IDF's Operation "Protective Edge" Begins Against Gaza

[another_liberal]

Source: The Jewish Press

The IDF operation against Gaza, called “Tzuk Eitan” or “Protective Edge”, has commenced. Israel Air Force planes have begun hitting targets in Gaza, following a day where some 80 Hamas terrorist rockets were launched against Israeli civilians.

Earlier in the evening sirens were heard as far as as Jerusalem, Beit Shemesh and Gush Etzion, as a barrages of 30 long range rockets were launched deep into Israel. 9 people have been reported injured so far in Israel’s retaliatory strikes which have ranged from the northern to southern edges of the Gaza strip. The IDF has been dropping flyers in certain neighborhoods, telling the residents to evacuate their homes. The IAF has been targeting the homes of Hamas members. Senior Hamas members have already fled, suspecting their homes might be targeted.

Hamas is very upset their homes are being hit. Hamas chief Ismail Haniyeh has called for an emergency meeting with the PLO. It is still not clear why Hamas has been doing everything it can to provoke a reaction from Israel.

Meanwhile the US (State Dept. Spox Jen Psaki) said, “We support Israel’s right to defend itself against these attacks,” but the US also urged Israeli to show restraint to avoid escalating the situation.

Read more: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/idfs-operation-protective-edge-begins-against-gaza/2014/07/08/

---

It worked so well before, right?

[hack89]

1. I don't understand why Hamas officially took credit for yesterday's rocket attacks

What did they think Israel would do?

[another_liberal]

3. Perhaps they knew what Netanyahu was likely to do . . .

And he took their bait.

Consider for a moment that there is a region-wide, religious fundamentalist civil war in progress all over the area. When would be a better time to bring on a wholesale war with Israel? Or at least force Tel Aviv into serious negotiations to avoid one.

[hack89]

5. Netanyahu doesn't need to be baited to attack Hamas

A wholesale war is not going to happen. The last thing Syria and Iran want is for Israel to to destroy Hezbollah and the Syrian army.

[another_liberal]

7. Syria and Iran are not Hamas . . .

That bunch are the ones Israel needs to worry about right now, them and other desperate men just like them, already in arms and fighting.

The point, though, is the self-defeating nature of Israel's chosen response. They will only create more extremists and more enemies of their people.

[Comrade Grumpy]

8. Israel already tried to destroy Hezbollah. It didn't work.

They did manage to kill a shitload of Lebanese civilians, though.

[bemildred]

14. +1. nt

[hack89]

15. Hezbollah is a lot weaker

Many are fighting and dying in Syria. Israel also has had plenty of time to analyze and rectify their mistakes. New weapons, new tactics, more drones. Hezbollah, on the other hand, has not gotten significantly stronger as Israel has aggressively interdicted arm shipment.

It would be a bloody fight but given that Hezbollah is already fighting a war, Israel would have a big advantage.

[another_liberal]

19. Israel invade Lebanon again?

Repeating the same action again and again, while expecting a different outcome, is one definition of insanity, right?

[hack89]

25. Have you ever read a military analysis of their last campaign?

They made mistakes in tactics, communications and weapons. They have spent a lot of time and effort fixing those problems and rehearsing for the next go around. They went as far as to build a massive infantry training center that replicates Hezbollah strongholds in Lebanon.

Let's flip your statement - what has Hezbollah done to get better? Preparing to refight the last war is a recipe for disaster. And let's not forget that Hezbollah's best fighters are in Syria. Getting back to Lebanon under constant attack from the air could prove difficult.

[another_liberal]

29. Leave the military obstacles to be surmounted . . .

Leave aside for a moment the military obstacles to be overcome and the risks involved in suffering yet another defeat in Lebanon, Israel can no longer afford the political hit her government would take internationally if the IDF were to invade a neighboring Muslim nation today. The World has changed since 2006, and Israel is already losing friends and supporters fast enough without that additional shame to bear.

