What is the endgame in Gaza?

[noodler]

That's strange, if you ask an Israeli about why they have to bomb the crap out of Arabs, they will smile (wearily) and explain the colonial terms of the contract to you.

The one with the big guy, I mean.

 

[S.A.M.]

noodler:

this may interest you, I just came across it on mondoweiss.

Its the satellite imagery accompanying the Goldstone report which evaluates the wanton destruction of civilian infrastructure in Gaza by the Israelis.

On page 8 of this supporting document you can see a 200 foot wide Star of David that the tanks carved into the land

[see Figure 3, page 8] pdf link

 

[pjdude1219]

You know my position on international law. If you want to address it then go to the appropriate thread.

yeah your one of those fuck the rules kinda guys. doesn't matter what we agreed to all that matter is the want. Sadly for you in the real world despite most people lacking the balls to stand up for it(which i bet gives you quite the stiffy) it still matters. that the framework agreed upon to judge.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

You accept that as the motive for the blockade, without question?

It's no doubt at least one of the motives. If there were others, they don't necessarily matter.

Your timeline is a bit off - Israel imposed the more severe blockade on Gaza after Fatah had been returned to power, by violent coup with Israeli support, over the West Bank.

I am a-ok with that.

And the attacks on Israel do not seem to have been by Hamas,...

The original link I posted showed otherwise (IED and kidnapping attempts), not to mention sporadic rocket fire.

... in all this - Israel seems to have been intent on removing Hamas regardless of whether such attempts increase or decrease the threat of rocketry and other terrorism: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2009/1122/p06s04-wome.html

That's may be the case.

Hamas thought it did. The Egyptians said it did. All the news reports at the time said it did: http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/18/world/fg-truce18

Yet strangly, nobody can point to a document that both parties signed that says it did.

btw The context of the breaking of the truce: http://www.themediaoasis.com/Hamasrockets.htm
Israel never kept the truce in the first place. How could Hamas have 'broken" anything?

The context was each party felt as though the other was violating the terms of the unwritten ceasefire. Hamas demanded that Israel lift its economic blockade of Gaza, while Israel demanded a full end to rocket fire and progress on the release of Israeli corporal Gilad Shalit from Hamas’s captivity.

The one part of the agreement that everyone definitively said "yes" to was a cease fire and Israel did keep that. No terms were documented to my knowledge, but if you can find such an entity then it would be interesting to look at.

"Legalized revenge" is not an objective definition of justice.

It defines exactly what happens in a justice system. Take individual conflicts for example. Person A feels "wronged" by person B. If a court agrees then person B might have to give person A anything from a large sum of cash to their life. That is revenge for being "wronged".

If all Israelis are unable to consider justice in this situation as anything other than legalized revenge, the next stage in Gaza is going to be very ugly - endgame or no.

IMO. Gaza will continue to get uglier until Hamas is gone (or magically starts caring for its people).

 

[Crunchy Cat]

yeah your one of those fuck the rules kinda guys. doesn't matter what we agreed to all that matter is the want. Sadly for you in the real world despite most people lacking the balls to stand up for it(which i bet gives you quite the stiffy) it still matters. that the framework agreed upon to judge.

If you were correct then all violations of international law (which every country makes numerous time) would have been corrected. This is obviously not the case; hence, you are simply incorrect.

 

[iceaura]

Hamas thought it did. The Egyptians said it did. All the news reports at the time said it did: http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun...rld/fg-truce18
”
Yet strangly, nobody can point to a document that both parties signed that says it did.

Convenient for Israel, that. Deniability is a very important feature of these kinds of operations.

IMO. Gaza will continue to get uglier until Hamas is gone (or magically starts caring for its people).

Never mattered before, for Israel, which is running this dirty little show. Why should it matter in the future?

You accept that as the motive for the blockade, without question?
”
It's no doubt at least one of the motives. If there were others, they don't necessarily matter.

Yes, they do.

 

[S.A.M.]

If you were correct then all violations of international law (which every country makes numerous time) would have been corrected. This is obviously not the case; hence, you are simply incorrect.

So if there are ten murders in your neighborhood and only one guy is arrested and put on trial then that one guy can plead unfair and get let off?

The only way civil society proceeds is by implementing legal processes to the best of its ability. The attitude that international law sucks because politics determines who gets pulled up is the same as saying justice sucks because well we don't get all the bad guys, the rich ones all get a free ride. But they won't, if you won't treat law and order like toilet paper. If you came home one night and found your house burgled, would you call the police? If someone stabbed you would you want the person caught? Or would you say? Well it doesn't work so well in Somalia, so why bother?

Justice is a consequence of integrity, application and due diligence. It doesn't just happen by magic.

Please watch the second and third video I have linked in the Finkelstein thread.