Wow,

I just got done on Raquel Evita Saraswati’s blog entry on this same article and her response. I referred her regulars to visit your blog and read your articles on this,(hope you don’t mind Mona, when I find something I think is good I have the tendency to want to share it with everyone). Anyway, this is great. This truly does provide proof that great minds think alike:) Thanks!

Correction, I meant Saraswati wrote about her response to Roi Ben-Yahuda. My bad.

I realize Mona is attempting to sound balanced (and yes, Hamas is far from perfect, and suicide bombings unjustifiable) but (a) it is foolish to say Hamas is as responsible for the crisis as Israel is, and that they don’t have the support of the Palestinians (since they were elected on the basis on their social support, and since the alternative is an even more corrupt bunch of pseudo-leaders who are more ‘popular’ with the Israelis since they are more willing to sell out the Palestinians’ basic rights). Not only is Israel responsible for so much more death, it is the agonies of the siege — felt by every man, woman, and child in Gaza — that drive people to extremism in the first place.

See this article in the Times:
“We must adjust our distorted image of Hamas”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article5420584.ece

Mona, you are a puzzle… even more of one than other women. You are a self-confessed liberal, yet unlike other liberals, who thrive on doom and gloom, you are as optimistic as Hand Maid May. You should host the Rush Limbaugh show when he is vacationing some time.

I wonder, sometimes, what you hope to accomplish by your writing. Do you think you can change the way people think and feel about each other? Is it possible to supplant thousands of years of tribalism with reasoned consideration for others?

You condemn military solutions as having failed to deliver for sixty years… and with some justification. Should Israel just lay down its arms and be raped by Hamas… as it surely would be? Would the Palestinians do the same? I doubt that they would, or even that they should.

The best solution would be for the residents of the region to arm themselves and start policing their own destructive individuals. If there were no rockets being fired at Israelis, there certainly would be no justification for any military action.

A big part of the reason that military action has failed to deliver peace is because Israel has exercised a certain amount of restraint. They could certainly move into Gaza and slaughter every living thing. That would achieve peace in that region, at least. The Arabs would posture and whine for the UN… or more likely the United States… to come in and remove the Evil Jews, but in the end, they would not risk their own positions of power in a war they could not win quickly or decisively.

A few words of wisdom for Hamas: “Do not tease the gorilla.”

A few words to remember just in case the only possible hope for peace actually materializes: “Klaatu barada nikto.”

I wouldn’t hold my breath for either eventuality. The gorilla is getting ready for some exercise and I don’t think the Americans are willing to step in to impose peace. We’re all getting tired of being the world’s policemen. Let somebody else do the pacification and the dying and bleeding.

Khalid,
The Times article reads nicely but is not correct. The missiles never stopped during the cease fire which is why Israel blocked shipments into Gaza.

Also, Hamas kidnapped an Israel soldier by digging a tunnel into Israel and has yet to return that soldier.

In addition, if Hamas truly cared about its citizens, it would recognize Israel instead of claiming to want to destroy it and rejoin with Abbas to negotiate a peace agreement.

Hey Mona,

I just wanted to thank you for your wise words during this hard time. A hard time especially for reason: From everywhere I read screaming, and those blogs which are usually a source of skeptic criticism now have become home to a bunch of extremists demanding death and slaughter (though they write “resistance” or “defense”).

Your blog is a source of calmness and reason we need at the moment. Thank you for that.

Amira Hass:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1051028.html

This is not the time to recall long-forgotten history lessons to say this is not the way to topple a government. Nor is it the time to make rational recommendations for balanced statesmanship. The time for such things has passed, along with the New Order we once arrogantly tried to establish in Lebanon, which only brought us Hezbollah. Along with the Orientalists’ plans to reduce the popularity of the PLO, which only paved the way for the emergence of a militant Islamic nationalist movement.

