And this would have been a remarkably cheap point for Israel to break the cycle, since no one had been killed by the Hamas missile barrage.

It'll be a damned sight harder to break the cycle after an attack that actually kills Israeli civilians.

By the way, what's Israel's stated justification for the ongoing blockade of Gaza?

Surely they must have a better case for it than making the Gazan citizenry say 'uncle' and agree to abandon Hamas.

Oops, just spent minutes making a point in the last blog that gets (partly) made here.

"I've actually not yet heard a compelling defense of this on strategic grounds. Hamas engages in asymmetric warfare against Israel. Israel is destroying Hamas's conventional -- which is to say, symmetric -- capacities. They are obliterating Hamas-as-governing-authority and strengthening Hamas-as-popular-terrorist-group. It's mindless."

Gotta say this reflects my thinking exactly.

"The broader aim seems to mirror that of the blockade..."

And not so much.

low-tech cyclist

First, to say anybody needs to suffer casualties from an attack to be allowed to legitimately respond to it is morally screwed up. To live in fear of the constant rocket attacks was enough to justify an response -- even if this was the wrong one.

Second, Brian made a point about the blockade in the last post -- it keeps Palestinians from Gaza out of Israel.

It is really important to keep in mind that no one is asking Israel to sit there and merely take it from Hamas. Israel has every justification in retaliatory force. But it is also important to keep in mind that we do not actually know if Israel's actions are retaliatory or not. Hamas is asserting that their missile launchings are merely in response to the blockade put up by Israel (blockades are in fact Geneva Convention acts of war), and this blockade was only in response to the century of this very type of fighting that preceded this war. The blockade - rebuttal - temporary ceasefire cycle needs to be broken, but it is going to take more than whatever has been previously attempted in order to really turn things around. The underlying concerns need to be addressed, even if many of those fighting this have forgotten what this fight was about to begin with. There are deep seeded religious, social, territorial, and economic concerns that have been largely ignored in discussions, with the result being "discussion" in battle.

So basically, Ezra, you're saying that it's OK for Israeli citizens to be subjected to regular rocket attacks just as long as there are minimal casualties?

Any recent Israeli government has felt the 'need' (as an imperative) to be able to win a vote of confidence in the Knesset and come out on the winning coalition in an election. Strategy yields to electoral tactics.

This, among a triple rainbow of political beliefs and parties (on both sides) that defy understanding and permanence.

The only consensus I can detect on the Israeli side is that Israel must exist, and to exist it must prevail. They have had the might, so might-makes-right is the operative tactic.

Breaking the cycle means both sides must share a vision of some kind. Neither side's vision is practicable.

Many outsiders and insiders believe that this isn't a zero sum game and therefore some accomodation should be possible.

But there are also many who deeply believe that it is a zero sum game, and that seems ever increasingly so.

This isn't run of the mill statecraft and international relations. Religion has deeply poisoned this well, so seemingly rational slogans/strategies like 'land for peace' quickly seem unachievable because even the outlines of this aren't agreeable, and the details are mutually unacceptable. So they fight and kill.

There really ought to be a category of interstate relations that the rest of world just throws up its arms about and declares the situation unresolvable (and moves on to something tractable). Israel versus the Arab States is the poster-child of hopelessness.

Just move along, nothing happening here. Just a family fight you should ignore because....

lux: are you basically saying that high explosive hissy-fits with the best products of the US defense industry are in Israel's long-term best interests?

This is a dick-swinging contest between eunuchs.

So basically, Ezra, you're saying that it's OK for Israeli citizens to be subjected to regular rocket attacks just as long as there are minimal casualties?

I think the question should be: is there anything Israel can do, short-term, to prevent regular rocket attacks against its citizens? It appears the answer is no. Given that, what is the appropriate Israeli response to a situation like the current one.

"no one is asking Israel to sit there and merely take it from Hamas."

Yes. Yes they are. Ezra Klein most certainly is.

