Israel has moved into Gaza.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/03/israel.gaza/index.html

I wonder if Hizbullah will now open another front in south Lebanon.

Israel has moved into Gaza.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/03/israel.gaza/index.html

Kick butt and take names.

I'm truely hoping there's another alternative. There are a lot of innocent people living in Gaza, the true "no-man's land". There were interviews last night on our local TV news, and even a Rabbi from Israel felt that Israel was being too forceful. He didn't say force wasn't needed, but not to this degree. There has to be a better long-term solution than killing everyone in Gaza. Many of those people are NOT terrorists, NOT Hamas, NOT concerned with anything more than living their lives, hopefully peacefully.

 

The US should NOT support Israel in unchecked retaliation. I'm all for supporting Israel, but not blindly. We need to think carefully about our support, as well as our role in a short-term cease fire, as well as in negotiating a longer-term peace resolution.

 

Good post. I imagine Israel's retaliation would have been less violent if an election weren't forthcoming, particularly if Barak weren't in the position he his - both in the government and the polls. Your post touches on the unsolvability of the situation, though. Certainly Israel may defend itself, but what end are they expecting from this particular retaliation other than future rocket attacks and further entrenching Hamas?

Edited January 4, 200917 yr by Habib

I guess it all depends upon what you define as "lasting" peace.

 

I'd say the past 60 years have been pretty peaceful between the U.S. - Japan, Germany and Italy.

 

Of course it required the total crushing of their ability and willingness to wage war before we could safely call them allies. We had no "smart" bombs at that time. We nuked and firebombed entire cities. I realize that a lot of compassioate revisionists now look back and consider our actions in 1945 as heavyhanded. The fact is, those blankety-blanks started it. They attacked us, and if we didn't respond definitively they were going to take us over.

 

Vietnam and the Korean conflict have clouded the moral clarity this great nation once understood fully.

 

If you examine the histories of Japan and Germany it could be argued that the best thing that could have happened to them was getting defeated by the U.S. The most compassionate victors at war in the history of the world.

 

As far as Hamas or any other aggressor, where does it say that both armies in a war have to be equally armed? Why should we feel sorry for the idiot with a peashooter picking a fight with guys with slingshots?

 

One would think that the idiots insisting upon picking fights by lobbing missles at the Israelis would eventually conclude that they are pursuing a foolish plan. Maybe if the count climbs to 10 to 1, or 20 to 1 they'll figure things out.

 

Are you seriously suggesting that any of us have compassion for the jerks that keep starting the fight time after time?

 

I think there may be a typo or something on this point, as I am unable to fully grasp your intention if you are disagreeing with Israeli strategy here. Otherwise, I have to say this strategy makes the most sense for the Israelis.

 

 

1. I'm not convinced you can compare Japan/Germany with Palestine/Israel or Serb/Croat/Albania. One was much more about warfare than ethnic warfare. That was my point.

 

2. I never said anything about sympathy for the Hamas terrorists. You are reading into my open discussion with an interpretation that is incorrect. I was pointing out the civillian/innocents involved and the never ending cycle that violence often begats violence (particularly in ethnic conflicts). My point about the death count was to merely point out the discrepency of numbers. I believe most of the killed are involved in the terror but there are still many that are not.

 

3. I thought it was clear that I thought the Israelis were being as tactful as they can choosing this overall strategy. Perhaps your assumption is the problem. You assume since I am willing to question whether this strategy will gain the Israelis what they truly want (security and peaceful existence) that I must be against the strategy of targeting enemies and issuing warnings. You assume incorrectly. :thumb:

Good post. I imagine Israel's retaliation would have been less violent if an election weren't forthcoming, particularly if Barak weren't in the position he his, in both the government and the polls. Your post touches on the unsolvability of the situation, though. Certainly Israel may defend itself, but what end are the expecting from this particular retaliation other than future rocket attacks and further entrenching Hamas?

 

The very question I have tried to pose as well. This is a strategy, but is it the only one and is it going to bring Israel what it really wants?

cch5432 is in Israel right now.

 

Have you heard from him lately? I hope he's OK. It's my understanding that the attacks by Hamas on Israel have really only penetrated the areas closest to the border.

 

FWIW, I saw some footage of the destruction in Gaza, and it breaks my heart at the destruction of historic buildings/Mosques that's being done. I know no one cares, but it's truely history that's being destroyed there.

 

I hope he is OK too.

 

I will be back in the US in a few days. This trip has been the experience of a lifetime. The destruction of the historic buildings angers me too, especially after this trip. It is good (:creepy: I don't know which adjective is really appropriate) to know, however, that if Hamas or anyone so much as laid a finger on Jerusalem (home to important Churches for Judaism, Islam, and Christianity) than Israel would destroy them. I have less to say about the political side of the trip then religious (because it was a pilgrimage to the Holy Land), but let me assure you that I am in no danger.

 

However, it is worth noting that I am wearing a shirt that says the word "Louisville" on it tommorrow, and if these people are anywhere near as fanatical as CATS fans in Lexington, then I may see a whole 'nother side to the "Holy Land". :lol:

Good post. I imagine Israel's retaliation would have been less violent if an election weren't forthcoming, particularly if Barak weren't in the position he his - both in the government and the polls. Your post touches on the unsolvability of the situation, though. Certainly Israel may defend itself, but what end are they expecting from this particular retaliation other than future rocket attacks and further entrenching Hamas?

