One dead, 1 seriously hurt in Sderot Kassam attack (JPost/AP)

[Eugene]

Nov. 15, 2006 8:30 | Updated Nov. 15, 2006 9:38
One dead, 1 seriously hurt in Sderot Kassam attack
By JPOST.COM STAFF AND AP

Two more Kassam rockets struck Sderot Wednesday morning,
killing an elderly woman and critically wounding another person.
One person was lightly wounded, and several residents were
suffering from shock.

Magen David Adom medics treated the wounded, who sustained
shrapnel wounds, and rushed them to Barzilai Hospital in Ashkelon.

A doctor from Barzilai told Channel 2 that one of the wounded was
missing limbs.

According to reports, the rockets landed near an apartment building
and a Sderot cemetery, and hit within a number of meters from the
wounded residents.

-snip-

Full article: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1162378401822&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[Kagemusha]

1. So here comes the next escalation.

Wonder what rabbit gets pulled out of the artillery barrel this time.

[Englander]

2. Yep, bye-bye Beit Hanoun;

'Palestinian rocket kills Israeli

>snip

There have been several claims of responsibility, including one from the armed wing of the governing Hamas militant group. It said the attack was a response to the deaths in Beit Hanoun.

"These organisations will pay a heavy price," said Israeli Defence Minister Amir Peretz. "We will move against those who are involved in the firing of rockets, starting from their leaders and down to the last of their terrorists."

Sderot is Mr Peretz's home town and the injured man is a member of a private security firm that guards his residence there.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6149418.stm

[Kagemusha]

5. If Peretz was to limit himself to those who are actually involved

I would cheer so hard it's not funny.

[bemildred]

6. Indeed. Well put. nt

[msmcghee]

7. I'm not disagreeing with you . .

. . but it has always seemed to me that Hamas' strategy (like Hisb'allah in Lebanon) is to make that as difficult as possible by firing from and then seeking shelter in civilian neighborhoods.

pelsar keeps asking the question - what would you have the Israelis do?

It seems to me that the militias have successfully created the reality on the ground - that Israel either accept some continuous low level of attack where Israelis near the borders sometimes get killed or injured and have their lives continuously disrupted and threatened - or undertake defensive operations to reduce the Kassams that will necessarily cause civilian casualties.

Your post seems to imply that Israel has some other alternative. Or, put another way, how could "Peretz limit it only to those involved"? Could you explain.

(This post could seem like a snarky "put up or shut up" kind of post. It is not. You have made some sensible comments so I though you might have a view of this that I have not considered.)

[Kagemusha]

10. Yeah, pelsar's asked me that question too in months past

The blunt reply is, civilian neighborhoods are all Hamas has if it wants any chance of doing damage to Israel with these particular (crude) rockets. The battleground was chosen for them, not the other way around. Granted, we can - and pelsar does - argue a lot about the decision to commit terror at all but, having made the decision to try to hurt Israel (back, they would argue), they really do not have the option of choosing an unpopulated area. Israel doesn't give them that choice.

But at any rate, the point is more like this: there's a body of thought (which I saw a lot more of than I cared for lately in the comments of Ha'aretz, online English edition) that if Israel is indiscriminate in its responses, GOOD, maybe that'll make the scum think twice before firing rockets. Or maybe it won't because they're scum. In my mind, the most dismaying civilian casualties are like that stray artillery attack the other day: not intentional evil, but simple callous neglect leading to a horror that is a "mistake" which no one connected to the actual firing of the shells is in any way responsible for.

The first step in avoiding such "mistakes" is to, in blunt terms, give a damn. If Peretz gives a damn about going after only those directly responsible, and conveys that down the chain of command, it would be an improvement, sad as I believe that sounds. If, on the other hand, these words were not intended to convey such a restriction, the message sent down the ranks will be, "We shall destroy those responsible and any who stand between us and our targets because the mere fact they stand between us means they are by definition, not innocent, so mow them down without mercy." If that's the message the ranks receive, overtly or covertly, more "mistakes" are likely.

I would cheer if Peretz actually meant to TRY to only go after the guilty. I fear I would be quite mistaken to read Peretz' words that way, since such an effort would be deemed excessively... merciful, and risky for IDF troops. Mercy is not, under these circumstances, a bonus in domestic politics, so I have a feeling Peretz meant the expansive, not the restrictive, version of his words. Ergo, business as usual. See you next "mistake".

[msmcghee]

11. Thanks for the detailed answer.

After reading it over a few times I think you are making two points.

a) Peretz is encouraging the IDF to do as much killing as necessary to get the bad guys and stop the missiles. He encourages them not worry too much about the dead Palestinians who get in the way. You seem to be saying (although I'm not sure) that Peretz, and/or the IDF, are therefore guilty of war crimes for allowing this attitude to exist on the ground that causes unnecessary civilian deaths. Is that what you are saying?

b) The IDF (Israel) is at fault for the deaths anyway because the IDF don't allow the militias to fire from open positions where they could be more easily stopped. i.e. they'd get killed if they fired from more open positions so they have to hide among civilians - so when civilians die it is Israel's fault.

Don't let me put words into your mouth - as others have accused me. I just want to be sure I understand what you're saying so I don't respond to something that you don't really mean.