"So basically, Ezra, you're saying that it's OK for Israeli citizens to be subjected to regular rocket attacks just as long as there are minimal casualties?"

Ding ding ding.

Being rational is anti-Semitic.

So your answer would be that Israel should do nothing? Israel has been doing virtually nothing for quite some time, and the cycle has continued -- with rockets aimed at civilians being fired daily, sometimes hourly into Israel's southern cities.
If Israel were to do nothing, the cycle would turn into a straight, one-way line.

The current attack on Gaza has already proven to be terrible for the Palestinian people, and may prove to be terrible for the Israeli people too, if all it does is spawn more hate and more violence. But it has also been terrible for Hamas and its resources, which is the purpose of the attack.

Gaza and its citizens are now suffering immensely, and it is heartbreaking and unnerving -- and very scary to realize that this suffering may prove to be unnecessary and in vain. But this is happening because other avenues of stopping Palestinian violence were not working; this is the last resort, and it is painful. But it is necessary. It is an attempt to break the cycle.

To imply that Israel is carrying out these attacks just to do "something" is naive, and it is a shallow argument. Israel is carrying this through to do something which is intended to curb the violence, to paralyze Hamas and its terrorist operations. Maybe this will be another big misstep in the history of the conflict; but maybe it will be a blow to Hamas crippling enough to save both the Israelis and the Palestinians further suffering under their hands. At this point, Israel has to take the risk.

This is a fascinating exemplar of why liberals are not trusted on issues of national security.

Turn the other cheek is not a real option.

No use debating why, how or what. Those omelets have already been made. Although, there are so many who seem to live for the chance to vilify either the Palestinian or Israeli people, those who care about peace need to find a workable “what’s next. We need to find a way to drain the swamp.

To my mind, that means giving Palestinians something to live for instead of something to die for. At the same time, we must find a way to hold leaders of malevolent groups accountable in ways that do not increase Palestinian civilian deaths and poverty. That also means holding Israel to a better, long range focused way of dealing the herd-of-cats reality that is the Palestinian “society”. If Israel keeps doing what it is doing, they might find justification, but they will not find peace. If the civilized world wants the Palestinians to not only reject the siren songs of racialism, but to also rise up against those who sign them, the must be given a sense of hope in something better.

Not a good time for dreaming of yet another Marshal (type) Plan for yet another devastated people, but that is the way we need to travel.

This is an updated version of a comment I posted at MJ. Sorry for the duplication, but it seemed to fit the flow of commentary here.

But this is happening because other avenues of stopping Palestinian violence were not working; this is the last resort, and it is painful. But it is necessary. It is an attempt to break the cycle.

Which new avenues would those be, exactly? Apartheid? Illegal settlements? Illegal blockades? Turning down Hamas' ceasefire offer?

Help me out.

This is a fascinating exemplar of why liberals are not trusted on issues of national security.

Turn the other cheek is not a real option.

Right. Because the conservative strategy of occupation, apartheid and bombing densely populated refugee camps has worked out so well.

So David, when there's a retaliatory strike that kills a score of innocent Israeli citizens in the coming months, does that mean our current policy is working?

But otherwise, I think you're right - distrust of liberals is why the Republicans swept the elections this year, right? Perhaps you or any of the other trolls here can tell me how these attacks will be effective. All I've seen so far is that they're an effective means of revenge, which is a marvelous argument if you're twelve.

So they needed to do something.

Why couldn't they send in special forces to kill all rocket-firing teams? That strategy worked fine against Saddam Hussein when Britain's SAS tried it during the first Gulf War.

Of course they won't. That would risk Israeli lives. And Israel will do anything to avoid risking Israeli lives. They'd rather kill dozens or hundreds of non-Israeli civilians than put a single Israeli soldier in harm's way.

This is a fascinating exemplar of why liberals are not trusted on issues of national security. Turn the other cheek is not a real option.

Right. The only serious option is lashing out in blind vengeance. Everybody knows that, except stupid liberals who believe that national security is actually about making a nation more secure.

