Israel - Palestine discussion thread

[Danoff]

The crux of the disagreement seems to be in what Israel knew and when. If you assume that Israel was completely confident that Hezbollah ordered them and that all Hezbollah operatives are terrorists or otherwise combatants against Israel, then you might call this a targeted attack against terrorists or against an Israeli military foe with random casualties nearby. I'm sure Israel assumes that whoever is nearby is bad too.

For what it's worth, at least one report I read suggested that metal balls were packed around the explosives to maximize blast impact.

I personally do not give Israel the benefit of the doubt on these finer points. I do not assume they were confident that the pagers went to Hezbollah, I do not assume that Hezbollah is entirely terrorist or even Israel combatants, I do not assume a single use for the pagers, and I do not assume that bystanders are guilty by association. I can see how there is some disagreement on how these events are interpreted, it circles around how you fill in the gaps in information. But I do think that it is somewhat inescapable that the primary focus is to create terrorism around a mode of communication and to play statistics for killing terrorists/combatants with expected casualties.

 

[HenrySwanson]

What we should be aiming for is an Israel that doesn't herd Palestinians onto reservations, then compress those reservations until they explode.

Yep.

I'd like to know how popular this view is in Israel as I haven't heard Israeli thoughts on recent events.

Israel defended themselves when attacked (well, and appropriately)

It's really no wonder that Hamas has resorted to terrorism. That doesn't excuse it, but it's not rocket science to figure out why it's happened, if the Israelis could bother to be at all self-critical.

Why were they initially attacked?

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

The crux of the disagreement seems to be in what Israel knew and when. If you assume that Israel was completely confident that Hezbollah ordered them and that all Hezbollah operatives are terrorists or otherwise combatants against Israel, then you might call this a targeted attack against terrorists or against an Israeli military foe with random casualties nearby. I'm sure Israel assumes that whoever is nearby is bad too.

For what it's worth, at least one report I read suggested that metal balls were packed around the explosives to maximize blast impact.

I personally do not give Israel the benefit of the doubt on these finer points. I do not assume they were confident that the pagers went to Hezbollah, I do not assume that Hezbollah is entirely terrorist or even Israel combatants, I do not assume a single use for the pagers, and I do not assume that bystanders are guilty by association. I can see how there is some disagreement on how these events are interpreted, it circles around how you fill in the gaps in information. But I do think that it is somewhat inescapable that the primary focus is to create terrorism around a mode of communication and to play statistics for killing terrorists/combatants with expected casualties.

Even assuming that Israel had reasonable certainty that the pagers were only in Hezbollah member's possession*, it's still a totally reckless disregard for human life. I'd gather that a huge majority of Hezbollah members have families and that those families are comprised of fairly typical people, IE not terrorists. You can't detonate the personal devices of thousands of people and expect none of them to be near innocent people. If somebody detonated my phone right now, it would probably injure or kill 5 or 6 people.

*I suspect that Mossad has somebody inside Hezbollah that orchestrated the ordering and distribution of the pagers, so I doubt many, if any, other people had them.

 

[Duke]

Yep.

I'd like to know how popular this view is in Israel as I haven't heard Israeli thoughts on recent events.


Why were they initially attacked?

I’m talking about the later Arab-Israeli wars - the 6 Days War in 1967 and the Yom Kippur War in 1973. In both those cases, a (relatively) stable Israel was directly assaulted by an Arabic coalition. In both cases, they fought back hard and fought back well.

But since that time, they have continued to squeeze the Palestinian settlements past the breaking point.

If someone takes a swing at you first, you get to hit back. But once you’ve got them on the ground, time to quit. If you keep taunting them and bullying them, sooner or later they’re going to figure out a way to hit you back. And in the meantime, you’ve thrown away the moral high ground and the good will of the crowd who watched the original fight and saw you as the defender.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I’m talking about the later Arab-Israeli wars - the 6 Days War in 1967 and the Yom Kippur War in 1973. In both those cases, a (relatively) stable Israel was directly assaulted by an Arabic coalition.

Why?

 

[Duke]

Why?

The berk are you trying to get at? Just say it.