Re: a) It has been my impression that the IDF is operating in a very dangerous area and it seems to me that with the easy targets and crowded streets that the number of civilian deaths would be much higher if the IDF had the attitude "We shall destroy those responsible and any who stand between us and our targets because the mere fact they stand between us means they are by definition, not innocent, so mow them down without mercy." - as you suggest.

I note that of the 50 or so women who walked into a fire-fight to rescue some terrorists recently trapped in a mosque only two were killed. The pictures I saw looked like they were pretty easy targets, at least to the news photographers. In fact 15 of those terrorists did escape that day ushered away surrounded by that group of women right in front of the IDF. That (one example at least) doesn't seem to support your position.

But, I'm not there and I could be wrong. I'd like to hear what pelsar has to say about the possibility that Peretz has given the IDF carte blanche to kill whoever gets in the way. I'd like to know if he ever was given orders like that by his superiors - and also just what kinds of orders concerning civilians the IDF do get when going on an operation. Do the orders change from operation to operation or are there standing general orders concerning civilians that apply to all operations? Or, maybe that's left up to the officer on the ground with the troops. I don't know. But I'd like to.

In the meantime, I'd like to know if you are just guessing that this is Peretz' attitude that he has conveyed to the troops - or are you aware of some article or something you could offer to substantiate this? Knowing the number of IDF who sometimes refuse to go on certain operations it seems likely to me that if they were given such inhumane orders - covertly or overtly - that some refusenik would have spilled the beans to Haretz by now.

Since you don't offer any evidence I must say that your post comes across as if you are convinced that Peretz is at least a war criminal - therefore he most likely would be guilty of this - and that you don't really have any evidence.

I really don't know myself if the IDF do get such orders. I'll be thinking about your amazing position (unless I misunderstood it) expressed in b) and getting back to you on that.

[breakaleg]

12. butting in here...

I read your response where you seem to paraphrase the previous post in your words, and the post you are responding to. I'm not the poster and I don't know what he's thinking.

But having read both posts, I can say that your version bears no resemblance to his. That seems to be happening a lot around here. People put words in other people's mouths, and then demand answers and explanations for things they haven't said. Is it any wonder we can't have a proper dialogue?

And if there is a certain question either you or Pelsar would like answered, why not post it in your own thread rather than directing other threads off topic?

[msmcghee]

13. Well, that's why I asked for clarification.

I said - this is what I think you are saying - tell me if I got it wrong so I don't address the wrong issues.

As far as high jacking the thread . .

Kagemusha is the one who suggested that Peretz was indiscriminately killing civilians. He thought that was on-topic and I responded to it.

It seems to me that Israel's attempts to stop the missiles is well within a topic about missiles falling on Sderot. Especially when Hamas says that Israel's attempts to stop the missiles justify the firing of more of those missiles - and many here support that position.

Do you think Peretz or the IDF is guilty of war crimes for indiscriminately killing civilians in Beit Hanoun?

Do you think that Israel's attempts to stop the missiles justify Hamas' firing of more misiles into Israel as they claim?

BTW, Kagemusha could have saved us all some touble if he had simply said:

a) I think Peretz or the IDF is guilty of war crimes for indiscriminately killing civilians in Beit Hanoun.

b) I think that Israel's attempts to stop the missiles justify Hamas' firing of more misiles into Israel.

But, he didn't. So I have to ask him if that's what he means - or not. That way we can actually have a discussion about meanings - and not just play with other peoples' lives using our clever words.

[breakaleg]

14. yes,

and after tell me if I got this wrong, your version is not at all like his. That's my point. I am reading both versions, without knowing any of you, and I can see that they aren't the same.

[Kagemusha]

16. Um, okay. To make an excessively long story short...

As pelsar says below, Peretz is new. I will judge Peretz by results, because drawing too much from his words - a platitude about going after everyone responsible, as if that has ever been the limit of Israeli responses - seems to me to be an exercise in futility, which was the point of my reply to reply #2 of this thread. I said, if Peretz did what he said he would do, I would cheer loudly - implying, correctly, that there's virtually no chance that the response would be limited to the guilty. I wasn't assigning blame. Innocents can die without the act being a war crime. Accidents can happen for which no blame is ever formally assigned, even if the accident was preventable if enough people had given a damn about preventing such an accident. So the question is, does Peretz intend to put in that kind of effort?

He's new, and he only had a tangental relationship to the tactics used in Lebanon, so I think it's fair to say we just don't know yet.

Also - yes, I didn't say whether I think or not Hamas is justified in firing missiles. I said Hamas certainly thinks it is. I'm not part of Hamas, and at any rate, what does the world care what I think here? That's not the subject of discussion. So sorry for not trying to make myself the subject and prompting you to go through all this pointless effort to make me the subject, because I'm just not interested. The subject is the coming IDF response to the Hamas firing and whether that response will be narrowly targeted or indiscriminate or what. I hope it is narrowly targeted. I do not expect my hope to be fulfilled. That's my point.

[msmcghee]

18. Well, OK . .

You implied that Peretz was not likely to limit his response to those involved.

I asked you how he could possibly do that seeing as how Hamas purposely fires from and hides in areas that will cause the most civilian casualties.

Your answer was that Peretz is not likely to limit his response to those involved.