I kinda agree with you, Khalid. I don’t think there are enough people who want peace for there to be peace, but even if there were the current crisis has to end and people have to have time to cool down quite a bit before anything can be done about the elusive “peace”. It’s nice to see there are at least a few Arab commentators who are not fanning the fires, though.

Khalid,
Your complaint is with Hamas for locating military targets next to civilians including schools for children.

Hamas does this intentionally to use children as shields and to garner sympathy from Western media and anger from the Arab streets.

http://raquelevita.wordpress.com/2008/12/31/love-for-the-palestinian-people-not-sympathy-for-hamas/

“One cannot watch the scene unfold – Hamas hiding rocket launchers in residential neighborhoods, for example – and not see that they are effectively using Palestinians as human sacrifices to further their own aims.”

The Fatah government had signed a peace agreement and the subsequently elected government is bound to treaties from the previous government yet Hamas reneged on the signed agreement of a peace treaty with Israel. Can you imagine if the Obama administration reneged on all previous treaties of previous administrations? That sort of thing isn’t done.

The reason why the Palestinians in the Gaza strip have been suffering is precisely because Hamas refuses to adhere to signed agreements by previous Palestinian administrations. Had Hamas adhered to previous agreements then there would not be any blockade on the part of Israel or Egypt.

If Hamas really, really, cared for its citizens it would adhere to the previous peace treaty with Israel.

I have imagined myself, a white person, being raised in the deep south of the US. I wonder if I would have hated black people, if I had been raised there. Then I wonder if I would have the intellect to eventually discard the bigotry that I was once taught. And then I wonder about the next step, would I have challenged that bigotry, even to those that once taught it?

Mona, you understand the corrosive effect of bigotry. It underlying reason behind virtually every conflict around the world. Bigotry is fueled by hate and hate fuels bigotry. Those that are courageous enough to see that are the ones who can change the world.

A few years ago, a voice like yours would have been very lonely. Today, it is merely uncommon.

I have noticed a perfect correlation. Those who encourage bigotry and racism are on the wrong side of history, independent of their culture, race or religion.

In contrast, those who shine the light on bigotry and racism are heroes. Journalism produces heroes. Mona, you are a hero.

Your complaint is with Hamas for locating military targets next to civilians including schools for children.

First of all, Gaza is a small, mostly urban area. There isn’t any place to keep them, except their own homes, which are naturally in a civilian area. They are entitled to bear arms and fight, according to the UN charter.

More importantly, however, the fact that these weapons are in civilian areas does not mean that Israel can go ahead and bomb these civilian areas, knowing full well that there will be quite a few civilian casualties. They can fire at people who are actually firing at Israeli civilians, but they can’t bomb stored weapons when it will lead to civilian deaths. Israel bears first responsibility for those murders.

More importantly, however, the fact that these weapons are in civilian areas does not mean that Israel can go ahead and bomb these civilian areas…

Actually, it does, Khalid. It means exactly that. I’ve decided not to comment any further on the political side of these discussions, but this isn’t a political comment…. just a statement of fact, based on the text of the Geneva and Hague conventions.

So, there are no open area in Gaza? Even in New York City I could find places that were a relatively safe distance from civilian residences. Basketball courts, parks, etc. They don’t have anything like that in Gaza? Well, what about abandoned buildings then? Parking lots?

Craig:
Why don’t they just pile all their weapons in field with a big red target painted on it? Then Israel can destroy them without harming any civilians. The weak should never fight back, they should just lay back and let the bullies do what they wish, is what you’re essentially saying.

You cannot bomb a civilian area unless there is lethal fire currently coming from that area, and the bombing won’t cause harm that is absolutely necessary to save more lives at that immediate moment. It’s just a basic principle of law and ethics.

