Gaza under attack yet again.

[Spymaster]

This is the analysis of a child.

And what's your solution?

Come on big boy, give us something better that can reasonably be implemented.

 

[butchersapron]

And what's your solution?

Come on big boy, give us something better that can reasonably be implemented.

Jesus christ. There used to be a point to you.

 

[Spymaster]

Jesus christ. There used to be a point to you.

"I can't" would've been a more honest response.

 

[butchersapron]

"I can't" would've been a more honest response.

No, it wouldn't. Seriously, is that what your think tank is going to say after slopping up:

well the problem is they shouldn't vote for hamas should they?

and getting it roundly ridiculed - well what's your solution?

As i said, a child's analysis. As you indicated would be the case from your first post on this thread Johnny.

 

[ddraig]

if butchers says something you don't agree with you'll get abusive or chuck your toys around spy
e2a or both!

 

[belboid]

Interesting blog from Paul mason (apols if its already been posted)

http://blogs.channel4.com/paul-mason-blog/gaza-prove-gamechanging-event/2118

 

[Spymaster]

well the problem is they shouldn't vote for hamas should they?

They tried hamas. Things are worse for them now than they've ever been and don't look like improving.

What would you do next?

 

[belboid]

No, it wouldn't. Seriously, is that what your think tank is going to say after slopping up:

well the problem is they shouldn't vote for hamas should they?

and getting it roundly ridiculed - well what's your solution?

As i said, a child's analysis. As you indicated would be the case from your first post on this thread Johnny.

i think it's more an analysis that treats palestinians as children. 'Aah, the silly little things. I feel sorry for them, but if they do go and vote Hamas.....'

 

[nino_savatte]

Thousands of Gazans would die anyway, through waterborne disease and gradual malnutrition; through lack of proper medical facilities and treatment. Gazans voting for HAMAS were well aware that they were voting for a conflict situation, yet they still voted for them. Ask yourself why.
And sure, the state of Israel is certainly achieving something - it's just instituted a buffer zone between the "peace wall" and Gazan dwellings - it's grabbed more land to eventually build settlements on.

Exactly and the Israeli state has put Gazans on a 'diet'. So much for their 'humanitarianism'.
http://www.juancole.com/2012/10/cre...stinian-food-insecurity-in-gaza-revealed.html

 

[belboid]

They tried hamas. Things are worse for them now than they've ever been and don't look like improving.

What would you do next?

well, they should force open the border at Rafah, that is (even more) central now. Except if they do that (rather than just demanding that Egypt does it), how is Egypt going to react? They'll be almost as repressive as Israel

 

[RhymnRzn]

Oh I certainly sympathize. As I said before I just don't see it as an issue that will ever be resolved by the current methods.

right, and instead of making a quiz out of the matter, why not condemn israel's methods, and remove yourself from emboldening them, to the best of your ability, instead of implying that hamas cease the resistance (which i think they should do, myself, as a less-than-lethal issue) as being the most determinate factor.

 

[butchersapron]

Interesting blog from Paul mason (apols if its already been posted)

http://blogs.channel4.com/paul-mason-blog/gaza-prove-gamechanging-event/2118

I read that earlier - i think it's far too glib (edit: maybe under personal pressure of events) and fits into his here's 20 reasons why *** buzfeed stuff - undermined by his faith in the young hidden away. I think there was an interesting if maybe minor point where he says that the hard religious right now driving Israel are the equivalent of ISIS etc in state form. That never used to be the case. Maybe now it is.

 

[butchersapron]

They tried hamas. Things are worse for them now than they've ever been and don't look like improving.

What would you do next?

They're going to vote hamas - and in increased numbers when they get the chance. It doesn't matter what i would do. Don't you get what analysis is? It's not about you being an individual hero or providing an answer or being right , it's about looking at what people are doing and why.

 

[Spymaster]

right, and instead of making a quiz out of the matter, why not condemn israel's methods, and remove yourself from emboldening them ...

I absolutely condemn Israel's methods. I can't see them changing though, certainly not because people are spitting "fireworks" at them.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I don't believe for one minute gazans voted for conflict on this scale with loss of life so great.

I haven't claimed that they voted for conflict. I claimed that they voted in the knowledge that conflict would take place.
And surely what you believe is irrelevant? What Gazans believe is what matters.

 

[RhymnRzn]

I absolutely condemn Israel's methods. I can't see them changing though, certainly not because people are spitting "fireworks" at them.

precisely a matter of school discipline turned into the teacher needing to be removed from all proceedings, if ever to be returned to duties

 

[ViolentPanda]

The point you are missing is that the choice is between:

i)having nothing, seeing settlements expand, having ineffective negotiations with the occupier whilst being ruled by a corrupt regime,
ii)having nothing, being bombed every couple of years, having somewhat more effective negotiations but having a bit of a pop back at the enemy as well, whilst being ruled by a considerably less corrupt regime

Most people would prefer option (ii), wherever they are in the world. If there is an election at the end of the year - and its hard to see how they will let one take place, or at least let one as free and fair as the last one was - Hamas will probably win it.

