March 6, 2008
AT A MINIMUM...:
Picking Up Pieces, Gazans Debate Israel Incursion (STEVEN ERLANGER, 3/06/08, NY Times)
Israeli officials say the operation was meant to show Hamas — the militant Islamist group in power here, which opposes peace with Israel — the cost of continuing to fire rockets, especially the longer range ones, and to try to create further popular dissatisfaction with Hamas. Arguments persist over how many of the dead were truly uninvolved civilians, with Palestinian officials saying half or more than half, and Israel saying far less than half.But the residents here were horrified by the numbers of civilians they believed had died, and even officials here of Fatah — the more secular Palestinian party negotiating with Israel — think the popular reaction has served to strengthen Hamas by turning it into the victim, at least in the short term.
Nabil Katari, 46, is a local organizer for the Fatah youth, and his brother is a prominent local member of Hamas. “I think Israel is strengthening Hamas by aiming at civilians,” he said, a charge Israel vehemently denies. “People always sympathize with the fighters and the victims.”
Worse, he said, both Hamas and Israel are exaggerating the threat and the number of weapons here. “When we claim we have a lot and really don’t have much compared to the Israelis, we serve their interests and let them justify hitting so hard,” he said. “I feel something catastrophic coming.”
...a sensible military policy ought to harm not help your enemy. Posted by Orrin Judd at March 6, 2008 9:48 AM
That last line about "claiming" to have a lot of weapons but not really having them (or at least claiming not to have them) sounds a lot like Saddam Hussein's last few months giving the inspectors the run-around. That didn't work out so well for him...
Posted by: Just John at March 6, 2008 5:00 PMThough he, in fact, had nothing.
Posted by: oj at March 6, 2008 7:40 PMWhat would happen if Israel removed accurate guidance systems from their missiles and programmed them to fire at civilian populations whenever their tracking radar picked up a Hamas rocket?
This would simply be doing back exactly what the militants are doing rather than trying to claim some high morality (which is bogus because the Israelis are neither defending themselves nor improving their future situation -- how moral are random raids into enemy territory with no perceivable benefit?).
As it stands, people believe American and Israeli targeting technology is so good they must have zero collateral damage or are deliberately targeting civilians. By letting the missiles fly, the general population would have a reason to stop initiating the rocket attacks.
Posted by: Randall Voth at March 6, 2008 11:43 PMYes. And if Hamas had the power to blockade and starve Israel they'd be equals.
Posted by: oj at March 7, 2008 7:35 AMI was asking a hypothetical question, so maybe I'll phrase it differently:
How does Israel deal with the Palestinian rockets after they arbitrarily draw a border and create a state that cannot feed itself and is likely still blockaded by Egypt and the rest of the Arab world?
Go in there and occupy it again?
I agree that a state should be created, but the problem won't go away because the only thing the Arabs are NOT blockading, themselves, is explosives.
Posted by: Randall Voth at March 7, 2008 5:57 PMRandall makes sense. Such a program should be preceded with widespread warnings of their intention, prior to an actual implementation date, and then continue exactly as they are now, targeting the shooters.
Posted by: Genecis at March 7, 2008 6:18 PMIf the Arabs blockade them Israel makes money hand over fist importing to them. The occasional desultory rocket doesn't matter.
Posted by: oj at March 7, 2008 9:32 PM20 to 30 a week isn't desultory, especially if the range is increasing.
And trade on the Egyptian side is very limited - why did half a million people rush through the breaches a few weeks ago? Not just for the cigars.
Posted by: jim hamlen at March 7, 2008 11:30 PMIncreasing the range of ineffective weapons isn't significant.
Posted by: oj at March 8, 2008 6:52 AM