[hack89]

35. They won't attack first. That is why there won't be a wider war.

Israel wants to see Syria, Iran and Hezbollah bled dry. They won't interfere.

[The Magistrate]

30. None Of Those Were The Real Problem, Sir

Israeli armed forces are too unwilling to take casualties. This does not just have military consequences; it has political consequences. What makes war 'clean' in human culture is that people are willing to die for the cause that led them to arms and battle; it is a demonstration of sincerity and purpose so fixed it must have a moral quality, or so many onlookers must conclude. When one side is viewed as being perfectly willing to kill, but not to die, something about the matter will strike many as subtly wrong, and when that side also enjoys a decided technical advantage, that subtle sense of wrongness will seem a bit foul into the bargain.

"You have been given a post of honor, a post of sacrifice. You must strengthen the position, and you will have casualties, because they will interfere with your work. And on the day they choose, they will fall upon you and massacre you to the last man, and it is your duty to die."

[Igel]

36. Interesting.

Seems like a sound insight.

What makes war 'clean' in human culture is that people are willing to die for the cause that led them to arms and battle; it is a demonstration of sincerity and purpose so fixed it must have a moral quality, or so many onlookers must conclude. When one side is viewed as being perfectly willing to kill, but not to die, something about the matter will strike many as subtly wrong, and when that side also enjoys a decided technical advantage, that subtle sense of wrongness will seem a bit foul into the bargain.

Will have to ponder it and why it might be so.

And so much at DU for the last year has been so uninteresting.

[hack89]

37. Judging from the introduction of new tactics and procedures for Cast Lead

I disagree. The lesson the learned from the first go around with Hezbollah is that air power was not responsive enough in a fluid tactical situation. In Cast Lead you saw a better integration of Intel, surveillance, and fires to immediately respond to targets as they presented themselves.

[The Magistrate]

44. Not Much Comparison Between The Two Campaigns, Sir

Gaza is known to the yard, and the irregulars there are not very well armed and not very well dug in.

The fighting in south Lebanon was a field campaign, against dug in forces with something approximating regular status and armament. The IDF won the engagements, certainly, and the piffle you will see in some quarters about an Israeli defeat in Lebanon is nonesense, but they could have done so more quickly and more effectively, had they been willing to a pay the price. They were not. Between occupation duty being the chief experience of veteran cadre, and the gingerness induced by limits on total manpower available, the Israeli forces are grown today less suitable for conventional battle than they were even twenty years ago.

[Fozzledick]

41. I have to go with George S. Patton on this, sir.

"Don't be a fool and die for your country. Let the other sonofabitch die for his."

More than enough Israelis died in the massacre of 1948. There's no dishonor in surviving against a suicidal enemy.

[The Magistrate]

46. Patton, Sir, Hardly Went Out Of His Way To Minimize Casualties In His Forces

"Our blood and his guts' was a pretty common watchword. He spent men freely.

[Fozzledick]

61. True enough, Sir, but that was a matter of expedience in attack, not a philosophical goal.

I find no virtue in blood sacrifice for it's own sake, particularly in what's become a war of attrition.

[The Magistrate]

62. I Am Not Urging 'Blood Sacrifice For Its Own Sake', Sir

I am commenting on what some consequences of rating force protection too high can be, both in military efficiency and political efficacy. Of the two, I rate the latter higher, as losing the political struggle may prevent winning the military struggle, or render an apparent military victory valueless. In the widespread disquiet with which our country's war drones are viewed, I submit you may see a clear illustration of the principle pointed to in my initial comment, that something about a military force being willing to kill, but without accepting risk of being killed, seems somehow unclean....

[Fozzledick]

63. I take your point on tactical necessity, Sir, but I beg to differ on the political.

The extension of that philosophy is that territory belongs by right to whoever is willing to shed blood to take it by force, and I don't think either of us want to go there.

