What is the endgame in Gaza?

[iceaura]

That's almost true. They don't presently treat Fatah as terrorists.

Not since Hamas took power, and replaced the PLO and Fatah as the justification for Israeli behavior. If Fatah took power again, what would a reasonable person expect?

Israel has made it very clear that stopping rocket fire will prevent any aggression from them.

Rocket fire has been stopped before, and Israel has continued to aggress. Israel can make nothing "clear" by talking.

That part is bad and the international community will eventually press Israel to undo that.

Really? That needs some evidence. Time for some minimal show of good faith - the "international community" needs to demonstrate its willingness and its ability to do that, by beginning to do it.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Not since Hamas took power, and replaced the PLO and Fatah as the justification for Israeli behavior. If Fatah took power again, what would a reasonable person expect?

Fatah already has power. It governs the west bank. If you mean what would happen if Fatah took control of Gaza then thats an easy one. They would root out Hamas, execute them, and then would be back by the international community towards restoring freedom of movement and trade with Israel and Egypt.

Rocket fire has been stopped before, and Israel has continued to aggress. Israel can make nothing "clear" by talking.

You'll have to show that trend, as I don't think it's true.

Really? That needs some evidence. Time for some minimal show of good faith - the "international community" needs to demonstrate its willingness and its ability to do that, by beginning to do it.

http://www.defencetalk.com/continued-israeli-settlements-in-west-bank-not-legitimate-22135/

If Obama gives the word, Western civilization will not give Israel support and Israel knows this.

 

[quadraphonics]

Not since Hamas took power, and replaced the PLO and Fatah as the justification for Israeli behavior. If Fatah took power again, what would a reasonable person expect?

Again, Fatah is still in power in the West Bank, and Israeli treatment of Palestinians seems to have bifurcated along that same geographical/political cleavage.

The situation would probably be very different if Fatah regained primacy as the sole representative of the Palestinians. Both in terms of how Israel would relate to Fatah in those circumstances, and in terms of how Fatah would have to change to regain unified power in the first place.

But what if there is no single, unified representative of the Palestinians in the near future? In the first place, there's no single, unified Palestinian territory, so this seems plausible as a stable equilibrium on those grounds. And if the resulting strategic triangle works better for each of the parties than the likely alternatives (which it presently seems to), then we have the makings of a rather durable order. Which would be to say that speculation about what would happen in the event that one party or another consolodated the Palestinians is neither here nor there.

 

[iceaura]

If Obama gives the word, Western civilization will not give Israel support and Israel knows this.

That was also true of every other US president, and so what?

Rocket fire has been stopped before, and Israel has continued to aggress. Israel can make nothing "clear" by talking.
”
You'll have to show that trend, as I don't think it's true.

Pattern, no trend - it has always been thus: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nancy-kanwisher/reigniting-violence-how-d_b_155611.html

Again, Fatah is still in power in the West Bank, and Israeli treatment of Palestinians seems to have bifurcated along that same geographical/political cleavage.

Fatah is not "still" in power - a suitably edited and cooperative body of Fatah officials was restored to power by violence, with the support of Israel, over the Palestinians of the West Bank (who had voted in Hamas).

Overthrowing an elected government and installing a preferred one, in abetting a blockade and justification for further expansion etc, is not a "bifurcation in the treatment of Palestinians", but a continuation of Israeli policy toward the Palestinians as long established.

 

[S.A.M.]

Israel has made it very clear that stopping rocket fire will prevent any aggression from them.

And yet it is Israel that breaks most ceasefires, its not in Israels interest to stop the conflict.

Figure 2. For conflict pauses of different durations (i.e., periods of time when no one is killed on either side), we show here the percentage of times from the Second Intifada in which Israelis ended the period of nonviolence by killing one or more Palestinians (black), the percentage of times that Palestinians ended the period of nonviolence by killing Israelis (grey), and the percentage of times that both sides killed on the same day (white). Virtually all periods of nonviolence lasting more than a week were ended when the Israelis killed Palestinians first. We include here the data from all pause durations that actually occurred.

