Horza Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 From another thread: Because's here's one from the Dept. of "no kidding," for the first time a senior Hamas official is taking responsibility for the abduction of the three Israeli teens. It doesn't excuse Israel's lack of proportional response, but it does take away a talking point that the recent round of hostilities was unprovoked. Problem with that chronology is the bit where Netanyahu used the pretext of looking for the teens (whom he knew to be dead) to round up and detain hundreds of Palestinians in the West Bank over the course of three weeks. The media storm created by this lead to retaliation attacks by Israeli settlers and just generally turned an opportunity to corner Hamas and win back some sympathy on the international stage into an ugly, chaotic escalating shit-storm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 From another thread: Problem with that chronology is the bit where Netanyahu used the pretext of looking for the teens (whom he knew to be dead) to round up and detain hundreds of Palestinians in the West Bank over the course of three weeks. The media storm created by this lead to retaliation attacks by Israeli settlers and just generally turned an opportunity to corner Hamas and win back some sympathy on the international stage into an ugly, chaotic escalating shit-storm. Gonna pull a Scot here... Do you think Israel would've still started a war with Hamas this summer if those teens hadn't been killed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 Gonna pull a Scot here... Do you think Israel would've still started a war with Hamas this summer if those teens hadn't been killed? No, because they would just continue their occupation and force Palestinians to leave their homes at gunpoint so Israeli's can live there instead. For some reason that doesn't seem to count as an act of war, yet kidnapping is. Go figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horza Posted August 21, 2014 Author Share Posted August 21, 2014 Gonna pull a Scot here... Do you think Israel would've still started a war with Hamas this summer if those teens hadn't been killed? As we're currently seeing, there are factors pushing both sides towards conflict. For Israel, one of them is the relative vulnerability of Hamas; short of allies and low on funds after the Sisi government shut down its smuggling tunnels. As such, if an opportunity to put pressure on Hamas arose, Netanyahu was always going to take it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horza Posted August 21, 2014 Author Share Posted August 21, 2014 Related: that said, Hamas isn't totally friendless - the do have in their corner worldwide philanthopists Qatar. Have fun with that, guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 As we're currently seeing, there are factors pushing both sides towards conflict. For Israel, one of them is the relative vulnerability of Hamas; short of allies and low on funds after the Sisi government shut down its smuggling tunnels. As such, if an opportunity to put pressure on Hamas arose, Netanyahu was always going to take it. There's a difference though between pressuring Hamas and starting a war. Israel could've further restricted fishing rights, further delayed humanitarian aid conveys, cut off electricity, etc. I'm not saying any of those would have been good ideas, and they probably would've led to Hamas attempting to retaliate, which would in turn maybe led to war anyway. But at the same time, perhaps not. Of course, if I was the PM of Israel I'd seek to undermine Hamas by truly seeking a permanent peace with Fatah, thus proving the benefits of cooperation and the folly of armed resistance. So I'm coming from a different angle than Bibi, and thinking that war should be the last option, not a middle one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horza Posted August 21, 2014 Author Share Posted August 21, 2014 There's a difference though between pressuring Hamas and starting a war. Israel could've further restricted fishing rights, further delayed humanitarian aid conveys, cut off electricity, etc. I'm not saying any of those would have been good ideas, and they probably would've led to Hamas attempting to retaliate, which would in turn maybe led to war anyway. But at the same time, perhaps not. There is, but this brings us another factor that pushes towards conflict, namely an Israeli domestic context heading ever-rightwards. The range of pressure tactics and their application is circumscribed by the ability of ambitious nutcases to accuse Netanyahu of not going far enough, which makes it difficult to find a set that box Hamas in without tipping it's calculus towards rockets. If such a set existed it would be pretty hard to find however, as Hamas's deteriorating position left it with very little to lose in any case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Notorious Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 Gonna pull a Scot here... Do you think Israel would've still started a war with Hamas this summer if those teens hadn't been killed? Is this a trick rhetorical question? The answer is absolutely yes. The zionists will do anything and everything to prevent the Palestinians from declaring statehood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samalander Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 