And obi, whilst i do think this situation should be resolved once and for all, when you say "Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war now, Israel...leave NOTHING back--", it kind of seems like your favouring stronger, more frequent, indiscriminate bombings. I personally actually think Israel should be fighting hamas now. I think that they should destroy their military capacity, and cripple them. I think any other country would do the same. HOWEVER, I do think as soon as this is done, Israel needs to give palestinians their independence, and help them build up their state.

"The Israeli shelling in Ramallah was reported before 10.00am local time. So for practical purposes they both broke the ceasefire, if you ask me."

Does 10am suddenly come before 930am, Jamiet?

Because if not...then how in hell did they both break the ceasefire when the inciting incident, Hamas detonating a suicide bomber and taking a soldier captive, took place a half an hour earlier?

"it kind of seems like your favouring stronger, more frequent, indiscriminate bombings."

You're two thirds right.

Stronger, more frequent?
Yes, much as necessary for winning this war and defeating Hamas once and for all.
Indiscriminate?
No.

"I do think as soon as this is done, Israel needs to give palestinians their independence, and help them build up their state."

I would LOVE to see that happen.

Again, I am all for destroying Hamas and THEN having Abbas and Fatah take over there, unify the Palestinian people, and go for peace and state then.

So I'm saying end this--Hamas AND the conflict they perpetuate--once and for all...

End Hamas, get Abbas in their place, and let's resolve this conflict...but to get there, make this battle the last battle.

If we're going to have such a terrible tragedy as this, let it at least mean something good came of it in the end, and not just another 2-4 year break before the next round.

obi, you have to accept, if you want to up the bombings from what they are now, many more civilians will die. I'm not saying they should or shouldn't do that, but your post seemed to revel in the idea of more frequent and potent strikes. it seemed to be, at best, indifferent to the increase in fatalities.

also, fuck supporting fatah, you're supposed to like democracy.

To me, the best long-term solution is not a separate Palestine. Either give the Palestinian lands to Jordan, or have Israel annex them outright and give Palestinians citizenship (perhaps start only with those born starting from the annex date). Gaza can go to Egypt or whatever.

"Does 10am suddenly come before 9.30am, Jamiet?"

The reports quote the Israelis as saying the first incident TOOK PLACE at 9.30am local time, ok. The shelling of Ramallah was already being REPORTED *BEFORE*, not *AT* 10am. "Before 10am" is before "10am". Even in this age of rapid communication, it takes news sources a few minutes to report incidents. So we're most likely talking about the incidents being much less than half an hour apart.

Again, not reveling in civilians dying...

My posts were angry, not reveling.

And I'm STILL mad...but I chose my Shakespeare quote carefully...because I know my Shakespeare--

"And Caesar's spirit, raging for revenge,
With Ate by his side come hot from hell,
Shall in these confines with a monarch's voice
Cry "Havoc!" and let slip the dogs of war,
That this foul deed shall smell above the earth
With carrion men, groaning for burial."

That's not a happy quote.
That's not a reveling quote.
It certainly isn't "Once more unto the breach, dear friends..."

It's Marc Antony angered at the treachery against his friend, and wanting to answer that "foul deed," with furious resolve.

That's not reveling...that's not happy.

"So we're most likely talking about the incidents being much less than half an hour apart."

Even so, unless it was before the attack on the Israeli soldiers, it's still Hamas breaking the truce--

After they engage Israelis, blow two up and capture a third, does it matter if Israel responds thirty minutes or thirty seconds after that?

Hamas has broken the truce then--the peace ended, they're fully entitled to re-engage in a state of war.

@ obiwanobiwan: What about your use of the phrase "At any cost!" ??

You'd be willing to see every single civilian in Gaza killed, if this ensured the elimination of Hamas - yes?

Yeah Obi, good thinking, let's get those bastards for trying to defend their land from an all powerful invader that keeps pushing for more land and resources at the expense of the ORIGINAL inhabitants... check your stats.. If I was Palestinian I would be a lot more angry than you are... and you seem pretty angry for somebody that's not even there...

Israel have been oppressing all of its neighbors since it was created out of thin air. I say we drop an "Islamic nation" in the middle of YOUR country, give them 4 times the military power your country has and let them colonize your country little by little while you get stripped you from your nationality. Then let's see how you will react to that. Deal? where do you live?

"To me, the best long-term solution is not a separate Palestine. Either give the Palestinian lands to Jordan, or have Israel annex them outright and give Palestinians citizenship (perhaps start only with those born starting from the annex date). Gaza can go to Egypt or whatever."

I disagree entirely--

Annexing the Palestinians, beyond being a humanitarian and political nightmare, would be the end of "the Jewish State"--

We'd lose the Jewish majority that makes Israel a Jewish State, and with Jews a minority...well...do you really think a majority-Muslim country would then want to live under the Star of David, and a state named Israel and not Palestine?

