Israel live tweets its own offensive into Gaza

Who started Hamas?
"Israel started Hamas. It was a project of Shin Bet, which had a feeling that they could use it to hem in the PLO."
/
Ami Isseroff, writing on MideastWeb, shows how the Israelis deliberately promoted the Islamists of the future Hamas by helping them turn the Islamic University of Gaza into a base from which the group recruited activists – and the suicide bombers of tomorrow. As the only higher-education facility in the Gaza strip, and the only such institution open to Palestinians since Anwar Sadat closed Egyptian colleges to them, IUG contained within its grounds the seeds of the future Palestinian state. When a conflict arose over religious issues, however, the Israeli authorities sided with the Islamists against the secularists of the Fatah-PLO mainstream. As Isseroff relates, the Islamists
/
“Hamas, to my great regret, is Israel’s creation,” says [Israeli official Avner Cohen], a Tunisian-born Jew who worked in Gaza for more than two decades. Responsible for religious affairs in the region until 1994, Mr. Cohen watched the Islamist movement take shape, muscle aside secular Palestinian rivals and then morph into what is today Hamas, a militant group that is sworn to Israel’s destruction.
Instead of trying to curb Gaza’s Islamists from the outset, says Mr. Cohen, Israel for years tolerated and, in some cases, encouraged them as a counterweight to the secular nationalists of the Palestine Liberation Organization and its dominant faction, Yasser Arafat’s Fatah. Israel cooperated with a crippled, half-blind cleric named Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, even as he was laying the foundations for what would become Hamas. Sheikh Yassin continues to inspire militants today; during the recent war in Gaza, Hamas fighters confronted Israeli troops with “Yassins,” primitive rocket-propelled grenades named in honor of the cleric.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012...bollah-and-other-terrorists-via-blowback.html

Williebee said:

Not meaning to sound callous, but it's not the first 12 year old boy. The first 12 year old boy died back before either of us was born. (For example, the Arab-Israeli War in 1948)*

What makes it arbitrary is pointing to that one incident that occurred decades after the first hostilities.

*Bemusing side note is the flag at the top of this Wiki entry:

Click to expand...

I understand the position of the long standing conflict where over time a list of grievances a mile long gets gets put forth as a way to justify current actions. I just think the list of grievances need to be dealt with one at a time. Starting with the minorest, and building from there.

Using your 12 year old boy from 1948 example, maybe something like "gee, I'm really sorry about what happened to that kid back in 48. I can see your pain written on your face".

"Yeah, that really hurt, it's been tuff to deal with. I would really like it if it didn't happen again".

And then it would be really helpful to not rip the scab off a wound that's in the process of healing.

What's your point, Graz? The world backed Saddam and America backed the people who would become Al-Qaeda and has supported incredibly monstrous rulers. And those are just the most famous cases of 'blowback'. Does that mean the First Gulf War and attacking Al-Qaeda had no moral legitimacy?

There is something to be said for giving faces to the statistics, certainly. But, sooner or later, one way or another, somebody will stop retaliating.

Williebee said:

There is something to be said for giving faces to the statistics, certainly. But, sooner or later, one way or another, somebody will stop retaliating.

Click to expand...

I had a quick snort to myself whilst reading this piece and was thinking "Would somebody please pass this onto the people of Northern Ireland and tell them they should just stop shooting each other and live happily ever after?" And then I myself had to stop, because whilst it was never this simplistic the troubles (aka the near civil war, along with local Royalists and Roundheads and Unionists and Confederates et al) has now thankfully passed from the heralded history of war into the historic oblivion of peace for the most part.
I know that there aren't that many parallels, but in my opinion what actually brokered the Irish deal was that the leaders of the Republican brigade were finally offered some degree of shared ownership in the society around them, rather than being left at the begging end of the table. Right wing Israelis and Israeli government agencies can spin online as much as they like in the interim, but I personally don't see any sense of peace unless this happens.
Any posters in Northern Ireland willing to lend their views?