As for drones, I see quite the opposite. My perceptions may be influenced by comparison to the Viet-Nam debacle, but it seems to me that political opposition to their use is rather tepid precisely because of the far lower rate of both troop and civilian casualties compared to boots on the ground or high altitude bombing. What opposition there is to their use strikes me as driven by the fact that we are still at war rather than that tactic per se.

[The Magistrate]

66. Depends On The Audience, Sir

I agree that on level of domestic politics, the certain lack of casualties does reduce fervor of political opposition ( although probably a more effective damper on domestic opposition is the very wide public support for the end the use of drones is aimed at, namely containing and hampering and even punishing jihadis ).

But the politics of whether it is legitimate military action or not, in the view of others around the globe, are a different matter. To a good many people, this weaponry seems an emblem of imperial over-reach, and it is my view the risklessness of the weaponry feeds this.

Regarding the other, Sir, I am pretty much a traditionalist, and territory throughout most of human history has belonged to those most willing to shed blood for it, whether to take it or to hold it if already in possession. I do not see that that really has changed very much, though I will grant the degree of comfort with which people are willing to regard the flat statement of the proposition may have altered somewhat....

[ballyhoo]

28. I'd take Hezbollah right now over Israel in a New York minute. I watched

Israel fumble through their last encounter.

[hack89]

34. Were you paying attention in Gaza

Where they applied all the lessons learned. The next war will not be like the last. Not saying Israel will win but don't you think they have spent a lot of time and effort correcting their mistakes? New weapons, new tactics - everything will be different.

[BillZBubb]

54. The problem is what worked in Gaza has no relation to what might be needed in Lebanon.

Hezbollah has learned as well. Certainly their tactics will change. The Israeli's as usual will have the better weapons, but their new tactics may not be relevant given the new tactic of their opponent.

Your last phrase is correct, but for both sides.

[ballyhoo]

58. Nasrallah is no slouch. Maybe you are right, but I think it will be no

picnic for Israel. But, admittedly, I do not like Netanyahu even though I am part Jewish.

[The Magistrate]

2. Hamas, Sir, Would Be Wise Not To Fire Rockets

As you observed, the previous times they loosed rocket barrages into Israel, it did not work out well for them.

[another_liberal]

4. I was referring to Israel's failed tactic of wide-scale bombing . . .

As to the pin-prick Hamas rocket attacks: If something other than a corresponding rain of death and destruction was the approach taken by Israel, perhaps they would stop?

[hack89]

6. Israel can't give Hamas what they demand

Which is the end of Israel.

[Scootaloo]

11. Same place as the Israeli Gandhi I imagine n/t

[another_liberal]

12. That is their opening demand, yes . . .

On the other hand, we are seeing right now what Israeli leaders envision as the answer to their Hamas problem.

[hack89]

17. That how wars are fought

If Hamas wants war than Israel will oblige them.

[another_liberal]

20. Nice to live thousands of miles away from all the fighting and dying . . .

Isn't it?

[Scootaloo]

23. So long as the right kind of people are doing the dying, of course

Were the tide to turn, Hack89 would suddenly discover that war is a horrible thing that needlessly wastes lives for no gain.

[hack89]

39. As a combat veteran, it would not be a revelation at all. Nt

[Scootaloo]

40. one would never guess from your posts thus far.

What war?

[hack89]

47. Beirut, Persian Gulf and Desert Storm. nt

[Scootaloo]

48. I stand by what I said, then n/t

[hack89]

50. So? nt

[hack89]

38. I seen enough combat to not wish it on anyone

Just pointing out that a constant barrage of of rockets from Gaza is an act of war by any standard.

[The Magistrate]

10. Fire Rockets, Get Bombed --- The Circle of life Continues, Sir

Everyone knows their role in the drill by now.

A Likud government stalls negotiations; a P.A. government cannot control its militants; someone fears peace might break out and does something vile; all wax wroth and engage in threats and warnings while the perpetrators are hunted; militants do something militant with explosives; Israel starts up air strikes; militants who provoked strike alternate between boasts of invincibility and complaints Israel actually kills people; various left and pacifist types complain of crimes from one side, various right and hawkish types complain of crimes from one side: people not directly involved express exasperation and fatigue and do their best to go about their business without paying attention, which proves ever easier to do, and the participants, without much of an audience, grow tired and retire to their respective corners till next time....