Quite. Option 2 at least allows people to retain a modicum of self-respect and feel that they're directly involved in doing something, anything to break the deadlock.

 

[Spymaster]

precisely a matter of school discipline turned into the teacher needing to be removed from all proceedings, if ever to be returned to duties

Ok. How can that be brought about?

 

[butchersapron]

Ok. How can that be brought about?

well the problem is they shouldn't vote for hamas should they?

 

[ViolentPanda]

No probably not. But you'd weigh up your chances and the chances of losses before you fightback. Something hamas seems to not quite comprehend. They will always come out of this the losers in the militarily sense. Worse still they keep on insisting on going down this route that is resulting in massive loss of human life. The ultimate responsibility for loss of human life does however lay with the side that has the biggest guns. But the Israeli state has proven itself to be massively ruthless when it comes to conflict. So at some point you'd think hamas would step back and think what they hope to achieve attacking a side that shows no mercy whatsoever.

I'll repeat what I've said on every other thread touching on insurgency.
The insurgent doesn't have to win, all they need do is not lose. This is something acknowledged by strategists for two and a half thousand years - that the fact of insurgency itself places a disproportionate cost on the colonising society. In the state of Israel's case we've seen some new costs emerge this time around, with the air traffic issue, andf the consequent pressure from the tourism industry to reach an accommodation.

 

[Spymaster]

well the problem is they shouldn't vote for hamas should they?

"Well they should vote for hamas because that way they're fighting back and retaining a modicum of self respect whilst getting slaughtered".

 

[ddraig]

they should just take it shouldn't they spy, like them bastards upstarts in N Ireland

 

[ViolentPanda]

Rather than view this from a military sense, look at it with the question "Which course of action is most likely to result in meaningful negotiations taking place?" in mind.

In other words, don't just look at it militarily, look at it politically.
Mind you, I think that some people tend to divorce the military and the political in their thinking, as if there's an actual divide between the two in any modern nation-state. The truth is that under our present run of political systems, the military and the political are sometimes inseparable. You can't consider one without taking account of the other, and that includes considering whether military action constitutes a political answer to some situations

 

[butchersapron]

"Well they should vote for hamas because that way they're fighting back and getting slaughtered whilst retaining a modicum self respect"

See that gap between description and prescription again? That's where analysis lives. But, no of course you don't, surrounded as you are by hamas militants.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Exactly and the Israeli state has put Gazans on a 'diet'. So much for their 'humanitarianism'.
http://www.juancole.com/2012/10/cre...stinian-food-insecurity-in-gaza-revealed.html

Putting people in ghettoes, then shrinking the ghetto.
Providing a minimal ration.
Forcing the ghetto's inmates to police themselves with help from a quisling class.

Are you thinking what I'm thinking?

 

[Spymaster]

See that gap between description and prescription again? That's where analysis lives.

See that analysis of yours?

Even if it's correct, it's useless.

 

[ViolentPanda]

well, they should force open the border at Rafah, that is (even more) central now. Except if they do that (rather than just demanding that Egypt does it), how is Egypt going to react? They'll be almost as repressive as Israel

Not just repressive. Even while Morsi was still "in charge"< the Egyptian army were building a rather large establishment of men and war materials in Sinai. It's likely that if HAMAS (or even the Gazans themselves without HAMAS' political assent) force a crossing, they'll be bombed back into Gaza proper.

 

[ViolentPanda]

"Well they should vote for hamas because that way they're fighting back and retaining a modicum of self respect whilst getting slaughtered".

I thought you were ignoring me, schmuck?
Bit obvious that you're not when you use my words in your posts.
Dishonest as well as dopey! Perhaps not so much a schmuck as a schlemiel, then.

 

[butchersapron]

See that analysis of yours?

Even if it's correct, it's useless.

well the problem is they shouldn't vote for hamas should they?

 

[ViolentPanda]

right, and instead of making a quiz out of the matter, why not condemn israel's methods, and remove yourself from emboldening them, to the best of your ability, instead of implying that hamas cease the resistance (which i think they should do, myself, as a less-than-lethal issue) as being the most determinate factor.

Because some people are intellectually incapable (generally due to ideological preconceptions) of seeing insurgent organisations, especially those whose insurgency is armed, as legitimate. To them, the likes pf HAMAS, the Provisional IRA, ETA etc are all beyonds the pale, and need to abjectly abase themselves before power, rather than carry forward their plan, even if those plans have a mandate.