ReallyRong said:

history of war into the historic oblivion of peace for the most part.
I know that there aren't that many parallels, but in my opinion what actually brokered the Irish deal was that the leaders of the Republican brigade were finally offered some degree of shared ownership in the society around them, rather than being left at the begging end of the table. Right wing Israelis and Israeli government agencies can spin online as much as they like in the interim, but I personally don't see any sense of peace unless this happens.
Any posters in Northern Ireland willing to lend their views?

Click to expand...

So what is Israel supposed to offer Hamas? Tell them that they'll pay to move every Jew out of the country? Promise to be nothing but good dhimmi? Hamas has, in its charter, a promise to never compromise or make peace with 'the Zionist enemy'/Jews, and if they're unwilling to even change the text to make themselves look more palpable, I doubt they'll take anything less.

As bad as Israel has acted in the past century (and past 30 minutes), it has taken steps towards peace, such as the treaties with Jordan and Egypt, and withdrawing from Lebanon. I don't see Hamas changing its paradigm anytime soon.

ReallyRong said:

I had a quick snort to myself whilst reading this piece and was thinking "Would somebody please pass this onto the people of Northern Ireland and tell them they should just stop shooting each other and live happily ever after?" And then I myself had to stop, because whilst it was never this simplistic the troubles (aka the near civil war, along with local Royalists and Roundheads and Unionists and Confederates et al) has now thankfully passed from the heralded history of war into the historic oblivion of peace for the most part.

Click to expand...

Simplistic? Perhaps. Or, more likely, you miss my point. You see, one way or another, one side and/or the other will stop shooting, if only because one or both sides is dead.

Op-Ed from Dahlia Lithwick, a legal writer for Slate who's presently spending a year in Jerusalem on book leave with her family. It's brutally honest and clearly pained her to write - IMO, it's worth a read.

raburrell said:

Op-Ed from Dahlia Lithwick, a legal writer for Slate who's presently spending a year in Jerusalem on book leave with her family. It's brutally honest and clearly pained her to write - IMO, it's worth a read.

Click to expand...

Thank you for sharing this. I could keep myself, even my spouse in that environment. I'm not sure I could stay there with my kids.

Lhipenwhe said:

What's your point, Graz? The world backed Saddam and America backed the people who would become Al-Qaeda and has supported incredibly monstrous rulers. And those are just the most famous cases of 'blowback'. Does that mean the First Gulf War and attacking Al-Qaeda had no moral legitimacy?

Click to expand...

Point being that I find it interesting that the origins of Hamas, aL qaeda and the Taliban are basically the same, for the same purpose and created by powers outside to do their bidding with no regards to self rule, freedom or any rule of law. As is occuring in Libya and Syria today.

When a government seeks to establish a moral legitimacy for war, isn't that nothing more than propaganda? Goering at the Nuremberg trials, ""Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY."

Moshe Dayan form my earlier post, "It went this way: We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was.''
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/11/wo...the-golan.html

In recent American history, moral legitimacy was established via similar propaganda. A second Gulf of Tonkin attack, (see Goering's and Dayan's statements re: being attacked), was fabricated to create the "moral legitimacy" for the Vietnam war.

Moral legitimacy for the first Persian gulf war was established by the image of a beautiful 16 year old Kuwati girl, tears streaming down her face as she described Iraqi soldiers snatching premature babies from their incubators in a Kuwait hospital. Never happened.

The WTC attacks were of course used to create "moral legitimacy" for the invasion of Afghanistan. The masterminds behind that attack surely weren't limited to a few radicals holed up in the Hindu Kush.

Last, but not least is the most recent Iraq war where "moral legitimacy" was Saddam had purchased massive amounts of yellow cake from Africa for nukes that would be used to attack and kill Americans.

So yes, those wars you mentioned did indeed lack "moral legitimacy."

Graz said:

Point being that I find it interesting that the origins of Hamas, aL qaeda and the Taliban are basically the same, for the same purpose and created by powers outside to do their bidding with no regards to self rule, freedom or any rule of law. As is occuring in Libya and Syria today.