It just seems that if you are going to imply that someone either is killing innocent civilians on purpose or because they "don't give damn about the civilians" - both of which could be war-crimes - you should be able to suggest a realistic way for him to stop the missiles that doesn't kill innocent civilians.

If you can't do that then I don't think it's fair to condemn him (or the IDF) - although you seem to have softened your position now to "let's wait and see".

[Kagemusha]

19. Actually.. that's two entirely different things

Going after the people responsible for this missile attack, and stopping all missile attacks, forever, these are simply not the same thing. If he was to go after the people responsible for this deadly missile attack, and limit the military response to that, I'd cheer.

But we both know he won't, because the goal post gets moved to what you say I should suggest a realistic way to do without killing innocent civilians: stop the missiles. ALL OF THEM.

Perfection is the enemy of the good.

Maybe it's not fair, but I can't suggest a way for him to stop the missiles, for all time, short of a "final solution" which I suppose isn't realistic, and certainly in my mind, not desirable. I don't see a complete solution as within the power of any Israeli defense minister in the absence of a cease-fire or peace deal with at least some minimally functioning Palestinian government willing and able to enforce such an agreement. Edit: But I'm not sure saying I can't criticize whatsoever in the absence of some realistic solution which I'm sorry, does not exist, is fair in itself. Just saying..

[msmcghee]

20. Sorry if you thought I was looking for . .

. . a permanent solution from you. It seemed you were discussing how the IDF stops the Kassams in terms of military tactics - and that's what I hoped you had some suggestions for improving.

However, I think it is necessary for those condemning Israel so strongly - either in Lebanon or Gaza - to explain how Israel can possibly protect itself without causing great damage to both lives and property in those areas.

[Kagemusha]

21. By being realistic about goals and objectives, and achieving them.

Yes, yes, I know I am asking the absolutely IMPOSSIBLE here. I realize that... but were the IDF and its political overseers to work on achieving the possible rather than thrash around trying to achieve the impossible but politically imperative, it would not be doomed to overreach, failure and wasted death and destruction.

Sorry to spit that out without diving into specifics but, there's a lot of cases to which this principle could be applied... and it's not gonna happen, so I'm not gonna pretend otherwise.

[msmcghee]

24. Armed conflict . .

. . involves the very violent taking of life. Seldom do warring parties have the luxury of solving the problems that caused the dispute while they are trying to save the lives of their citizens and military - and kill the enemy.

That's just one more reason why using force to get your way is a terrible affront to life and peace. It will always escalate, innocent people will always die and unless one side achieves complete victory, the initial problems are often compounded - not solved.

I can see no moral, legal or sensible justification for Hamas' attacks on Israel. Israel was not attacking Gaza and in fact had removed itself from Gaza. Hamas was and is the aggressor. No-one here has presented any argument that refutes this.

I can see no moral, legal or sensible reason why Israel is not justified in using sufficient military force to stop the Kassams. You want to argue over the meaning of "sufficient" - or if it is excessive or wanton or overreaching.

None of those arguments makes Hamas right. While they might convict Israel of being un-professional if any of them were actually true - none of them in any way makes it wrong for Israel to be there with its military - attempting to stop the Kassams.

Neither does it make any difference if more Palestinians die than Israelis in the conflict. The PA militias initiated the conflict and made it necessary for the IDF to be there to stop the rockets.

That means all the dead - both military and civilian - on both sides of the conflict are the direct cause of Hamas and the militias. The reasons you come up with to condemn Israel have no basis in reason or fact.

You say that Israel doesn't have realistic goals and objectives. Perhaps you think this is an exercise in personal time management. People are dieing every day - both Palestinians and Israelis. Lives and property are being destroyed. Ball bearings and 9mm projectiles are ripping through the flesh of small bodies.

And it's all happening for one reason - because Hamas wants to secure its grip on political power and has decided that attacking Israel with rockets is the best way to get there - not because Israel has unrealistic goals and objectives.

I would remind you that Hamas still refuses to even recognize the legitimacy of the state of Israel and has stated flatly that its goal is the destruction of all the Jews who live there. And you have the audacity to condemn Israel because, according to you, their unrealistic goals and objectives are the cause of wasted death and destruction.

I find that totally amazing.

[Kagemusha]

25. Here's my definition of a reasonable Israeli response.

My definition: response that fulfills the level of Israel's own self-interest.

In other words, even if you can stand an argue that Hamas' actions justify anything Israel does, that doesn't make all possible responses smart, useful, or in Israel's own interests.

In other words, stupid may be morally justified, but it's still stupid.

And yes, it is completely unrealistic to expect a complete cessation of all attacks on Israel from Gaza without the taking of each and every Arab resident of Gaza, forcing them onto their knees, and shooting them in the back of the head. Whether or not Israelis or their allies may - I assume nothing about what you think - MAY find that response to be morally or logically justified, it is unrealistic to expect perfect security short of that action.

Therefore, sending the IDF in to be a bull in a china shop under the assumption that this time, killing more people and breaking more things will bring the threat to an end, is doomed to failure.

So don't come crying to me when it actually fails.