Israel has been doing virtually nothing for quite some time

At no point during the existence of Israel could its actions with regard to the Palestinians be accurately described as 'nothing'.

The problem is that the Israeli politicians really do need to do something. Nobody every got elected by saying they'll do nothing. Doing nothing may be the most sensible choice, but it doesn't get you elected. And elections are coming up in February. And when people are afraid, they tend to prefer violent solutions rather than cooperative ones. There is a theory that democracies don't invade other countries, but it's bullshit. We and Israel invade countries all the time. And we do it because it's popular and gets politicians elected.

That said, 'something' isn't good enough. I think of the scene in "Life of Brian" where Brian is on the cross, and a group comes up and commits suicide in front of him. Well, at least they did something, right? This is a deliberately silly example, but is aerial bombard really any better? It usually backfires. Hitler's bombing of London sure didn't get the British to back down. In fact, it really pissed them off. And they didn't get angry with Churchill, they got angry with Hitler. Our bombings of Haiphong and Saigon didn't do any better. So how's this going to work? Given that the blockade has destroyed the economy so much that Hamas is pretty much the main employer now, it's in the interest of Gazans to support Hamas more, not less. Opposing Hamas won't get you a job.

There is surely a way of doing 'something' that would be productive, but this isn't it.

Vidor continues to avoid condemnation of pedophilia. Don't let your kids near Vidor.

Ding ding fucking ding.

And Israel will do anything to avoid risking Israeli lives. They'd rather kill dozens or hundreds of non-Israeli civilians than put a single Israeli soldier in harm's way.

That's not quite true. Israeli soldiers from Tel Aviv and Haifa have been dealing with the nutbag settlers and their Hebron pogroms. Of course, the nutbag settlers vote.

Why couldn't they send in special forces to kill all rocket-firing teams? >/i>

It will take a couple of divisions to accomplish that.

And it may just happen soon enough.

Fostert,

The theory isn't that Democracies don't invade other countries. It's that Democracies tend not to invade other Democracies. Indeed, the act of Democracies invading other kinds of governments is common and has been since the freaking Peloponnesian War...

Now, I guess you could say that both Israel and the Gaza have functioning democracies... but whether or not that's true, I think it's a very special, unique case in the course of human history.

On your other points, I agree with you. Bombing isn't just 'doing something' it's making things worse. If I were Israel and I wanted an end to the violence, I'd start by ending the blockade on Gaza and making sure they're getting enough humanitarian aid. Then I'd follow that up by trying to get Hamas to trade their guns for votes, by making them realize they have more to gain by trying to make peace than war. Sadly, I'm not Israel.

It will take a couple of divisions to accomplish that.

And it may just happen soon enough.
Divisions didn't help very much when Israel actually occupied all of Gaza. That's why Sharon pulled out.

Gaza is not, and never has been, a sustainable state. It is a large prison camp, and has been since 1949. It is not going to be possible to have peace in Gaza without either a) removing or killing all the Palestinians there, or b) giving the Gazans more land to make it a sustainable state.

Who is in charge in Gaza is absolutely irrelevant to the degree of hatred felt by Gazans for the present situation. This is not an Arab thing, or a Muslim thing; anyone under the same circumstances would feel the same.

Hence attacks on the government in Gaza are pointless. Hence the Israeli behaviour is pointless. It's like torturing a toddler for months, then untying her for a moment and, when she tries to bite you, slashing her with a razor-blade.

By the way, what's Israel's stated justification for the ongoing blockade of Gaza?

Surely they must have a better case for it than making the Gazan citizenry say 'uncle' and agree to abandon Hamas

It is not going to be possible to have peace in Gaza
ugg outlet

Thank you for the sensible critique. Me & my neighbour were preparing to do some research about that. We got a good book on that matter from our local library and most books where not as influensive as your information. I am very glad to see such information which I was searching for a long time.This made very glad Smile

wholesale nike shoes

wholesale jordan shoes

We are air max sale Online Shop,offer new branded
air max 90,