If only there was somebody on this board, who could have told everyone much earlier that Hamas was indeed responsible for the poor kidnapped teens... Why, I'm sure such a person would have been lauded, lauded I say, for the enlightnment he brings. Certainly, he would not have been ridiculed and derided. No, I'm sure nobody on this board would have done that. No, because they would just continue their occupation and force Palestinians to leave their homes at gunpoint so Israeli's can live there instead.That doesn't actually happen (post 1948, and even then it was rare). Israel has laws disallowing settlers from making their homes on privately owned land in the Disputed Territories. Maybe you should try, I don't know, reading some serious material on the subject over whatever propagandish drivel you channel here. The zionists will do anything and everything to prevent the Palestinians from declaring statehood.I guess you know those rascally zionists really well, huh? Made a study of them, have you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suttree Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 If only there was somebody on this board, who could have told everyone much earlier that Hamas was indeed responsible for the poor kidnapped teens... Why, I'm sure such a person would have been lauded, lauded I say, for the enlightnment he brings. Certainly, he would not have been ridiculed and derided. No, I'm sure nobody on this board would have done that. I forget, did you also break the scoop that Netanyahu knew those teens were dead before he started the "search" and used it as an excuse to move into the West Bank? It's nice to hear you knew about Hamas involvement before Israeli intelligence who claimed Hamas' political wing was taken by surprise however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 AFAIK members of Hamas were always thought to be behind the kidnapping and the only question was whether it was ordered from on high or not.Either way, the article I read on this says this claim has not been supported by any other member of Hamas. And that some analysts don't buy this one guy's claim.http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/21/hamas-kidnapping-three-israeli-teenagers-saleh-al-arouri-qassam-brigadesSo I think taking this as fact is a bit premature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 That doesn't actually happen (post 1948, and even then it was rare). Israel has laws disallowing settlers from making their homes on privately owned land in the Disputed Territories. Maybe you should try, I don't know, reading some serious material on the subject over whatever propagandish drivel you channel here.I think you even believe this matters too. Wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Notorious Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 "Disputed territories" ..... lol zionists say the damnest thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samalander Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 I think you even believe this matters too. Wow. Yeah, facts matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arakan Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 Leaving the Israel/Palestine focus area...meanwhile in Libya jihadist rebel groups from Misrata have captured the Tripolis international airport after weeks of heavy fighting. Yep, the Libya operation can now officially be considered as a candidate for the biggest fuck-up award of Western intervention in the Middle East in the last 10 years. The way the US and EU have ignored Libyas descent in chaos, anarchy, regional fundamentalism and now in civil war again is shameful to say the least. It tells alot that in the last two years (post Bengazi) Libya almost completely disappeared from the Western news coverage and seemingly from the political agenda as well (as long as no Oil Tankers are captured). And I can even understand this. For some politicians it might be quite embarrassing to speak about Libya...So what are the opinions of the good people of this forum about Libya's future? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horza Posted August 24, 2014 Author Share Posted August 24, 2014 Yeah, it's a mess. The neglect isn't surprising when you consider that Libya's peripherality was an important part of the US's decision making - Libya wasn't important to anyone but Libyans and airpower would be decisive, so why not? It is hard to know what practical steps the powers involved should have taken after regime change, though. There wasn't much in the way of institutions to work with, especially in terms of governance and basic security and I don't think having the US or someone else adjudicate between rival militias would have produced significantly different results. The present crisis goes to the basics of Libyan nation and state formation, which has always been a very fragile business; Gaddafi's regime was a thin topsoil of repression and now everything's blowing in the wind. Also, it would be nice to know who the mystery air force belongs to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arakan Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 Yeah, it's a mess. The neglect isn't surprising when you consider that Libya's peripherality was