barrier is crossed.

My own take w/r to the statement of the "Right of existence" is that it is a mutual type of thing. I think it is essential and mutual step for both sides to make to make sure there is a acceptance of the legitimacy of the other party. And yes, I think it is important as an early step as I don't think anything lasting can happen with out it.

L-

[bemildred]

50. All copacetic.

Your characterization of German warmaking seems apt.

Your concerns about large loss of life are well founded, but I don't see any military means to surely prevent it. Tim McVeigh comes to mind. If you have a lot of angry people with certain kinds of knowledge running around, you're in trouble.

WRT the right to existence issue, I sort of agree, but would point out the two Koreas as an alternative example (if not necessarily a model one wants to follow). Sometimes you don't solve a problem so much as outlive it.

[bemildred]

52. A couple addenda:

1.) I think the thing about the Germans was they were always looking for quick fix, the lightning strike, the tactical brilliance, the insuperable technical edge, the crushing defeat. Militarily speaking that is not necessarily a bad thing, but it's not enough. Sometimes you can't do that and you have to plan to win the long slog too. Of course, once they got into it, they were on the losing end of the logistics war in both world conflicts, so in a way it was the only option to win that they had. But if you look at the opening of the war in both cases, you see that still, the dependence on making it short and decisive.

What strikes me about the Russians and the US in WWII is they did none of that, it was always a meat and potatoes war of attrition for them. Chew, chew, chew, swallow.

This is a disease the US seems to have picked up too. Technical and tactical advantages are not to be sneezed at, but you cannot depend on that sort of thing to win, sometimes it just isn't enough. In fact cases where it is enough are unusual.

2.) I've read a good deal of Churchill lately. Aside from the interest of what he has to say, he strikes me as a war nerd expatiating on those things he loves best, which are the details of modern war and himself.

[Lithos]

53. Cool

I would agree with you about the US approach, the whole idea of "Shock and Awe" is based on a quick fix mentality. Problem is weapons and military are only good and removing things, not at building. This remains a lesson the Bush regime seems to have not fully learned w/r to either Afghanistan or Iraq.

As for Churchill, are you reading his own written works, or those of his various biographers including Gilbert? I personally like Churchill, especially as a writer. He had a good eye and a keen sense of patterns, but I agree with the opinion of the British public in 1946 that he was not much of a builder and implementor of change.

[bemildred]

54. Well, the confusion about what the military is good for is another problem.

But they are not really using it to defend the USA, so they are forced into tortured (no pun intended) rhetoric to begin with. In Gulf War I there was a lot of talk about how the military is only good for killing people and breaking things, which was at least accurate. The Bushites do seem to have lost track of that, but they take pride in not being "reality based". So that continues ...

I read Churchill's one-volume WWI history (1929 I think) and the whole 6-volume set on WWII, within the last 2 years. He has his strengths and weaknesses. He was the right guy at the right time in WWII on the whole. He was not so good in WWI. I was annoyed at the way he glossed over the human wastage of trench warfare in the WWI book. He claims to have known the futility of it, but he doesn't appear to have done much about it. I don't dislike him, I'm just saying how he came across to me in those two works.

I'm reading Gore Vidal's memoir "Palimpsest" right now. It's the same sort of thing, good writing, interesting, but one cannot help noticing his personal attributes too.