Israel has an idea of itself as being noble. When you attack someone but you have this idea of yourself as the good guy. How can that be? I’m the good guy and I’m killing these people. What you do is blame the people that you’ve killed. What you hear from israeli spokespeople “we are angry that they have made us murder them” — this is the psychology of the murderer, the psychology of the rapist, the psychology of the bully. –Alexei Sayle (yes, he is Jewish, see him speak here with Annie Lennox and Bianca Jagger)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7808005.stm

Sorry, that last paragraph should be in quotes; those are Alexei Sayle’s words. Like he says, you are blaming the victim. The victim may not be totally innocent, but he is still the victim of an aggressor who is far less innocent.

Craig, if a bunch of people came, killed some of your family, stole 80% of your land and then denied you the basic necessities to such a point that many of your family members were dying, how would you react? And if they continued to steal land from your relatives for decades, what would you do? Would you keep your gun next to you, or would you leave it in an empty basketball court? What would your strategy be generally?

Khalid,

Why don’t they just pile all their weapons in field with a big red target painted on it? Then Israel can destroy them without harming any civilians. The weak should never fight back, they should just lay back and let the bullies do what they wish, is what you’re essentially saying.

And what you are essentially saying, is that the Israelis shouldn’t be allowed to defend themselves, when they are being attacked from civilian areas. Disregarding what the conventions say about the matter, does that seem *reasonable* to you?

Craig, if a bunch of people came, killed some of your family, stole 80% of your land and then denied you the basic necessities to such a point that many of your family members were dying, how would you react?

Khalid, I can’t really answer that question as it hasn’t happened to me. I suppose I could try to make an argument that Mexico has stolen 60% of “my” land here in Southern California in the last couple of decades. In that case, I have reacted by trying to lean a little Spanish and making more latino friends than I used to have. That’s probably not the kind of answer you are looking for though, so I’ll try a little harder…

If California was invaded by a country that not only occupied, but sent civilian settlers to drive out the indigenous population (me) then I’d fight. I spent 6 years in the USMC, in the infantry, so I know how to do that pretty well. I know soem other vets around here, so we could probably put together a pretty good little guerilla movement… or at least a cell. Maybe join part of some larger insurgent movement. And, I would expect to eventually die because nobody is lucky forever, and no matter how good a guerilla is, when they get caught with their pants down the odds are against them, big time.

One thing I would NOT do is deliberately attack non-combatants. For moral reasons, and for practical reasons both. There’s very little strategic benefit to attacking people who pose no threat to you, during a war. It’s both a wasted effort and an un-necessary risk, especially for insurgents.

That’s my personal opinion about what I would do, in that scenario.

And if they continued to steal land from your relatives for decades, what would you do?

Well, I’d probably be long dead, because taht’s the most likely outcome of my chosen tactics… but if I had decided that the war was un-winnable then I’d might have abandoned the insurgency and tried to go on with my life as best i could. In that case, it’s extremely unlikely that I would take up the fight again.

As for my family, I would hope that they did the best they could to survive, and eventually prosper. I would *hope* for an enemy as willing to negotiate as Israel seems to be. They aren’t always that way, you know.

Would you keep your gun next to you, or would you leave it in an empty basketball court? What would your strategy be generally?

I would not attack the enemy from the house where my mother lives. No way, no now. Never would that happen. Why would I need to? I can hit a human sized target with an assault rifle at 500 meters. I can’t find a hidden shooting position within 500 meters of an Israeli, besides the place where my family lives? lol. I don’t particularly want to use the word “cowardly” in this discussion, but I can’t think of a better word to describe somebody who deliberately hides behind non-combatants in the hope that his enemy will hesitate in killing him.

PS… Most long range weapons systems can’t be fired from inside a building anyway, so the real question is whether somebody would rather fire rockets and mortars from their Mom’s backyard, or the empty lot across the street. The only reason to choose Mom’s backyard, is it takes a few seconds less to run back inside and hide under Mom’s bed. The other difference between the two, is the coordinates the forward observers (spotters) call in for the counter-strike. Since they probably only saw the muzzle blast from the mortar/rocket/whatever, and not the scampering about to and from Mom’s bed, that will either be Mom’s backyard or a vacant lot. *shrug*

Raw footage from Gaza, taken Jan. 1:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3b3_1230864719

Craig:

I find I agree with you. I, too, am a veteran (army, infantry, civil affairs) and would have no trouble hitting human targets at those ranges with small arms, though, as you are likely aware, in any sort of civil war… which is more or less what is happening now in the Middle East, the ranges involved for defending one’s home are more likely to be across the street.