[Scootaloo]

13. In another thread, you said you're well-versed in the situation. so a question...

a P.A. government cannot control its militants

How do you propose they achieve this control? Or are you simply noting that the PA lacks the ability to do so?

[The Magistrate]

18. That Is Quite The Question, Sir

I have long thought the P.A. could have done a better job of it, and for that matter that Hamas could do a better job of it. But I do not think the various leaderships of Palestine have the institutional ability to fully control their militant splinters and factions. Unfortunately, it makes no difference whether they could control and fail to do so, or really cannot control: they remain responsible for what is done from territory they claim to control. And a good portion of why the militant splinters and factions are out of control is the glorification of violence and intransigence which has marked the leadership culture of Arab Palestinian nationalism from the outset. People think they are doing what they should, even what the leadership really wants, whatever the leadership may be saying at the moment, when they do something like the recent kidnapping or some bombing or other, at a time when the world thinks maybe there is a chance for progress....

[Scootaloo]

22. This is actually debatable

Unfortunately, it makes no difference whether they could control and fail to do so, or really cannot control: they remain responsible for what is done from territory they claim to control.

Were Palestine fully sovereign, there would be no question here. But Palestine does not have sovereignty. Palestinian security forces and ability are filtered through Israeli dictats, as per the Oslo agreement - Israel is the controlling factor over the number of Palestinian police, what they are equipped with, where they can go, what they can investigate, who they can arrest, etc - even in Area C.

Essentially, Israel is the power responsible for security in Palestine - that is one of Israel's many obligations as occupying power.

[The Magistrate]

26. If One Take That Line, Sir

Then one cannot complain of various Israeli actions, from road-blocks to air strikes, aimed at maintaining or re-imposing secure conditions; these are only carrying out the occupying power's duty and responsibility to maintain security.

Further, in Gaza, Israel cannot really be regarded as an occupying power any longer.

[Scootaloo]

43. One certainly can, when so many of those actions do not, cannot achieve the stated goals

And are so often misused as a means of collective punishment against a captive population and a means of acquiring proiperty for a preferred class of people.

As for Gaza, Gaza is not a separate entity from Palestine. Palestine is occupied. Gaza simply happens to have all the Israeli guns pointing at it from the outside, instead of dispersed inside.

[The Magistrate]

51. Neither Of Those Are Serious Arguments, Sir

The nearest thing to something worth noting is that, yes, Israel does mis-use occupation authority to confiscate land and settle its citizens on land its only authority over is that of military occupation. That is illegal; it should never have been started, and it ought to stop.

[Scootaloo]

53. It's a perfectly serious argument

When you are doing something that unquestionably causes harm to people, to achieve a stated goal, that these actions will not actually achieve, it is the responsibility of ALL right-minded people to speak out against it.

It's an "ethics" thing, a notion which is often sorely lacking from this discussion, I've noticed.

[BillZBubb]

55. I agree with Scootaloo on that point.

Killing innocents in pursuit of an unachievable goal is immoral. Collective punishment, as well, is immoral.

[The Magistrate]

56. So You Denounce All Violence By Hamas, Hezbollah, Various P.A. Factions, Etc., Sir?

Because their violence unquestionably causes harm to people, is intended to achieve a stated goal it cannot possibly achieve, and so you must agree it is the responsibility of all right-minded people to speak out against it.

An 'ethics' thing, something that certainly is often missing from discussions of this matter....

[Scootaloo]

59. I do

In fact, it seems that demands are made of me to do so every time the topic comes up, invariably by someone who has just been caught defending Israeli violence against Palestinians.

do you denounce violence committed by Israel and its myriad political parties and factions?