[pelsar]

34. israels self interest.....

is in keeping the kassams to a minimum....as long as egypt lets the smugglers smuggle (which they do with ease now) and as long as the gazan govt doesnt do anything to stop them, there is little israel can do put make sure they dont have time to aim and kill more israelis.

since the setup time is about 5-10 minutes thats not much of a window of opportunity to "stop them" add the fact that civilians are in the area and even if they are spotted the pilots may not shoot.

add the fact that even leaving gaza, only accelerated the kassam launchings and hamas latest pronouncements that israel is no to be recognized.....doenst really leave a whole bunch of options here.

Israels interest is to defend its citizens...obviously anybody reading the news of the last year about gaza understands that the gaza govt has no intention of stopping the kassams no matter how much their citizens suffer.....

so that leaves israel with the single partial solution to make sure the kassam launchers dont have setup time, aim adjustment and so they can hit the schools during the day......and thats really what it comes down to, and that means missiles, artillery, raids, etc what ever it takes to minimize the kassams on israel.

Less military pressure, means less Palestinians killed and more israelis killed. Its a win-lose situation here, and only the Palestinians have the power to turn it around

[Kagemusha]

35. So the Israelis are helpless but to bomb as much as they are forced to

Thanks for giving me something optimistic to think about. Thanks a lot.

[pelsar]

36. i never said its a good option...

except that the other....which is let the palestenains shoot at will, doesnt seem to be to promising either.... (if you think its depressing for you....its worse for both palestenain citizen of gaza and israeli citizens around gaza...not to mention all those israelis, including myself, that thought that leaving gaza was incredible first step towards palestenain statehood....they're using it as an improved shooting position instead of concentrating on improving their lives is very sad.)

[Kagemusha]

41. Ok just because it's relevant...

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/788947.html <-- "PM cautious on expanded military operation in Gaza"

And basically cautious because of the reasons I would cite: blindly lashing out will bring no greater results than all the other times it was tried. He'd like for operations that rely on good intelligence. ...Which would be a good thing, should that good intelligence exist; I'm not in a position to judge if it does. ...But Olmert is in a much better position and seems to not like what he is seeing.

[eyl]

45. The problem isn't really intelligence

we have a lot of information. The problem is that a serious operation in Gaza - the equivalent of Operation Defensive Shield - would be extremely bloody (for both sides) - probably bloodier than any operation so far - and would effectively entail reoccupation of Gaza (or part of it, at least)

[eyl]

40. well, I'm not pelsar

But I'm currently doing a stint of Reserve duty in the Hebron region, and I certainly didn't get any orders giving "carte blanche to kill whoever gets in the way".

[msmcghee]

44. Thanks for that info.

It's good to know we have another source here with real access to the reality on the ground. I'd like to hear more about your views. :thumbsup:

[Kagemusha]

47. I'm sorry for not taking the time to reply initially.

I'd seen someone else had tried to reply and things had already passed this but....

You definitely are misunderstanding what I meant about Peretz.

I meant that based on what is currently known about the artillery incident, the incident was preventable, the incident was not prevented, the incident has been argued to absolutely not be the IDF's fault for any reason at all, and I'm not even challenging that.

I'm saying that preventing the next incident for which Israel will bear absolutely no moral or legal responsibility is dependent on Peretz on down giving a damn.

Do I see that? No.

I don't know where you get this idea I said Peretz was ordering civilians to be deliberately targeted. But he doesn't need to. If he can't be bothered to make a professional military force act professional when aiming indirect fire high explosive weaponry, he's ensuring, whether "responsible" or not, that the dead are just as dead.

[msmcghee]

48. Thanks for following up.

I am really trying to understand your position. I admit my view could be wrong. I'm not just trying to prove I am right. I appreciate your extra effort to explain your position.

Here is what I am struggling with.

You have presented several angles of an argument - that Paretz (Israel) is responsible for and should be condemned for unnecessary Palestinian civilian deaths because:

a) Israel forces Hamas to use civilian neighborhoods for attacking israel

b) Israel is indiscriminate in its responses

c) Israel's simple callous neglect leads to a horror that is a "mistake"

d) Israel doesn't give a damn (about dead Palestinian civilians)

e) Israel is not realistic about goals and objectives

All those seem very much to me like the rapist who claims that a) She was provocative, b) she was wearing a short skirt, c) she's not a virgin, etc.

All of them avoid the one single relevant fact - the rapist used physical force and intimidation to force someone to do something that they did not want to do.

That is the crime. (Of both Hamas and my imaginary rapist.) All of Israel's responses were an attempt to stop the further ongoing occurrences of the crime - which were completely within the power of Hamas to stop at any moment that it chose.

Just as when innocent civilians might be killed when police try to capture an armed robber or a murderer - the person they are trying to capture is held responsible and can receive the maximum penalty for any incidental deaths that result from bringing him to justice. It is a basic principle of criminal culpability recognized by all civilized societies.

Here's where you can help me understand your position. Why are not Hamas responsible for whatever deaths occur from their attempts to avoid capture and continue firing missiles into Israel - no matter what mistakes IDF may or may not make under the pressure of battle?

I would agree that if you could show that a self-propelled Howitzer crew purposely targeted a house full of sleeping civilians - they would be guilty of murder and should be punished.

But even that would not relieve Hamas of the primary responsible for that crew being in Gaza trying to abate the missile attacks - and IMO they would share separate causal responsibility for even those deaths.

In any event, no such evidence has been shown. And, there have been dozens of additional deaths from this recent operation.