When a government seeks to establish a moral legitimacy for war, isn't that nothing more than propaganda? Goering at the Nuremberg trials, ""Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY."

Moshe Dayan form my earlier post, "It went this way: We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was.''
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/11/wo...the-golan.html

In recent American history, moral legitimacy was established via similar propaganda. A second Gulf of Tonkin attack, (see Goering's and Dayan's statements re: being attacked), was fabricated to create the "moral legitimacy" for the Vietnam war.

Moral legitimacy for the first Persian gulf war was established by the image of a beautiful 16 year old Kuwati girl, tears streaming down her face as she described Iraqi soldiers snatching premature babies from their incubators in a Kuwait hospital. Never happened.

The WTC attacks were of course used to create "moral legitimacy" for the invasion of Afghanistan. The masterminds behind that attack surely weren't limited to a few radicals holed up in the Hindu Kush.

Last, but not least is the most recent Iraq war where "moral legitimacy" was Saddam had purchased massive amounts of yellow cake from Africa for nukes that would be used to attack and kill Americans.

So yes, those wars you mentioned did indeed lack "moral legitimacy."

Click to expand...

Actually, no. Moral legitimacy for the Gulf War was Saddam invading Kuwait and refusing to leave. I'm curious as to your thoughts of who planned the WTC attack if it wasn't the 'few radicals holed up in the Hindu Kush', and I didn't say I thought the second Gulf War was justified (I don't, and never said I did).

I'm really not sure what you mean to accomplish by quoting Goering. Nazi Germany embarked on a path of slaughter across Europe; it was the aggressor in its war, and people didn't need to be 'dragged along' to fight against them. It was survival, first and foremost. If you're referring to the Germans, than yes, they were led by propaganda, but it was more than that - Nazism was an aggressive, expansionist ideology, and the people elected them knowing its views. They were quite eager to avenge the 'humiliation' inflicted on them from WWI, and benefited from the plundering of the countries they conquered.

I'm not denying Dayan's quote, or the truthfulness of its statements. However, the 1967 war was more than tractors going into a DMZ, and its scope probably goes beyond current events and into historical argument. Conflicts are complex like that, and going into the 'source' goes beyond the scope of this post.

Hamas is attacking Israel. It might have started out supported by Israel (although I doubt the Israelis would purposefully steer it towards attacking their citizens), but it is its own beast right now, one that proudly cites Nazi propaganda in its charter and launches rockets, suicide bombs, and other attacks against 'the Zionist enemy'.

But really. I'm curious as to what you think Israel should do. Hamas will consider a temporary ceasefire at most; its intended goal is to liquidate Israel.

Lhipenwhe said:

Actually, no. Moral legitimacy for the Gulf War was Saddam invading Kuwait and refusing to leave. I'm curious as to your thoughts of who planned the WTC attack if it wasn't the 'few radicals holed up in the Hindu Kush', and I didn't say I thought the second Gulf War was justified (I don't, and never said I did).

I'm really not sure what you mean to accomplish by quoting Goering. Nazi Germany embarked on a path of slaughter across Europe; it was the aggressor in its war, and people didn't need to be 'dragged along' to fight against them. It was survival, first and foremost. If you're referring to the Germans, than yes, they were led by propaganda, but it was more than that - Nazism was an aggressive, expansionist ideology, and the people elected them knowing its views. They were quite eager to avenge the 'humiliation' inflicted on them from WWI, and benefited from the plundering of the countries they conquered.

I'm not denying Dayan's quote, or the truthfulness of its statements. However, the 1967 war was more than tractors going into a DMZ, and its scope probably goes beyond current events and into historical argument. Conflicts are complex like that, and going into the 'source' goes beyond the scope of this post.