an important part of the US's decision making - Libya wasn't important to anyone but Libyans and airpower would be decisive, so why not? It is hard to know what practical steps the powers involved should have taken after regime change, though. There wasn't much in the way of institutions to work with, especially in terms of governance and basic security and I don't think having the US or someone else adjudicate between rival militias would have produced significantly different results. The present crisis goes to the basics of Libyan nation and state formation, which has always been a very fragile business; Gaddafi's regime was a thin topsoil of repression and now everything's blowing in the wind. Also, it would be nice to know who the mystery air force belongs to.I think Libya is less a US fuck-up. I see the UK and France much more in responsibility (and in general the EU) as those were the two countries pushing hardest for action. And the EU clearly has a major interest in a functioning Libyan state, and be it just to deal with the refugee catastrophy in the Mediteranean. Since 2004 more than 6000 African refugees have died crossing the sea. A shame.It would be in the self-interest for the West to help the Libyan secular forces to build up that country again. Right now Libya must be considered a "failed state" but unlike others in that infamaous group, this country really has the chance to become prosperous in the forseeable future. But I guess I can anticipate what will happen. The US and the EU will sooner rather than later support the next best "strong", secular leader (read: dictator, preferably with military background) who will guarantee stability and who will fight jihadists/fundamentalists, basically what has happened in Egypt or in neighboring Algeria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daskool Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 I think Libya is less a US fuck-up. I see the UK and France much more in responsibility (and in general the EU) as those were the two countries pushing hardest for action. And the EU clearly has a major interest in a functioning Libyan state, and be it just to deal with the refugee catastrophy in the Mediteranean. Since 2004 more than 6000 African refugees have died crossing the sea. A shame.It would be in the self-interest for the West to help the Libyan secular forces to build up that country again. Right now Libya must be considered a "failed state" but unlike others in that infamaous group, this country really has the chance to become prosperous in the forseeable future. But I guess I can anticipate what will happen. The US and the EU will sooner rather than later support the next best "strong", secular leader (read: dictator, preferably with military background) who will guarantee stability and who will fight jihadists/fundamentalists, basically what has happened in Egypt or in neighboring AlgeriaLibya is a major oil exporter into southern Europe and generally most Europeans were pretty happy to leave Gaddafi alone as long as he kept pumping the oil. The main drive to remove him definitely came from the US. Yes the French and British supplied most of the bombers but without US logistical aid and support the military operation would have been impossible. Post 'liberation' the United States has been heavily involved in Libya, so writing off their involvement as peripheral is simply incorrect, though I can understand why Obama supporters would want to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arakan Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 Libya is a major oil exporter into southern Europe and generally most Europeans were pretty happy to leave Gaddafi alone as long as he kept pumping the oil. The main drive to remove him definitely came from the US. Yes the French and British supplied most of the bombers but without US logistical aid and support the military operation would have been impossible. Post 'liberation' the United States has been heavily involved in Libya, so writing off their involvement as peripheral is simply incorrect, though I can understand why Obama supporters would want to do that.I am not an Obama supporter as I am not even an American. Jesus. And it is quite obvious that the UK and esp. France (Sarkozy) were pushing hardest in the Libyan affair. That doesnt mean that the US werent involved behind closed doors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daskool Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 I am not an Obama supporter as I am not even an American. Jesus.And it is quite obvious that the UK and esp. France (Sarkozy) were pushing hardest in the Libyan affair. That doesnt mean that the US werent involved behind closed doors.Sorry I didn't mean to imply you were, rather a judgment on the commentary I'm increasingly reading that Libya was an entirely European operation, and as such it has no bearing on the administration's strategic decision in the middle east, clearly that's rubbish. Yes Cameron and Sarkozy were pushing for a bombing campaign but there's equally no doubt that without America's express approval and aid it would have remained talk. Clearly a strategic goal of the Obama admin was to get rid off Gaddafi and clearly the result has been a FUBAR of epic proportions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.