How can you possibly blame the victim of the missile attacks (Israel) for those deaths that occur as a result of Israel's attempts to stop the missiles - no matter how professional (or not) those efforts might be?

I just can't understand this. Please try to understand my difficulty and address it in your response. Please explain as clearly as you can why Israel is responsible for any Palestinian deaths that occur as a result of Israel's attempt to stop the missiles - and why Hamas is not responsible for those deaths.

[Kagemusha]

49. I think perhaps my other posts might be better replies but...

I'll boil this down to two things.

Israel doesn't force Hamas to fire from civilian neighborhoods so much as reality does. Hamas is there. If it's going to fire rockets, it must fire from where it exists. I do not feel the need to blame either side for geography. Plenty of other things to fault people for but, it just plain isn't a big neighborhood.

By the way, I have absolutely no idea who you're quoting in italics. It's not me. But anyway.

Israel has guns. Israel has big guns. Israel has many guns. Israel has many more guns than the "rapist" Hamas Palestinians. You're trying to sell me on the idea that Israel has absolutely no responsibility how it uses those guns because an enemy with far weaker guns is attacking it. I can see how this appeals to you, on the basis of tribalism if nothing else. But I can't treat Israel as a nation ruled by sane human beings by holding it to a lower standard than other human beings, which is what you're asking me to do. Or have you not noticed that Israel's behavior isn't shooting a rapist dead before or during the commission of the act, but rather, stalking the rapist and shooting him in the back of the head while he sleeps to prevent future possible rapes? I wonder if you even have any concept of why the civilized world criminalizes the vendetta. Well, your problem, not mine.

[msmcghee]

50. I was hoping for a clear explanation of your premise . .

. . that it as all Israel's fault - but no matter how carefully and politely I word the question this is the typical response that I get. You have not answered the question nor have you even made a case.

You ask, "I wonder if you even have any concept of why the civilized world criminalizes the vendetta."

First, there is no vendetta. That's just a fiction held in the minds of those who side with the terrorists who use it for propaganda. If there was a real vendetta, Israel would not have left Gaza. If there was a real vendetta, those who call themselves Palestinian would have been killed by Israel's "guns, more guns, bigger guns," a long time ago. If there was a vendetta Israel would not risk the lives of it's troops in ground operations to arrest the perpetrators. They'd simply bomb the neighborhoods and flatten them killing everyone who lives there. And as you say, "it just plain isn't a big neighborhood."

And the civilized world does not criminalize the "vendetta" - the civilized world is getting tired of the Palestinians constantly playing the victim while they fire Kassams daily into Israel.

Vendettas? The Arab culture is largely formed around the concept. Even they know there's no vendetta. Their tactics depend on it. As pelsar pointed out, inside the occupied territories, children and news photographers show little fear of the IDF - but they disappear when the militias show up. The Palestinians know from vendettas.

The only ones who "criminalize the vendetta" are a small number of misguided souls on the far left whose concept of moral responsibility is no deeper than their pseudo-intellectual politics.

[Kagemusha]

51. Bite your tongue. I do not HAVE a premise it is all Israel's fault.

So I will not defend such a thing.

And I will not dignify an argument that "first there is no vendetta, the vendetta is not a crime, the Arabs only understand vendetta and only small minded liberals think revenge killing ought to be a crime which it is not" with a civilized response.

[msmcghee]

52. One small point and I'm done.

Don't think that what you are spouting has anything to do with being a liberal.

[Kagemusha]

53. Criticize me for what I actually spout please.

Not for what you wish I might have spouted so you could criticize me for that, instead.

May there be less killing by the time the next thread hits the I/P dungeon.

[pelsar]

15. peretz is relativly new....

I would cheer if Peretz actually meant to TRY to only go after the guilty.

previous defense ministers attempted to go after the "guilty" by using helicopter assassinations, raids, etc so am i too assume that you agree with those methods?

and this is not true:
The blunt reply is, civilian neighborhoods are all Hamas has All of northern gaza where many settlements were is not populated.....perfect areas for launching attacks on israel and having gun fights away from the civilian population. Hamas has chosen to shoot kassams from the middle of Beit Hanon...their choice

[eyl]

39. Two points

1) I'm not clear what you mean by "they really do not have the option of choosing an unpopulated area." The fact that firing from open areas would be much more dangerous has little bearing on whether firing from civilian areas is justified - and consequently on the responsibility for civilian casualties.

2) While I doubt Peretz sets policy according to the postings on this board (and similiar ones), I'd comment that a lot of the comments on this board (and for that matter, from international leaders and media) don't really encourage me towards a more focused olicy. After all, Israel uses artillery, we get condemned. We use targeted assassinations against the guilty parties, we get condemned (note, I'm talking about condemnation about the assassination itself, not just for others killed during it). If we launch an arrest raid, we'll probably wind up killing more civilians than any other option - and again, we'll get condemned (or we'll get condemned for holding them prisoner). And so on.

[Kagemusha]

42. Quick responses

1) They can't fire from WHOLLY unpopulated areas any great distance from civilians where stray shells lobbed by Israeli units in reply have no chance of hitting innocent people whatsoever.

