Reffo
01-11-2009, 10:19 PM
Here for a change is a more reasoned article, in the Economist about "The Disproportianate Response":
Gaza: the rights and wrongs (http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12853965)
Nevertheless, I for one disagree with most of their logic, here is why:
Since Israel evacuated its soldiers and settlers from the Gaza Strip three years ago, Palestinian groups in Gaza have fired thousands of rudimentary rockets and mortar bombs across the border, killing very few people but disrupting normal life in a swathe of southern Israel. They fired almost 300 between December 19th, when Hamas ignored Egypt’s entreaties and decided not to renew a six-month truce, and December 27th, when Israel started its bombing campaign (see article). To that extent, Israel is right to say it was provoked.I certainly don't disagree with this..
Of provocation and proportion
It is easy to point out from afar that barely a dozen Israelis had been killed by Palestinian rockets since the Gaza withdrawal. But few governments facing an election, as Israel’s is, would let their towns be peppered every day with rockets, no matter how ineffective. As Barack Obama said on a visit to one Israeli town in July, “If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I’m going to do everything in my power to stop that. And I would expect Israelis to do the same thing.” In recent months, moreover, Hamas has smuggled far more lethal rockets into its Gaza enclave, some of which are now landing in Israeli cities that were previously out of range. On its border with Lebanon, Israel already faces one radical non-state actor, Hizbullah, that is formally dedicated to Israel’s destruction and has a powerful arsenal of Iranian-supplied missiles at its disposal. The Israelis are understandably reluctant to let a similar danger grow in Gaza. Nor do I disagree with this..
And yet Israel should not be surprised by the torrent of indignation it has aroused from around the world. This is not just because people seldom back the side with the F-16s. In general, a war must pass three tests to be justified. A country must first have exhausted all other means of defending itself. The attack should be proportionate to the objective. And it must stand a reasonable chance of achieving its goal. On all three of these tests Israel is on shakier ground than it cares to admit.Here is where our disagreement begins (although, on an emotive level they do have a point about people not tending to side with the side which has the F-16s, especially if that side represents someone else other than their own countries. But that of course is not logic, it's just pure emotions..).
It is true that Israel has put up with the rockets from Gaza for a long time. But it may have been able to stop the rockets another way. For it is not quite true that Israel’s only demand in respect of Gaza has been for quiet along the border. Israel has also been trying to undermine Hamas by clamping an economic blockade on Gaza, while boosting the economy of the West Bank, where the Palestinians’ more pliant secular movement, Fatah, holds sway. Even during the now-lapsed truce, Israel prevented all but a trickle of humanitarian aid from entering the strip. So although Israel was provoked, Hamas can claim that it was provoked too. If Israel had ended the blockade, Hamas may have renewed the truce. Indeed, on one reading of its motives, Hamas resumed fire to force Israel into a new truce on terms that would include opening the border.By that logic, Iran has the right to lob missiles at Europe and the USA. After all, Iran to has had to face an economic blocade from the West (for how many years now?).
Moreover, Israel was not alone in boycotting Hamas which has been declared a terrorist organisation and rightly so, if one remembers their spree of suicide bombings, the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit, their rocket attacks and their avowed aim to destroy Israel which is a full fledged and rcognised member state of the UN.
On proportionality, the numbers speak for themselves—up to a point. After the first three days, some 350 Palestinians had been killed and only four Israelis. Neither common sense nor the laws of war require Israel to deviate from the usual rule, which is to kill as many enemies as you can and avoid casualties on your own side.I didn't know about that rule! I thought the rule was to do as much as necessary to achieve the aim of stopping the enemy. And as even "The Economist" admits, Israel tried the more peaceful ways.
Three years ago it withdrew unilaterally from Gaza
It tried a cease fire
It tried more restricted retaliations
Nothing worked! This attempt may not work either but it was quite appropriate to try it!
Hamas was foolish to pick this uneven fight. But of the Palestinian dead, several score were civilians, and many others were policemen rather than combatants. Although both Western armies and their foes have killed far more civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq, Israel’s interest should be to minimise the killing. The Palestinians it is bombing today will be its neighbours for ever.It's good to see "The Economist" admitting that western forces too could not avoid killing civilians. However, their point about NOT killing Hamas police is entirely invalid. After all, they are clearly part of Hamas and more than likely in a combat situation they too would shoot at Israeli soldiers.
This last point speaks to the test of effectiveness. Israel said at first that, much as it would like to topple Hamas, its present operation has the more limited aim of “changing reality” so that Hamas stops firing across the border. But as Israel learnt in Lebanon in 2006, this is far from easy. As with Hizbullah, Hamas’s “resistance” to Israel has made it popular and delivered it to power. It is most unlikely to bend the knee. Like Hizbullah, it will probably prefer to keep on firing no matter how hard it is hit, daring Israel to send its ground forces into a messy street fight in Gaza’s congested cities and refugee camps.As I said, the operation may or may not end up being effective (in terms of stopping the Qassams), no one really knows. But something new MUST be tried, because clearly everything else has failed..