Hamas is attacking Israel. It might have started out supported by Israel (although I doubt the Israelis would purposefully steer it towards attacking their citizens), but it is its own beast right now, one that proudly cites Nazi propaganda in its charter and launches rockets, suicide bombs, and other attacks against 'the Zionist enemy'.

But really. I'm curious as to what you think Israel should do. Hamas will consider a temporary ceasefire at most; its intended goal is to liquidate Israel.

Click to expand...

American people didn't give a damn about Hussein invading Kuwait, at least not enough to support an US led invasion, as the gassing of the Kurds by Hussein wasn't enough "moral legitimacy" to invade. It took a fabricated story created by the Kuwait govt. and put forth by Hill and Knowlton in a public relations campaign, (interestingly, the term public relations was created in the 1930's to replace the term propaganda due to the pervasise use of propaganda by Hitler's Germany), to sway public opinion to support an invasion.

The morning of the 9/11 attacks, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld wanted this attack to be used as a means to invade, occupy Iraq. What followed was more propaganda attempting to link Hussein and al qaeda with the hopes of creating moral legitimacy for an invasion of Iraq. Don't know who masterminded the 9/11 attacks. But the propaganda that followed suggests a means to an end.

I'm slightly offended when you write, "I'm really not sure what you mean to accomplish by quoting Goering." That brief quote from Goering at the Nuremburg trials, speaks loudly to your own usage of the term,"moral legitimacy," as it relates to a just cause for war. I'm not a neo-Nazi anti-semite, sorry.

What I think Israel, or maybe better said Netanyahu should do, is to realize their concept of an "Iron Wall" is doomed to fail. The Palestinians will not be beaten into submission, the global democracies open ended support for Israel's actions is waning and their neighborhood is changing rapidly from dictators propped up by the western world that provided cover for Israel toward leaders that may not.

Graz said:

American people didn't give a damn about Hussein invading Kuwait, at least not enough to support an US led invasion, as the gassing of the Kurds by Hussein wasn't enough "moral legitimacy" to invade. It took a fabricated story created by the Kuwait govt. and put forth by Hill and Knowlton in a public relations campaign, (interestingly, the term public relations was created in the 1930's to replace the term propaganda due to the pervasise use of propaganda by Hitler's Germany), to sway public opinion to support an invasion.

The morning of the 9/11 attacks, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld wanted this attack to be used as a means to invade, occupy Iraq. What followed was more propaganda attempting to link Hussein and al qaeda with the hopes of creating moral legitimacy for an invasion of Iraq. Don't know who masterminded the 9/11 attacks. But the propaganda that followed suggests a means to an end.

I'm slightly offended when you write, "I'm really not sure what you mean to accomplish by quoting Goering." That brief quote from Goering at the Nuremburg trials, speaks loudly to your own usage of the term,"moral legitimacy," as it relates to a just cause for war. I'm not a neo-Nazi anti-semite, sorry.

What I think Israel, or maybe better said Netanyahu should do, is to realize their concept of an "Iron Wall" is doomed to fail. The Palestinians will not be beaten into submission, the global democracies open ended support for Israel's actions is waning and their neighborhood is changing rapidly from dictators propped up by the western world that provided cover for Israel toward leaders that may not.

Click to expand...

Well, I apologize if it seemed like I called you a 'neo-nazi anti-semite'. I wasn't; I was just curious as to why you chose one of Goering's statements. 'Moral legitimacy' can be defined by people other than monsters, and there are multiple cases of it being used by people who aren't Nazis, or creating it specifically to invade other countries. By just-war theory, the limited campaign against Saddam in 1991 was legitimate; he invaded a foreign country and refused to leave. That is the criteria I judged it by, and I apologize if I gave you the wrong impression.

Your answer isn't much of an answer. Israel is being rapidly surrounded by dictators who aren't friendly to Jews in general, let alone the idea of a state. Hamas will only accept victory, i.e. killing/cleansing the area of Jews; Israel, obviously, objects to that. Until one side changes its meaning of victory, then the wars and atrocities will continue.