Firing rockets across the border at an enemy I have a treaty or ceasefire in effect with should be contraindicated. For one thing, its expensive and not very effective. It also targets noncombatants. Why would I want to shoot at my enemy’s hospitals, schools, and families? Much better to wait for their soldiers to come to my neighborhood and then destroy them enmasse. If they don’t come to my neighborhood, then they are not really my enemy, are they?

What will have to happen is for the local inhabitants to reject Hamas and its efforts to destabilize the region such that a full-scale war with Israel gets underway. When snipers firing even muzzle loading smoothbores such as shepherds routinely carry in the Middle East take out the crew of the rocket launchers, they’ll stop using rockets to tease the gorilla across the border.

Somehow I doubt that this will happen. Palestinians who want peace don’t want it bad enough to risk death for. They’d rather have someone else do the bleeding for them. This logic fails though, when the Israelis do the fighting and dying, as collateral damage will still bleed the Palestinians.

Peace though superior firepower!

Any military target: missile launchers, weapons caches, weapons factories, communications and logistics support are legitimate targets. As an American having missiles shot at my city of New York I would expect my country to go after these targets of the attacking country and anyone who is honest would expect the same of their country.

What is wrong is to locate military targets which any country (Israel, American, India, China, Russia) would have the right and expectation to attack near civilian populations. It is clearly wrong.

There are 360 sq. km. in Gaza. 10 sq km. could be dedicate to military installations with a clearance of 100 meter on each side away from civilians. This could be done if Hamas cared about its civilians. The point is that they do not care about civilians.

Because Hamas leadership is not allowing for 100 meter clearance between civilians and military targets they should be brought in front of the International Court in The Hague, prosecuted and imprisoned for deliberately putting civilians in harms way. That is the solution to the problem and the International Community, if responsible should do just that.

People who say Israelis stole other people’s land are simply not telling the truth: it is well known that Jews were in the land first starting about 3300 years ago. It is the Arabs who stole Jewish lands, not visa versa and to say anything else is simply misrepresenting the truth. It should be pointed out that for many centuries Arabs stole Spanish and Greek lands until they were finally kicked out (in Spain the job was completed in 1492). The Jews have simply come to get back their own land, nothing more.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1230733155685&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

“Wisam Abu Jalhoum, a Fatah activist from the Jabalya refugee camp, was shot in the legs by Hamas militiamen for allegedly expressing joy over the IDF air strikes on Hamas targets.”

“”Hamas is very nervous, because they feel that their end is nearing,” a senior Fatah official said. “They have been waging a brutal campaign against Fatah members in the Gaza Strip.” ”

“Meanwhile, sources close to Hamas revealed over the weekend that the movement had “executed” more than 35 Palestinians who were suspected of collaborating with Israel and were being held in various Hamas security installations.”

The point of my previous post is that in fact the Palestinians in Gaza are happy that Israel is coming to rescue them.

Notice that 35 people were executed without a trial. In Israel, terrorists are far safer than these people who were not terrorists. Terrorists in Israel are far safer because 1) there is a trial and 2) there is no death penalty in Israel.