2) I hate it when I see this line of argument because it's saying that because of we message board posters, you are encouraged to support the less focused killing of even more Palestinians because, well, "we'll get condemned anyway". So since the price is the same, let's shed more blood, or at least not lift a finger to avoid the shedding of more blood in the course of our righteous business, because the price is the same. Price? This is a price? These people lose their lives and we're discussing a few cross words as somehow being over the line?.... and I'm saying that as someone who really is zero fan of terrorism what so tiny ever.

I'm just saying, you seem to suggest that it's good to kill more people just so Israel can thumb its nose at people like me. Maybe so... but the only issue that really matters is whether doing so will do you (and others) any good. If you really, REALLY think that just killing and hurting more people - in pinprick fashion, mind you - is somehow going to help the situation, by all means, kill and raze in self defense. Certainly someone on this board must genuinely want Israel to fail in protecting itself. Myself, I just see futile repetition... and the equivalent of sandlot taunts justifying the snuffing out of human beings. You would be mistaken to believe I have any patience for Hamas hot air about why these stupid missile attacks are either justified or helpful though. But, you're the one addressing me so I've replied to you.

[eyl]

43. In reply

1) They can't for what reason? Is it too dangerous or geographically imnpossible? in either case, I fail to see what difference it makes.

2) I'll admit my second point was more in the way of venting frustration (and not necessarily at you, you just gave me the "lead-in"). I don't support or condemn policies based on whether they will be condemned or not, but on how I see them morally and practically. But I'd be lying if I didn't admit that when I see people castigating Israel whatever we do, or worse, accusing us of things we didn't do (e.g. the genocide posts which crop up every once in a while), there's sometimes a little part of me that wants to argue in favor of those crimes since we might as well be "hung for sheep"*.

Of course, that's just an emotional response, and one I haven't succumbed to. But there's another, more practical, consideration. By this point - and I think I speak for a lot of Israelis - I don't give a damn about international condemnation, or even threats of sanctions and such - I take them as a given, and I just tune them out, rarely even bothering to read them. That's something proponents of those criticisms and policies might want to bear in mind. (again, this is more of a general post than one aimed specifically at you)

*I hope I'm getting the idioms right, BTW

[Kagemusha]

46. A reply of my own, but pleading ignorance on idiom issues

Well, Hamas can't fire a Qassam from the Med or the Sinai. Geographically and physically impossible. No, it doesn't make much of a difference, since their aim is terror and it doesn't excuse bad counter-battery fire aim a day late and a safety margin short.

And no not that this matters either but, if Israel's going to do the same things, criticism be damned, that too gives critics an incentive to make the criticisms and be ignored rather than shut the **** up and also be ignored. Hence a vicious cycle.

I think what critics don't want to accept is that only Palestinians have free will in this matter and Israelis are simply emotional reactionaries with not the slightest capacity for self-control or rational thought when it comes to responses, and that the only issue is whether the Palestinians will exercise their unshared capacity for free will and thought by surrendering quietly, or not surrendering and therefore forcing Israelis, who lack conscious will and thought in the matter, to retaliate.

Critics thought Jews had taught them to expect better from themselves. These critics ask why Israelis believe they should be exempt from their own teachings. I'm sure that, to most Israelis, the reason why Israelis should be exempt from the teachings of Jews in general on matters of war and brutality is so natural, forceful, and blunt that questioning it deserves scorn and contempt for the mere act of asking. The critics wonder, how can we argue that all people are created equal and that others should not be treated as sub-humans, as animals? And yet, this thread shows clearly from where the other view comes, which can be summed up as: Why argue such a thing at all? It's not about equality. It's about being on the right side, and the right side being the winning side.

Or as the pigs would put it, some animals are more equal than others.

But as I said, I realize saying this isn't going to actually stop the carnage, so there's no real reason to shut the **** up, here on the verge of yet another loop around the vicious cycle.

[pelsar]

55. the first accusation is simply wrong...

Well, Hamas can't fire a Qassam from the Med or the Sinai. Geographically and physically impossible. No, it doesn't make much of a difference, since their aim is terror and it doesn't excuse bad counter-battery fire aim a day late and a safety margin short.

perhaps you dont know the geography?...N.Gaza is free of palestenain civilians for kilometers....stray shells wont hit anything but sand or the sea.

same holds true for much of western gaza.

they have chosen to shoot from civiian areas....that is simply the fact


and spare me the "Critics thought Jews had taught them to expect better from themselves." Israelis are no better or worse than any western democracy.

as far as "some animals are more equal then others".....people have an inherent equal worth, but societies and cultures dont. Some practices of certain societies are self destructive such as suicide bombers and shooting from your own civilian areas, etc....so your right, until the palestenian rid themselves of their self destructive practices its not about equality.

why do you egypt wont open up their border point with gaza?...they dont want the importing of the gaza culture into egypt....

[pelsar]

59. a very bizarre statement....

Israelis are simply emotional reactionaries with not the slightest capacity for self-control or rational thought when it comes to response

the israeli responses have been varied since israel left gaza, from threatening sonic booms to artillary in open fields, to helicopter missles....if "lack of control and emotion reaction" in terms of the IDF was true..gaza city and beit hanun would have been rubble (a long time ago).

[eyl]

60. I really hope this supposed to be sarcasm? n/t

[bemildred]

63. No, he is quite serious I can assure you.

His expression is not perfect, but I know exactly what he is talking about.