Thus, a systematic pattern does exist: it is overwhelmingly Israel, not Palestine, that kills first following a lull. Indeed, it is virtually always Israel that kills first after a lull lasting more than a week.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nancy-kanwisher/reigniting-violence-how-d_b_155611.html​

Whats the point in pretending that Israel will "stop attacking" Israel is in the position of a thief who has broken in and is walling the family into the fireplace for his own safety

 

[spidergoat]

That paints an inaccurate picture, simply because Israel's attacks are more likely to be deadly. The fact is that even during a "cease fire", one or two missiles a day are still fired at Israel.

 

[S.A.M.]

How does graphing who attacks first after a ceasefire paint an inaccurate picture?

 

[quadraphonics]

How does graphing who attacks first after a ceasefire paint an inaccurate picture?

You didn't graph who attacks first. You graphed who kills first.

Since Palestinian rockets are far less lethal than Israel's weapons, there is frequently a difference between first attack and first kill.

 

[S.A.M.]

You didn't graph who attacks first. You graphed who kills first.

Since Palestinian rockets are far less lethal than Israel's weapons, there is frequently a difference between first attack and first kill.

Right, because if we had to graph who attacked first, then we'd see that all Palestinian responses are to the occupation. How would you graph the three year blockade of Gaza following Hamas victory?

 

[quadraphonics]

Right, because if we had to graph who attacked first, then we'd see that all Palestinian responses are to the occupation.

If you want to define "attack" that way, then sure. But then there hasn't ever been a "ceasefire" to "break" so one wonders what there would be to graph.

 

[quadraphonics]

How would you graph the three year blockade of Gaza following Hamas victory?

In terms of goods making their way in/out of Gaza, presumably. Why don't you graph that, if that's what you're interested in portraying?

 

[S.A.M.]

If you want to define "attack" that way, then sure. But then there hasn't ever been a "ceasefire" to "break" so one wonders what there would be to graph.

You could tell me which Palestinian "attacks" have NOT been due to the occupation.

If a thief breaks into your home, is it irrational to want to defend yourself?

 

[quadraphonics]

You could tell me which Palestinian "attacks" have NOT been due to the occupation.

Well, the ones that preceded the occupation would seem to be likely candidates, offhand.

You could go so far as to argue that the occupation is itself a response to Palestinian - or, really, Arab - attacks in the first place.

Eventually you might notice that these sorts of childish arguments over who started it don't lead anywhere productive. This is because they are premised on the false notion that all blame lies on one side on the conflict. But, then, why be productive when you can indulge a fantasy ideology?

 

[quadraphonics]

If a thief breaks into your home, is it irrational to want to defend yourself?

Interesting how little anti-immigration rhetoric changes across time and space.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

And yet it is Israel that breaks most ceasefires, its not in Israels interest to stop the conflict.

Figure 2. For conflict pauses of different durations (i.e., periods of time when no one is killed on either side), we show here the percentage of times from the Second Intifada in which Israelis ended the period of nonviolence by killing one or more Palestinians (black), the percentage of times that Palestinians ended the period of nonviolence by killing Israelis (grey), and the percentage of times that both sides killed on the same day (white). Virtually all periods of nonviolence lasting more than a week were ended when the Israelis killed Palestinians first. We include here the data from all pause durations that actually occurred.

Thus, a systematic pattern does exist: it is overwhelmingly Israel, not Palestine, that kills first following a lull. Indeed, it is virtually always Israel that kills first after a lull lasting more than a week.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nancy-kanwisher/reigniting-violence-how-d_b_155611.html​

Whats the point in pretending that Israel will "stop attacking" Israel is in the position of a thief who has broken in and is walling the family into the fireplace for his own safety

That is a grave misrepresentation (and I suspect you know it). Here is a source that the author of that article referenced:

http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/hamas_e011.htm

To sum it up, those Palestinians killed during the lull periods fell into two categories:

1) The were setting up IED attacks and were killed in the process.
2) They were trying to kidnap Israelis through tunnels and were killed in the process.