[The Magistrate]

60. I Have Neither Defended Nor Denounced Either Party, Sir

I am not familiar enough with the current habitues of the 'sand trap' here to know whether your first response to, say, a report that Hamas has fired a rocket barrage is to post a statement to the effect that Hamas, by launching a strike intended to kill non-combatants at random, has committed a war crime which warrants trial at the Hague.

I consider the relation between Israel and Arab Palestine to be one of war, punctuated by periods of poorly observed armistice, and of a duration which, including the earlier phases in the Mandatory period, stretches back nigh on a century by now. I recognize that people at war will employ violence, and have a right to employ violence. That is conditioned chiefly by whether that violence is within the bounds recognized by the laws of war at the time ( these have changed appreciably over the course of the conflict ). In terms of use of violence, Israel comes out rather better on remaining within the law, although in other areas, such as conduct of an occupying power, it falls very far short.

There is one further condition regarding employment of violence by peoples at war, not a legal one, but one that deserves consideration. That is the basic question of whether the war can be won, whether the end to be warded off is so bad as to justify the suffering inflicted and endured to try and do so, whether the end to be gained is so good as to be worth the suffering inflicted and endured to gain it, whether the end sought is one that can be best achieved by violence, or can even be achieved by violence at all. By now, neither side comes out very well on this. There is no real prospect of Arab Palestine overcoming Israel by exercise of violence. Nor is there much prospect that Israel, by exercise of violence in a degree it is practicable for Israel to employ in the present day, will be able to force acquiescence of Arab Palestine to its existence as a Jewish state controlling Jerusalem and most of the Jordan valley. It is not unreasonable for the people of Arab Palestine to feel they face complete expulsion, which is a result of defeat a people is entitled to fight against even without much prospect of success. It is not unreasonable for the people of Israel to feel they face expulsion with massacre if their arms should fail them, and this is a result of defeat which a people is entitled to fight against even without much prospect of success. It would be possible for Israel, behaving in a manner common to empires of the Classical period, to secure its objective of recognized existence, but the sorts of decimations and expulsions and wholesale reductions to servitude elder powers like Rome were wont to employ to such ends really just are not done anymore, certainly not by powers with some pretense to being exemplars of civilization.

[bemildred]

27. It is argued that Israel, as the occupying power, is responsible for all that happens there.

One of the reasons that calling it an occupation in disliked in some circles.

I tend to agree, on the principle that responsibility and control must go together, if you have no control, no authority, no expectation of being obeyed, you can't really be seen as culpable for the outcome.

[The Magistrate]

31. Successful Partisan Movements And National Liberation Movements, Sir

Have been able to exercise such discipline and control, at least to such a degree that leadership could count on a political line being adhered to. Fragmentation and indiscipline has been the abiding curse of Arab Nationalism in Palestine, and may well be the reason that movement has failed to secure itself a state.

[bemildred]

32. The Palestinians have not been able to do that, Sir, as you mentioned.

And Israel is in general too fearful to give them the means to try. And probably rightly so.

[The Magistrate]

33. It Was A Feature Of The Scene Before There Was An Israel, Sir

Back in the Mandate period, the same sort of divisions could be seen.

Put bluntly, I think the root problem was refusal to co-operate with any of the 'tutulary self-government' structures proposed in the early days of the Mandate. The Zionists did, and got out of it some practice and embryonic state organs, which proved invaluable once the English decamped. Had the Arab Nationalists taken the same course from the twenties, they would have been in a much better position come the '48....

[bemildred]

42. There is no doubt, Sir, that the Arabs could have done better for themselves in various ways.

And the same can easily be said of Israel.

But it does little to settle the problem now to point that out. Arguing about whom is to blame is what got us here now. The "He made me do it" argument.

It may well be necessary to help the Palestinians out, and a good deal better job of it than has been done so far too, if peace is to be had. DeKlerk did not deal with Mandela because Mandela had his organizational shit together, or a scary military capability. And again, Israel has generally been too fearful to take the necessary risks. Any real competence in the Palestinians is seen as a threat and dismantled or throttled.