In summary, 1) the Palestinians in Gaza are in fact waiting to be rescued by the Israelis and 2) Israelis treat Palestinians better than Palestinians treat Palestinians.

http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/dershowitz/entry/israel_s_actions_are_lawful

http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/dershowitz/entry/israel_s_actions_are_lawful

“In one recent incident, Israeli intelligence learned that a particular house was being used to manufacture and store rockets. It was a clear military target since their rockets were being fired at Israeli civilians. But the house was also being lived in by a family. So the Israeli military phoned the house, informed the owner that it was a military target, and gave him thirty minutes to leave with his family before the house was attacked. The owner called Hamas, which immediately sent dozens of mothers carrying babies to stand on the roof of the house. Hamas knew that Israel would never fire at a home with civilians in it. They also knew that if, by some fluke, the Israeli authorities did not learn that there were civilians in the house, and fired on it, Hamas would win a public relations victory by displaying the dead civilians to the media. In this case, Israel did learn of the civilians and withheld its fire. The rockets that were spared destruction by the human shields were then used against Israeli civilians.”

You see, Hamas sent dozens of mothers carrying babies deliberately *into* a military target that had warnings that it would be attacked. Can you imagine such horrific human beings that are more than willing to sacrifice mothers and babies? How can anyone possibly defend this action? Is this activity not worthy of taking Hamas leadership in front of the International Court in The Hague?

“Even Hamas sources acknowledged that the vast majority of those killed have been Hamas terrorists though some civilian casualties are inevitable when–as BBC’s Rushdi Abou Alouf, who is certainly not pro Israel–reported that “the Hamas security compounds are in the middle of the city.” Indeed his home balcony from which he observed the bombing of a compound was 20 meters from that military target.”

You see, Hamas is deliberately located military targets among civilians.

“Hamas, on the other hand, refuses to build shelters, precisely because it wants to maximize the number of Palestinian civilians inadvertently killed by Israel’s military actions. It knows, from experience, that when it forces Israel to take military actions that result in the deaths of even a small number of innocent Palestinian civilians, many in the international community will condemn Israel. Israel understands this sad reality as well, and goes to enormous lengths to reduce the number of civilian casualties, even to the point of foregoing legitimate targets that are too close to civilian areas.”

Not only does Hamas deliberately locate military targets among civilians but they refuse to build bomb shelters to protect those civilians that they are deliberately endangering. The reason is quite clear: they want those civilians to be killed in order to use them as propaganda. Now I ask you, what kind of people are Hamas? Are there words to describe a people that would 1) deliberately put dozens of mothers with their infants in a location that the Israeli military said it was going to blow up 2) deliberately locating military targets among civilians and 3) deliberately not building bomb shelters for those civilians that they are deliberately endangering?

For all of those people that criticize Israelis: Do you honestly think that Israelis would do the same things as Hamas, items 1), 2) and 3) above? No. And the difference? Israelis care for human life. Hamas is more than willing to sacrifice human life. Even mothers and their babies.

The myths described by David above are debunked here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/04/israel-gaza-hamas-hidden-agenda

Returning to the topic of the blog post… it will take more than the silly, naive, holier-than-though, blame-the-victim approach of Mona and Tarek (whose influence, frankly, measures perhaps a few dozen people) to bring any lasting peace. The Palestinians already tried peaceful negotiations, and there is already an international consensus as to what the solution is, but the Israelis never responded in good faith, building more and more settlements all the while. The only thing that will bring peace is pressure from the major powers for Israel to live up to the obvious solution and act in accordance with international law.

John McCarthy:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/john-mccarthy-if-it-was-iyouri-home-what-hope-restraint-1224209.html
“One can only hope that president-elect Obama will bring pressure on Israel to change its policies. But that is not a strong hope. How many more times will the world rub its hands in despair and feebly “call on all parties to show restraint” as our television screens show civilians cowering under bombing raids and hospitals unable to treat the wounded?

Yes, Hamas must stop its rocket attacks. But surely, above all, it is time for Israel to be taken to task and charged with recognising the will of the international community.”

Khalid,
Help me out. In all serious, which thing is false?
1. After getting a 30 minute warning call that a military target is to be bombed Hamas sent dozens of mothers and their babies to the site to be bombed?
2. That Hamas locates military targets in the middle of cities near areas of highest population density?
3. That Hamas will not build its civilians bomb shelters in spite of the fact that they are located near military targets?
4. That Hamas summarily executed 35 people without trial?
5. That many Palestinians in Gaza are welcoming the Israeli invasion?