[edit] They were attacked for being Israel.

 

[ScottPuss20]

What an extraordinary attack from Israel. Disabling a few thousand Hezbollah terrorists with pagers to catch them off guard is seriously impressive. I wonder what will happen next.

 

[HenrySwanson]

They were attacked for being Israel.

Which is why

FWIW I also want the 2 state solution and think it's the best outcome - but I'm not sure it will realistically change all that much in terms of violent confrontations. It's sad.

It will always be in the "Holy" Lands.

 

[Duke]

Which is why

It will always be in the "Holy" Lands.

Agreed, see my stance on religion in general elsewhere on this board.

But don’t you think that there might be a much better chance of peace if there was a reasonable amount of land that was officially designated as Palestine, and then the Israelis kept their greedy mitts off it?

It was always going to be tense, but Israel kind of set the tone in 1947-1948 when they not only fought to remove Palestinians from the area designated to be Israel, but also usurped some territories that were designated to be Palestine and the shared city of Jerusalem.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Agreed, see my stance on religion in general elsewhere on this board.

But don’t you think that there might be a much better chance of peace if there was a reasonable amount of land that was officially designated as Palestine, and then the Israelis kept their greedy mitts off it?

Honestly, I don't know how long it would last.

It was always going to be tense, but Israel kind of set the tone in 1947-1948 when they not only fought to remove Palestinians from the area designated to be Israel, but also usurped some territories that were designated to be Palestine and the shared city of Jerusalem.

As I'm researching more about the history of the region, can you link to these examples?

I know of Irgun really by name only but was there a more general movement?

 

[Danoff]

Even assuming that Israel had reasonable certainty that the pagers were only in Hezbollah member's possession*, it's still a totally reckless disregard for human life.

*I suspect that Mossad has somebody inside Hezbollah that orchestrated the ordering and distribution of the pagers, so I doubt many, if any, other people had them.

I don't make these assumptions. I don't think Israel merits benefit of the doubt on these points.

What an extraordinary attack from Israel. Disabling a few thousand Hezbollah terrorists with pagers to catch them off guard is seriously impressive. I wonder what will happen next.

I'm glad you're impressed by terrorists. [/s]

 

[Touring Mars]

I don't make these assumptions. I don't think Israel merits benefit of the doubt on these points.

I don't blame your skepticism - Israel has proven itself more than capable of inflicting the most horrific collective punishment and collateral damage imaginable on the people of Gaza, so I doubt they are too concerned about the people of Lebanon either.

That said, the point remains that Israel/Mossad/IDF would very likely not risk such an audacious attack unless they knew it was going to be highly effective against the enemy, and although I also agree (in part) that the motivation is to terrorise the enemy, it is not just that - it's also about weakening an enemy that they stand on the brink of a full-on war with, and the use of this kind of attack would suggest that escalation (by Israel) against Lebanon is imminent.

 

[Danoff]

I don't blame your skepticism - Israel has proven itself more than capable of inflicting the most horrific collective punishment and collateral damage imaginable on the people of Gaza, so I doubt they are too concerned about the people of Lebanon either.

That said, the point remains that Israel/Mossad/IDF would very likely not risk such an audacious attack unless they knew it was going to be highly effective against the enemy, and although I also agree (in part) that the motivation is to terrorise the enemy, it is not just that - it's also about weakening an enemy that they stand on the brink of a full-on war with, and the use of this kind of attack would suggest that escalation (by Israel) against Lebanon is imminent.

I hear you, but I don't agree that this represents a reason to assume that the attack is precise. Disabling communications and killing a large number of suspected terrorists seems like more than enough motivation given Israel's history. I'm sure that even if half of the dead and injured are non-terrorists, this will still be highly effective against their enemy.

 

[inCloud]

Rumours are, Israel making a deal: Hezbollah should obey to resolution 1701 and leave DMZ between Israel and Lebanon. Than Israelis could return to their homes and whole conflict would end. Or IDF would kick them out.

 

[Danoff]

Than Israelis could return to their homes and whole conflict would end.

 

[Joey D]

Man, that's rich coming from one of Putin's payrollees.