Braillard, you're an idiot and don't know your history. Israel didn't oppress it's neighbours in the beginning, and was targetted by all their neighbours just because they were jews. They also didn't really have military superiority. Get to 67 and things change, but can anyone seriously portray the first (just under) 20 years of israel as nonstop israeli oppression and military domination?

i agree with obi to disagree with chaqa, a one nation state won't work. jordan doesn't want the west bank anymore, and egypt doesn't want gaza.

@ obiwanobiwan: "Does it matter if Israel responds thirty minutes or thirty seconds after that?"

Yes it matters. If you are actually sincere in observing the terms of a ceasefire, it would take much longer than thirty seconds to be able to confirm what had happened, to be sure that the other side had intentionally broken the peace before resuming your own operations. If Israel starts shelling Rafah* just a few minutes after a bombing at a tunnel site several miles away, that indicates to me that they were most likely preparing to do so anyway, or in any case were less than sincere in wanting the ceasefire to hold.

*In a previous comment I said "Ramallah" by mistake. Rafah is the correct location in Gaza.

"What about your use of the phrase "At any cost!" ??

You'd be willing to see every single civilian in Gaza killed, if this ensured the elimination of Hamas - yes?"

No--that's unreasonable, not to mention implausible...hence my thinking that need not be stipulated in a phrase that I felt was pretty clear in meaning any REASONABLE cost.

Obviously killing 1.5 or so million people is unreasonable...in the same way that I didn't feel the need to say "Oh, and if Israel could suddenly blow up the moon, and that would magically destroy Hamas, they shouldn't destroy the moon."

Jamie, you think that it would take israel, a state with one of the most advanced militaries in the world, a substantial amount of time to verify and respond to an attack in a region where they are looking out for attacks? longer than 30 seconds yes, but not much more that.

"If Israel starts shelling Rafah* just a few minutes after a bombing at a tunnel site several miles away, that indicates to me that they were most likely preparing to do so anyway, or in any case were less than sincere in wanting the ceasefire to hold."

You yourself alluded to the fast-paced nature of communication today...

Seems plausible to me that they could learn of an attack (especially given just how heightened their alert would be during such a tense ceasefire) and respond immediately.

You're right in that they probably had guns trained on locations ready to fire IF the ceasefire broke...and given that the last few were broken, that likewise seems reasonable and understandable to me, so the second they heard the deal was broken, they probably went right ahead.

"Israel have been oppressing all of its neighbors since it was created out of thin air."

Just popped into existence, eh?

No Balfour Declaration?
No 1947 UN partition plan?
No War for Independence?
No Palestinians turning a state down (as they've done repeatedly since?)
No Egyptian claim that they'd "push the Jews into the sea?"

Nope, Jews just magically popped outta thin air, eh?

@ obiwanobiwan: "I felt was pretty clear in meaning any REASONABLE cost."

You were not. You were screaming, yelling, and baying for blood.

Jamiet - I would strongly believe that Israel was not the one to break the cease-fire. By all accounts, they've tried many times for it.

But if someone starts shelling your position with mortars, you give counter-fire. Simple as that. Or do you expect the IDF to not respond to incoming projectiles simply because there's a cease-fire?

Hamas broke the cease-fire because we all know damn well they have nothing to gain from one.

http://history.howstuffworks.com/asian-history/history-of-israel1.htm

"You were not. You were screaming, yelling, and baying for blood."

I was yelling...yeah...because I was MAD.

I think I had a right to be.

It's still not like I advocated for what you suggested...

"At any cost" is a pretty metaphorical phrase that people bandy about...when a football team says they want to win at any cost, reporters don't usually ask them "Even if it means breaking the opposing goalie's legs with a lead pipe?"

Because it's understood that even in "at any cost," there ARE unreasonable costs.

And on the creation of Israel bit....they didn't plop Israel in the middle of a nation, because Palestine was never a nation to begin with. It was an Ottoman holding and then a British colony. That, and Israel destroyed all of its settlements within Gaza back in 2005. Since then, admittedly, they have been clawing more territory in the West Bank. But the West Bank is not Gaza

^+1

*Slow Clap*

Especially for...

"they didn't plop Israel in the middle of a nation, because Palestine was never a nation to begin with. It was an Ottoman holding and then a British colony."

THANK YOU.

That area's always been dominated by, and thus part of, empires rooted in other places.

I was explaining the israeli-palestinian conflict to my girlfriend yesterday, and she was really surprised to hear that the palestinians never had their own state, because it's often made out that they did. I explained how different parts/all of it was owned by romans, arabs, christians (briefly), and the ottomans until 1920, when the british took over and had the palestinian mandate until the war of independence (obviously between israel and the arab league). She then assumed that the palestinian state existed between 1948 and 1967, but I informed her that the west bank was part of Jordan, and Gaza was egyptian. She was even more bemused when I told her that an independent palestinian state was not an issue when the lands were owned by arab countries, but it's only now when the arab countries don't want to take care of the palestinians, and that they don't want to be part of israel that they want their own state, one that never existed. the thing is she is really intelligent, but you just don't hear these things in many western countries. People know next to nothing about the history of the place, just that 'the palestinians were there for centuries, the jews popped in out of thin air, and oppressed them ever since'.