[eyl]

66. Um, what?

You consider it true that

only Palestinians have free will in this matter and Israelis are simply emotional reactionaries with not the slightest capacity for self-control or rational thought when it comes to responses

(for instance)

[bemildred]

67. No, that is definitely not true.

[bemildred]

68. I really can't speak for him, and I won't try.

Perhaps I should rephrase what I said: I think he is quite serious, I don't think he is being flippant, and I don't think he is being sarcastic. I don't think he means to be taken literally either. And his intent or meaning seemed clear to me.

Perhaps I should not have ventured to say anything.

[barb162]

54. I would cheer if Peretz actually meant to TRY to only go after the guilty.

How do you know he isn't?

"If Peretz gives a damn about going after only those directly responsible, and conveys that down the chain of command, it would be an improvement..."

How?

It solves nothing militarily.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bemildred]

4. Stupid assholes.

It's really annoying the way the way they argue over "credit" for it.

[breakaleg]

8. If I'm reading the reports accurately,there have been 2 Israeli deaths in the

last year+ as a result of kassams. Let's put that in perspective. There have been over 400 Palestinians killed by Israelis since June.

Talk about overkill.

[msmcghee]

9. Are you suggesting that Israel ease off . .

. . until the militias catch up?

[IntiRaymi]

22. Are you sugesting that indiscriminate killing continue?

[msmcghee]

23. No. I have been suggesting that Hamas stop firing . .

. . the Kassams for months now.

[IntiRaymi]

26. So, the lives of 400 palestinians are the right price to pay?

Or should it go up?

[msmcghee]

27. Your error is in assuming that the dead . .

. . Palestinians are some kind of blood debt.

They died not for payment but because Hamas chose to attack Isreal. They died as the result of Israel attempting to stop the attacks.

The cost in Palestinian blood is up to Hamas to decide. For Israel it is whatever it takes to stop the attacks.

For Hamas, who has the power to end all the deaths immediately with one simple decision, we'll have to see how many more dead Palestinians are required.

[breakaleg]

28. The problem with your theory is that Israel's actions in Gaza are not

stopping the kassams. If their plan is to shoot enough people until the extremists give up, it's not working. And shooting innocent civilians just makes those same extremists more enraged and shoot more kassams.

So, since their plan isn't working, why do they continue with it? Or maybe their goal isn't what they claim it to be. Perhaps what they are after is plain old punishment. Because that's all they are achieving.

And again, this blame the victim stuff is pointless and incorrect. If Israel stopped the siege of Gaza, stopped starving them, then perhaps the kassams would stop as well. It's definitely a two way street. Why put all of the blame on the Palestinians when there's plenty of it to go around.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[breakaleg]

30. self delete.

engaging with you is like feeding a child's temper tantrum.

[pelsar]

31. must be a time line problem.....lets go back a year...

israel LEFT gaza, left the Palestinians green houses, that employed 4,000 workers, left a border control point to egypt, that egypt, the europeans and the Palestinians controlled.

the Palestinian response? kassams.

israeli response: first warning flights with sonic booms...more kassams

resumption of helicopter missles....more kassams

artillery in open areas...more kassams

artillery and mini invasions..more kassams.


however the one thing all of the above does do is keep the shooters underpressue that limits their ability to shoot, adjust and shoot some more.....

_____________________________

so now that the simple history of the area has show your theory: Israel stopped the siege of Gaza, stopped starving them, then perhaps the kassams would stop as well. is total BS, as the history of the area has show (pretty short memory there).....perhaps you have an alternative suggestion?

[Violet_Crumble]

58. Maybe you could answer the question that was asked?

'So, since their plan isn't working, why do they continue with it?'

[pelsar]

61. its partially working....

since the alternative is to let the kassam shooters take their time...setup the rockets....shoot one or two...see where it lands adjust aim an send off a lot more on the intended school or apt complex.

can i assume that, that paticular alternative and obvious scenario is prefered to by some?


as far as not "answering questions"...i think you'll have a hard time finding a single one address to me that i have not answered, whereas the opposite is a "standard" here

[Violet_Crumble]

65. No, it is not partially working...

Why on earth pretend it is?

as far as not "answering questions"...i think you'll have a hard time finding a single one address to me that i have not answered, whereas the opposite is a "standard" here

Bullshit. There's quite a few from older threads that I've asked you that you've chosen to ignore. The difference is I don't chase you round hounding you about it...

[pelsar]

69. then in the future...

direct me toward them.......if there is a question that for some reason i dont want to answer, i wll then at least give you the courtesy of explaining why, but i cant think of any reason why i would delibertly ignore ANY question asked.

so i repeat, if there is a question that i have skipped over (perhaps a particular post i missed?) direct my attention to it and i shall answer it, I find it very annoying (to say the least) when a poster makes a statement (that contains half info), i then question it and they disappear to do it again.....

as far as the kassam go.....if you would ask anybody about shooting (especially mortars) and inquired about the ability to hit a target with or without pressure, and the abilty to "bracket the target first-shoot on either side) you would learn that the percentage for hitting the target goes up 100%.

Letting the kassam shooters take their time, check their target angles, watch the landings and adjust their aim......would shorten the lives of many israelis in ashkelon, sederot and other targets......

so once again the problem comes up: whos lives and who dies?

any way islamic jihad has recently mentioned they might stop shooting kassams......there would have to be only a single reason for that "change" to have occurred....