[The Magistrate]

49. You Are Correct Enough About The Here And Now, Sir

And you know I am an antiquarian at heart. I like the past pinned down and known, at least, if only to keep bearings straight.

The 'hard men' on either side prop one another up like a stand of arms; they need one another for their careers....

[bemildred]

52. I like History, as you know, but I tend to be seized with analyzing and solving current problems.

And understanding what is going on now.

History serves mainly to inform that, and to entertain. You are a much more serious historian than I will ever be, although I don't know that you are a historian at all, just that you know history. I tend to wander around in abstractions. But it works for me. Fifteen years ago I had read little History. One of the things I did when I retired (around the time I showed up here) was to remedy my lacks in History and literature. You were of some help there. I've been very happy with that, but I have moved on to other things now.

And History does have the virtue of being coherent, unlike the present, which always seems to be a mess.

[Scootaloo]

45. At least, that's what the movies say after they're successful

Romanticism and nostalgia have a negative effect on historical accuracy.

[bemildred]

24. Quite right, a little of both.

The Israeli government has as good means as anyone, and they have trouble, so expecting the PNA to do it is, uh, unrealistic.

But then, they may not be very enthusiastic about the job either. And they should be if they want to be taken seriously. You have to be able to deliver something if you want to make deals.

[geek tragedy]

67. at the risk of apologizing for a P.A. regime that has oft been both corrupt and brutal,

the P.A. can only do so much to rein in militants for the explicit purpose of making Israel more secure without gaining anything in concessions. "Israel's man in Ramallah" is more likely to be an epitaph than a campaign slogan.

[Johnyawl]

16. I must say, Magistrate...

... that is the most concise summation of the Israeli/Palestine situation I've seen.

[another_liberal]

21. Keep watching . . .

Never know when you might see something quite different happen.

(sigh)

[The Magistrate]

57. And What Might That 'Quite Different' Thing Be, Sir?

You really need to keep that blood-lust better wrapped, Sir; it drips all over your pretense of moral superiority....

[Harmony Blue]

64. That sums it up

it is like watching a movie happening over and over again. So sad.

[Bosonic]

65. Air raid sirens in Tel Aviv, rocket apparently intercepted

Air raid sirens in Tel Aviv, rocket apparently intercepted

TEL AVIV, July 8 (Reuters) - Air raid sirens sounded in Tel Aviv on Tuesday and live television showed what appeared to be a mid-air interception by Israel's Iron Dome anti-missile system of a rocket fired from the Gaza Strip.

http://www.trust.org/item/20140708160228-kex76

[bemildred]

68. Iron Dome intercepts rockets over cities across Israel in largest salvo of rockets yet

For second time on Tuesday evening, Gaza terrorists launch rocket at central Israel; air raid sirens sounds in Jerusalem, central Israel; Tel Aviv opens public bomb shelters; no injuries reported.

http://www.jpost.com/Operation-Protective-Edge/Iron-Dome-intercepts-second-rocket-over-greater-Tel-Aviv-361994

[another_liberal]

69. Remember the first Gulf War?

Israeli officials claimed to have intercepted nearly all the SCUDS Saddam fired at them then too. Only after the fighting was all over did it come to light that the Israeli anti-missile defenses didn't actually intercept any.

I wonder how many of these reported "successful intercepts" we're hearing about now are also merely morale-building fabrications?

[bemildred]

70. It is hard to say out here in TV land, which is somewhat the point.

They are point defenses, they defend an area around some point on the ground.

They may be quite good within that range, and for ballistic objects, up to a certain number per unit of time.

Since that is what the Palestinian "offense" amounts to, they can work quite well for Israel in these little military punishment dramas.

Sometimes they protect schools for example.

They are partly, as you infer, a PR exercise and money-pots for the defense bidness, but there is no doubt they will save some lives.

But they won't last long in a real war, with an adversary with means , no, too expensive, too limited.