"People know next to nothing about the history of the place, just that 'the palestinians were there for centuries, the jews popped in out of thin air, and oppressed them ever since'."

I've had the same conversations, Socrates...

People really ARE shocked when they hear there was no Palestinian state before this...because they're used to hearing "Palestine vs. Israel" and that Israel came and took land from Palestine.

In fact, ironically enough, the 1947 plan called for the Jews to have a split up state, and the Palestinians to have the middle, mainland part...

And as a result of the Palestinians rejecting sharing that land, and going all or nothing (and coming away with the latter) it's now the Palestinians who are split into two, non-contiguous strips of land, Gaza and the West Bank.

And where it was an outrage to them for the Jews to even get that in 1947, today they treat it as an outrage that they ONLY get that.

(So for as much of an issue the UN is taking with Israel right now...if Palestinians hadn't defied the UN in 1947, we might never have had any of this happen...thus saving WebDip from hundreds of these posts, lol.)

Why do you associate with the Israeli's so much anyway, obi?

Unless I'm very wrong, you're American. How come you go nuts over a kidnapped soldier? You don't hear me go nuts because a lot of Dutch civilians were killed flying in an unrestricted area, and I'm Dutch. You feel the need to go nuts because a foreign soldier got kidnapped while invading. Unless that soldier is close family or something, it seems to me you're overreacting. Even if he were close family, you're being irrational, although I would understand in that case.

Where does your bias come from?

Also, do you somehow know the suicide bomber was ordered to do what he did by Hamas? Could Israel know for certain in a minute or two? If not, wouldn't it be fair to say that they broke the ceasefire, although provoked?

Also, and I genuinely don't know this one: were the Israeli's allowed to be in such positions that they only needed to press the 'fire' button to start shelling Palestinians again, so to speak?

"Why do you associate with the Israeli's so much anyway, obi?"

Because it's a cause and people and place I believe in and identify with...

It IS the Jewish State...it's somewhat telling that after riots in France last week, a thousand or more fled France (3rd-most Jews in the world) to come TO Israel...the place being rocketed. They felt safer in "the Jewish State" under attack than in their own homes, where they were still under attack by rioting mobs burning shops and synagogues.

What's more, Hamas says they target JEWS. They don't just say they target Israelis...this isn't just a nationalistic or territorial thing to them...it's an ethno-religious/cultural war--

They want to kill JEWS.

That guy wasn't just a foreign soldier--he was a Jewish soldier, near enough to my age where, if my family had done what so many did and moved to Israel, I could be in his place, being a Jew fighting for the Jewish State against people who hate and want to kill Jews.

I think every group should have their own home...it's one of the reasons I so dearly want the Palestinians to have one someday...

But not at the expense of the home of the Jews, Israel.

Most people have kids, and that's what they leave behind...I'm really not one for that...and I think it's safe to say that, like nearly all of us, I'll be forgotten by the world when I die. And that's fine.

But like most, I want something left behind...and the things I'd care most to see survive me, the things that I feel represent "me" and what I care most deeply about, are the works of Shakespeare and Mozart and all those great triumphs of Western art, literature, music, philosophy and culture...

And the Jewish people--my people...because I really am proud of what they are, and have been, and can be...they're not superior to any other group...they just happen to be my group is all, and I am dearly proud of them.

So when someone says no peace, ever, for the Jewish State, vows to destroy it, destroys any and all ceasefires, vows a war on Jews, and captures a a Jewish soldier...I'm not only appalled as a world citizen disgusted that Hamas has broken yet another ceasefire, while claiming to protect the people to whom it's brought constant warfare and death, while the UN chides Israel and yet does nothing to stop Hamas...

I'm enraged as a Jew, that someone has attacked us that way...hundreds of American Jews go off to fight for Israel each year. Two have died in this conflict thus far. Jews from around the world come to serve in the Israel Defense Forces, because they believe in protecting the Jewish State and the Jewish people...

Because they believe in showing solidarity for one another, and that Israel can be a country that, for all it's many, many flaws, CAN unite Jews around the world.

I believe that, I believe that firmly, and so I care to the core of me when someone attacks those people with whom I show solidarity.

"were the Israeli's allowed to be in such positions that they only needed to press the 'fire' button to start shelling Palestinians again, so to speak?"

They were to hold their positions, so yes--the exception being that they were allowed to keep working on the tunnels during the ceasefire, which is what this group was doing when the suicide bomber hit.