[pelsar]

56. what...no comment on the corrected time line? #31?

did i do it again?...stopped a thread by laying out some simple historical facts?......very politly explaining how the post above makes claim that has already been tried and failed.....dont we even get a "correction? or a comment perhaps explaining why leaving gaza AGAIN, would now result in no kassams?

[Violet_Crumble]

57. self delete...

Not worth the time nor the energy...

[pelsar]

62. facts that get in the way are like that....ignore them

or are you claiming that the sequence of events i described are somehow wrong?...(its only been a year)

[Violet_Crumble]

64. You don't even know what I'd said before I deleted it...

There was a very good reason why I deleted what I said and if you know what's good for you, you'll drop the entire thing right now...

[oblivious]

17. And the question is why did they do this? How can this be stopped?

Hamas and Islamic Jihad both claimed responsibility for the fatal Sderot attack, calling it retaliation for the deaths of 19 civilians last week in an IDF shelling in the northern Gaza town of Beit Hanun.

"The occupation hasn't stopped attacking Palestinians before or after Beit Hanun, so we say resistance is a right of Palestinians," Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum said.

[eyl]

38. Were that case,

there shouldn't have been Qassam's prior to Beit Hanun

[bemildred]

32. Qassam attacks kill one, wound two in Sderot; IDF: No magic bullet

Qassam rockets kept raining down on the southern town of Sderot Thursday morning a day after a woman was killed and two other civilians were seriously wounded.

Two rockets landed in the town at 7.30 A.M., Channel 10 television reported. There was no immediate report of casualties or damage.

---

"There will be a response, but it must be effective, not cause a deterioration of the situation and not bog down in an occupation of Gaza," explained one defense official. "There are no magic solutions to this problem.

---

Over the course of the day, Palestinians fired at least 13 Qassams at Israel, but only one was fatal. That one landed at about 8 A.M. on a path near the defense minister's house in Sderot. Slutzker was mortally wounded and died en route to the hospital, while Peretz, the bodyguard, was seriously wounded, and doctors had to amputate both his legs.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/788352.html

[bemildred]

33. IAF strikes weapon warehouses, militant HQ in Gaza; no injuries

The Israel Air Force attacked several buildings Wednesday night hours after a woman was killed and two other people seriously wounded in multiple Qassam strikes on the western Negev town of Sderot.

A helicopter fired two missiles into the house of a Palestinian militant in a Gaza Strip refugee camp. Neighbors said the occupant, a member of the Popular Resistance Committees, was not in the building at the time and there were no reports of casualties.

A Hamas headquarters and an arms storage facility in the town of Jebalya were attacked from the air, and similar facilities of the Islamic Jihad militant group were bombed in Rafah and Jebalya.

---

Sixteen Qassam rockets rained down on the western Negev over the course of Wednesday. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert warned in response that the IDF operation in Gaza would continue "without end... to fight this murderous terror."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/788562.html

[Englander]

37. Haaretz Editorial

Two miserable towns
By Haaretz Editorial

Residents of Beit Hanun are not born holding Qassam rockets in their hands. Until a few years ago, they used to work in Sapir College, near Sderot - the neighboring town at which they now launch Qassams every day. One of these rockets killed Faina (Fatima) Slutzker, 57, who moved to Israel with her husband and two children three years ago. At that time, residents of Beit Hanun were already completely cut off from their jobs in Israel, leaving them unemployed, as she was. Slutzker was killed on her way to one of the training centers set up under the Wisconsin Plan, whose goal is to encourage people to join the work force. Beit Hanun does not even have a recourse like that for the economic distress.

>snip

Residents of Beit Hanun also have nowhere to go. When the Israel Defense Forces inform them that they must vacate their houses in advance of an attack, they flee to the hospital to find shelter. Some 450 houses were destroyed in the most recent IDF operation, yet after it ended, the Qassam fire continued, and even intensified. When a missile was fired at the house of 4-year-old Bara Fiad of Beit Hanun, it plowed a deep pit in the courtyard, and he disappeared into it.

This reality of mutual misery and mutual intimidation is turning into a dead-end situation. Israel and the Palestinians have been caught up in a dangerous diplomatic vacuum. From a military standpoint, it seems that the IDF has not managed to find a solution to the Qassam fire, and it is doubtful one even exists. In July, when the chief of staff was asked to explain why Katyusha fire on the Galilee was continuing despite the IDF operation in Lebanon, he gave the example of the Qassam rockets fired at Sderot, to which no military solution has been found, either.

When people talk about a large-scale operation in Gaza, it is necessary to remember the facts. The IDF has already conducted large-scale operations, in which it killed hundreds of Palestinians, but the Qassams continue to fall - even when the IDF is in the Gaza Strip.

It is impossible to continue seeking reasons not to talk with the Palestinians. It is impossible to continue setting conditions even for beginning a dialogue, and for any kind of interim, partial or temporary arrangement, or any initiative for the mutual release of prisoners, that could bring relief, even partial or temporary, to both sides, which are both paying the price, day after day. We must seize any thread, however thin - this time, perhaps, in the form of the new government that will be established in the Palestinian Authority - in order to try to break the pattern of vengeance and retaliation that leads only to more suffering.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/788606.html