In other words, what the chart you presented doesn't show is who attacked first. It instead shows who killed first. Seeing as Israel is far stronger, it's kind of a no-brainer that they would kill agressors more often then they would be killed by them.

 

[iceaura]

The fact is that even during a "cease fire", one or two missiles a day are still fired at Israel.

Not in 2008.

From my link, just above Sam's, a graph of the rocket attacks - not killings - in 2008:

If you consider as well that Israel is well known for false flag and agent provocateur operations, and there are more radical elements among the Palestinians who do not necessarily take orders from Hamas to stand down, the question of who fired the dozen or so rockets of the total during the several months of truce in 2008, and why, becomes even more complicated.

Bu clearly Israelis are not living with anything like the threat Palestinians are living with, from terroristic assault and violent death. And clearly simply agreeing to not fire rockets for months in 2008 got the Palestinians nothing in return.

btw: interesting sidelight, considering the rocket attacks are the justification for beating on Hamas:

5. Another important facet of the recent escalation is that for the first time, there is direct Hamas involvement in the rocket and mortar shell fire. Moreover, Hamas publicly claims responsibility, as do the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Fatah and the smaller organizations (until now, Hamas did not participate in the rocket and mortar attacks and the other terrorist organizations generally did not publicly claim responsibility for them.) At the same time, Hamas heads and spokesmen publicly stated that their intention was not to end the lull arrangement but to provide “an equal response” to what they call the “Israeli violations.” In addition, even after Hamas had “responded” (as the organization called its attacks) to the Israeli preventive activity, the other terrorist organizations (Fatah, the PIJ, etc.) did not stop attacking but continued sporadic rocket and mortar shell fire into Israel . For example, on the afternoon of November 14 Hamas stopped its fire, and since then the other Palestinian terrorist organizations have continued to fire rockets and mortar shells (while Hamas does not use force to keep them from attacking).

So Fatah was rocketing Israel, Hamas was keeping a truce, and a year later - --- -- ---

 

[S.A.M.]

Interesting how little anti-immigration rhetoric changes across time and space.

Its not immigration when they want a land without a people enough to bulldoze over the people to get it.

PS this map is outdated, presently the West Bank is all under Israeli control, so its only Gaza that holding on and the steel wall should take care of that.

Then what will they do with the "Arabs"? Give them citizenship?

 

[quadraphonics]

Its not immigration when they want a land without a people enough to bulldoze over the people to get it.

Sure it is. It may not be innocuous, but it's definitely immigration.

More to the point, a lot of the immigration in question occurred before any of the political partition, bulldozing, etc. So the analogy of a "thief breaking into your house" is putting the cart before the horse: the "theft" and "breaking" all occurred after the onset of "self defense." The wording "your house" is likewise prejudicial: suppose you don't have the title to the house, and the landlord gives the "thief" permission to move in alongside you.

Now suppose further that the landlord gives up his claim, and divides the house between the two parties. Is either of them justified in attacking the other, in the name of self-defense? Or are we looking at something much more petty: a craven struggle for power, land and race?

 

[S.A.M.]

Lets get specific- is this what you are referring to?

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=...resnum=5&ved=0CBgQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Note that this ONLY refers to land within the "state of Israel" at the 1949 armistice lines.

 

[quadraphonics]

Lets get specific- is this what you are referring to?

Hard to say; one of the images included there isn't showing up.

Nevertheless, from what I can surmise from your book excerpt, the "theft" in question there occurred after the onset of "self defense." It was a direct result of displacement in a war initiated by the Arab States. Absent that pre-emptive self-defense, the original occupants would still be on those properties, and there wouldn't have been a theft to "defend" against.

Which also raises the question of what "self" was defending here: the Palestinians seem to have played a marginal role, and to have been left under Jordanian and Egyptian occupation in its wake. So the analogy is more a case of the neighbors busting into the house in question and provoking a fight between the two putative residents, and then staying until forced out.