Any differing opinions, comments, thoughts ..... ?
Gaza: the rights and wrongs (http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12853965)
Nevertheless, I for one disagree with most of their logic, here is why:
Since Israel evacuated its soldiers and settlers from the Gaza Strip three years ago, Palestinian groups in Gaza have fired thousands of rudimentary rockets and mortar bombs across the border, killing very few people but disrupting normal life in a swathe of southern Israel. They fired almost 300 between December 19th, when Hamas ignored Egypt’s entreaties and decided not to renew a six-month truce, and December 27th, when Israel started its bombing campaign (see article). To that extent, Israel is right to say it was provoked.I certainly don't disagree with this..
Of provocation and proportion
It is easy to point out from afar that barely a dozen Israelis had been killed by Palestinian rockets since the Gaza withdrawal. But few governments facing an election, as Israel’s is, would let their towns be peppered every day with rockets, no matter how ineffective. As Barack Obama said on a visit to one Israeli town in July, “If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I’m going to do everything in my power to stop that. And I would expect Israelis to do the same thing.” In recent months, moreover, Hamas has smuggled far more lethal rockets into its Gaza enclave, some of which are now landing in Israeli cities that were previously out of range. On its border with Lebanon, Israel already faces one radical non-state actor, Hizbullah, that is formally dedicated to Israel’s destruction and has a powerful arsenal of Iranian-supplied missiles at its disposal. The Israelis are understandably reluctant to let a similar danger grow in Gaza. Nor do I disagree with this..
And yet Israel should not be surprised by the torrent of indignation it has aroused from around the world. This is not just because people seldom back the side with the F-16s. In general, a war must pass three tests to be justified. A country must first have exhausted all other means of defending itself. The attack should be proportionate to the objective. And it must stand a reasonable chance of achieving its goal. On all three of these tests Israel is on shakier ground than it cares to admit.Here is where our disagreement begins (although, on an emotive level they do have a point about people not tending to side with the side which has the F-16s, especially if that side represents someone else other than their own countries. But that of course is not logic, it's just pure emotions..).
It is true that Israel has put up with the rockets from Gaza for a long time. But it may have been able to stop the rockets another way. For it is not quite true that Israel’s only demand in respect of Gaza has been for quiet along the border. Israel has also been trying to undermine Hamas by clamping an economic blockade on Gaza, while boosting the economy of the West Bank, where the Palestinians’ more pliant secular movement, Fatah, holds sway. Even during the now-lapsed truce, Israel prevented all but a trickle of humanitarian aid from entering the strip. So although Israel was provoked, Hamas can claim that it was provoked too. If Israel had ended the blockade, Hamas may have renewed the truce. Indeed, on one reading of its motives, Hamas resumed fire to force Israel into a new truce on terms that would include opening the border.By that logic, Iran has the right to lob missiles at Europe and the USA. After all, Iran to has had to face an economic blocade from the West (for how many years now?).
Moreover, Israel was not alone in boycotting Hamas which has been declared a terrorist organisation and rightly so, if one remembers their spree of suicide bombings, the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit, their rocket attacks and their avowed aim to destroy Israel which is a full fledged and rcognised member state of the UN.
On proportionality, the numbers speak for themselves—up to a point. After the first three days, some 350 Palestinians had been killed and only four Israelis. Neither common sense nor the laws of war require Israel to deviate from the usual rule, which is to kill as many enemies as you can and avoid casualties on your own side.I didn't know about that rule! I thought the rule was to do as much as necessary to achieve the aim of stopping the enemy. And as even "The Economist" admits, Israel tried the more peaceful ways.
Three years ago it withdrew unilaterally from Gaza
It tried a cease fire
It tried more restricted retaliations
Nothing worked! This attempt may not work either but it was quite appropriate to try it!
Hamas was foolish to pick this uneven fight. But of the Palestinian dead, several score were civilians, and many others were policemen rather than combatants. Although both Western armies and their foes have killed far more civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq, Israel’s interest should be to minimise the killing. The Palestinians it is bombing today will be its neighbours for ever.It's good to see "The Economist" admitting that western forces too could not avoid killing civilians. However, their point about NOT killing Hamas police is entirely invalid. After all, they are clearly part of Hamas and more than likely in a combat situation they too would shoot at Israeli soldiers.
This last point speaks to the test of effectiveness. Israel said at first that, much as it would like to topple Hamas, its present operation has the more limited aim of “changing reality” so that Hamas stops firing across the border. But as Israel learnt in Lebanon in 2006, this is far from easy. As with Hizbullah, Hamas’s “resistance” to Israel has made it popular and delivered it to power. It is most unlikely to bend the knee. Like Hizbullah, it will probably prefer to keep on firing no matter how hard it is hit, daring Israel to send its ground forces into a messy street fight in Gaza’s congested cities and refugee camps.As I said, the operation may or may not end up being effective (in terms of stopping the Qassams), no one really knows. But something new MUST be tried, because clearly everything else has failed..
Any differing opinions, comments, thoughts ..... ?