If it were up to you, what would you propose? 6,464 rocket attacks over the last three years can wear a bit thin on anyone. There has to be something done, but what?

1. I'm not convinced you can compare Japan/Germany with Palestine/Israel or Serb/Croat/Albania. One was much more about warfare than ethnic warfare. That was my point.

I understand, but in my mind it's kinda like trying to distinguish between crimes and "hate" crimes... murder is still murder and should be punished equally regardless of the degree of "hate" involved. War is war, regardless of the cause, when it comes to fighting, people dying and one side trying to wipe out the other, all wars are essentially ethnic wars.

 

If you read this thread you will find comments from all sides of this issue basically affirming that there seems to be no end to the violence. I agree. That’s why the only solution that seems to buy time is the threat of overwhelming force. Israel is too small to get into the whole tit-for-tat thing. If they are assaulted, they should respond with overwhelming force to such a degree that their antagonists think twice, three times, and then again before picking new fights.

 

Crazy as it sounds, Israel is basically a peaceful nation… in that, they do not go around looking for new skirmishes to initiate. They can’t afford to. Virtually every conflict they’ve had over the past 40 years or more were started by others. They simply can’t just sit back and absorb assaults if they are to survive.

2. I never said anything about sympathy for the Hamas terrorists. You are reading into my open discussion with an interpretation that is incorrect. I was pointing out the civillian/innocents involved and the never ending cycle that violence often begats violence (particularly in ethnic conflicts). My point about the death count was to merely point out the discrepency of numbers. I believe most of the killed are involved in the terror but there are still many that are not.

Maybe you did not imply sympathy for the Hamas terrorists, but others do. I'm weary of hearing about how those mean old Israelis just won't be fair when Israel is surrounded by millions of "ethnic" enemies sworn to their destruction and idiots like Hamas won't stop provoking them.

 

War is a nasty thing. It's too bad the innocent civilians can't access the truth about the fools on their side of the issue who insist upon lobbing bombs at Israel. I’m sure their press colors it all against Israel. No matter how precise Israel may be in their responses, their enemies are not above dragging in every corpse that passed away by natural causes over the previous week and littering them about for media photo ops.

 

Until the surrounding Arab states boot out the clowns on their side that keep the fight going, overwhelming force is Israel’s only practical option.

3. I thought it was clear that I thought the Israelis were being as tactful as they can choosing this overall strategy. Perhaps your assumption is the problem. You assume since I am willing to question whether this strategy will gain the Israelis what they truly want (security and peaceful existence) that I must be against the strategy of targeting enemies and issuing warnings. You assume incorrectly. :thumb:

Actually, that is how I read your comment, but I am guilty of not believing what I read. So, I will admit to being guilty as charged on this point. :thumb: :lol:

If it were up to you, what would you propose? 6,464 rocket attacks over the last three years can wear a bit thin on anyone. There has to be something done, but what?

 

One has to question WHY Israel waited so long, then. Also, in that time, I think only a score of Israelies were killed.

 

I abhor the loss of even one innocent life. But, ~400 for ~20?

One has to question WHY Israel waited so long, then. Also, in that time, I think only a score of Israelies were killed.

 

I abhor the loss of even one innocent life. But, ~400 for ~20?

Believe me, I'm in agreement with you. However, the fact that they waited so long does show restraint on their behalf. I can only assume they are getting fed up with the attacks. I would love to see a peaceful solution to this, but knowing the history of the turmoil, I doubt it will happen any time soon.

If rockets were hitting Texas from Mexico what would we do? It is about time Israel attacks these radicals. In war people die. The days of WW2 are over. These cowards dress like normal civilians which makes them harder to identify, hide weapons in civilian homes and neighborhoods and use women and children as shields. Israel has the right to protect herself. I just hope they finish the job.

Believe me, I'm in agreement with you. However, the fact that they waited so long does show restraint on their behalf. I can only assume they are getting fed up with the attacks. I would love to see a peaceful solution to this, but knowing the history of the turmoil, I doubt it will happen any time soon.

 

 

I agree it shows restraint, but wouldn't the same be true at even a third that total rocket attacks? I've been doing a lot of research on this, and I really question, given the relative harmlessness of the Hamas attacks, whether Israel would be doing this now, if it weren't for the political implications present today that weren't previously.

I agree it shows restraint, but wouldn't the same be true at even a third that total rocket attacks? I've been doing a lot of research on this, and I really question, given the relative harmlessness of the Hamas attacks, whether Israel would be doing this now, if it weren't for the political implications present today that weren't previously.

You and Habib may be 100% correct about the political implications. I have to wonder how much this will escalate now that troops have moved into Gaza. As I said earlier, I wouldn't be surprised to see Hizbullah open another front.

If it were up to you, what would you propose? 6,464 rocket attacks over the last three years can wear a bit thin on anyone. There has to be something done, but what?

 

The problems in Israel are so deep-seated they won't easily be ended in the span of a few weeks. It's going to require a long-term, systemic solution. I don't know what that is.

The problems in Israel are so deep-seated they won't easily be ended in the span of a few weeks. It's going to require a long-term, systemic solution. I don't know what that is.

Me either. To be honest, I don't see a solution in our lifetime.