Lhipenwhe said:

So what is Israel supposed to offer Hamas? Tell them that they'll pay to move every Jew out of the country? Promise to be nothing but good dhimmi? Hamas has, in its charter, a promise to never compromise or make peace with 'the Zionist enemy'/Jews, and if they're unwilling to even change the text to make themselves look more palpable, I doubt they'll take anything less.

As bad as Israel has acted in the past century (and past 30 minutes), it has taken steps towards peace, such as the treaties with Jordan and Egypt, and withdrawing from Lebanon. I don't see Hamas changing its paradigm anytime soon.

Click to expand...

Okay, firstly I'm going to take issue with you because you're simply talking in the divorced theoretical terms of a typical sofa bound Yank when there are people out there getting killed. US citizens have seen it as their right to get involved in foreign policy by financially supporting such projects as Israel (if they're of a Jewish dominion) or the IRA, (through NORAID) without having to live through the mess they make. I was growing up in the UK during the '70s and hardly a day went by without a news item of a bombing or a shooting, and that kind of leaves such fanciful views parked somewhere in a backbush. And the IRA had a charter that it would never sleep soundly until the Brits had been driven out of their land and they could re-establish a united Ireland. Such rhetoric is easy, but putting it into practise is a lot harder, if not impossible. What eventually turned it around was offering the Roman Catholic underclass some political power in their homeland. For example, Martin McGuinness, the reputed second in command of the IRA, became the minister of Education for Northern Ireland. That's what did it there and somebody has to cut through all the warmongers to make it happen in Israel/Palestine.
BTW - sorry if I was a bit insulting, but you made me cross.

Well, Obama has spoken out on the issue, or as Reason's Mike Riggs reports it:

"No country on Earth would tolerate missiles raining down on its citizens from outside its borders,” Says Man Who Regularly Bombs Pakistan and Yemen

Click to expand...

Lhipenwhe - Goering's statement is as good as any, and better than most, to reflect the evils available in attempting to manufacture "moral legitimacy." (If you want a glimpse at the next level of evil, take a look at Africa SINCE World War 2. Some of that inhumanity, killing and destruction is reaching Stalin proportions.)

As for this?

Until one side changes its meaning of victory, then the wars and atrocities will continue.

Click to expand...

I agree, but I'd suggest that it is going to require BOTH/ALL sides. It is not an isolated "A vs. B" conflict anymore.

Does anyone still believe there is anything "winnable," by only one side, in this conflict?

Does anyone have any ideas for what it would take to put down the mantle of "We have always fought, we have always hated" at this stage?

raburrell said:

Op-Ed from Dahlia Lithwick, a legal writer for Slate who's presently spending a year in Jerusalem on book leave with her family. It's brutally honest and clearly pained her to write - IMO, it's worth a read.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the link. We get emails from my SIL who has been in Jerusalem for the last 3 years and I'm terrified for her. The last email she said that when they heard the sirens they didn't pay much attention because they thought it was another drill. When they realized it wasn't they were only able to make it half way to the bomb shelter.

Maybe some progress.
From red commie bastard site

Al Arabiya reports that Palestinian and Egyptian sources claim Hamas and Israel have agreed to end military operations in Gaza. Israeli sources confirm the truce, but specify that the blockade on Gaza will not be lifted, Al Jazeera reports.
*Palestinian officials also told Al Jazeera that Egypt will announce the agreement within two hours.
DETAILS TO FOLLOW

Click to expand...

That's the full article at this point.
How quaint, the Muslim brotherhood seemly gets the credit.

sulong said:

Maybe some progress.
From red commie bastard site



That's the full article at this point.
How quaint, the Muslim brotherhood seemly gets the credit.

Click to expand...

It's official now.

Egypt's foreign minister announced Wednesday that a ceasefire would begin in Gaza at 19:00 GMT. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu confirmed that a deal had been reached.
The truce announcement was made by Egyptian Foreign Minister Mohamed Amr during a joint press conference with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Click to expand...

I support a truce. Long live the truce.