Now, can you imagine Israelis (or Americans or Europeans, etc.) 1) sending dozens of mothers and babies to a location that is to be bombed in 30 minutes, 2) would locate military targets in the middle of cities which are places of high population density, 3) would not build bomb shelters? 4) would execute 35 people without trial? (Israel doesn’t even have the death penalty), 5) would welcome an invasion from “the enemy” because they are being oppressed by their own people?

Seriously, am I the only one disgusted by these Hamas actions? Does a leadership that would deliberately send dozens of mothers and their babies into an area that will be bombed in 30 minutes deserve to govern? Can’t you see the problem is not Israel but Hamas?

David, that is really sick reasoning. Hamas is to blame for not building bomb shelters, while those who lob bombs on densely populated area, killing hundreds, are innocents fighting in self-defense? And if you believe the lies you’re trying to propogate… God help you.

—

“As the Jerusalem Post reported, the blitz was long-planned. It took place at a time when the illegal blockade of Gaza by Israel had succeeded in imposing near-starvation and caused a critical scarcity of medical supplies. It was all thought out beforehand. A Gaza Health Ministry spokesman, Hamam Nasman, said that “Since August we have not received basic medications. The ICRC [International Committee of the Red Cross], which usually delivers 60 types of medication, has been unable to deliver a shipment for one month. 105 drugs and 230 basic supplies . . . are out of stock.” Then the Israelis struck, just when casualties could not be treated.

This is deliberate targeting of civilians. It is malicious cynical rubbish to try to claim that civilian deaths could be avoided or civilian injuries treated with any approach to effectiveness in such circumstances. The Israelis are criminals. They tried to starve 1.5 million people and intensified the effects of their evil (and illegal) food blockade by denying hospitals the equipment, drugs and bandages they needed”

-Brian Cloughey, http://www.counterpunch.org/cloughley12312008.html

See also Brian Eno’s post:
http://www.counterpunch.org/eno01022009.html

Khalid,
If Mexico or Canada shot thousands of missiles towards America, I don’t think many American’s would be too bothered if we didn’t allow any form of aid into Mexico or Canada *through our borders*.

Now, as you know, Egypt also borders Gaza and since Hamas hasn’t declared war on Egypt unlike its declaration of the total destruction of Israel, Egypt could allow those same aid times that Israel refuses to send to Gaza. Yet, Egypt has chosen to close its borders with Gaza because they are honoring a commitment to Abbas and Fatah and because they are upset that Hamas refuses to make peace with Abbas and Fatah.

It is Hamas that has taken the offensive against Israel (and I might add Abbas and Fatah) by sending missiles to Israel. Israel is responding defensively to rid the missiles from being launched by Gaza.

Hamas could and should not located military targets in city centers where population is densest.

Can’t you see that a leadership that would deliberately send dozens of mothers and their babies into a location that Israel has forewarned would be bombed in 30 minutes a very sick leadership? Please answer this question. Do you really approve of this action?

Khalid, this is from your quote:

How many more times will the world rub its hands in despair and feebly “call on all parties to show restraint”…

Yes, Hamas must stop its rocket attacks. But…

Did he just ridicule people who call on both sides to show restraint, and then call on both sides to show restraint, or what? You need better sound bites

I’ve been reading this thread with great interest. Mona, thank you for highlighting a diversity of dissenting voices.

Craig, I think what Khalid is trying to do is not to “ridicule people who call on both sides to show restraint.” Rather, this seems to be a statement about the utter passivity many observers engage in. We cannot, as a global community – simply call on unreasonable parties to show reasonable restraint. Rather than throwing flames, I seek to highlight the value that can be taken from his assertion. One can choose to read this as ridicule – or one could see it as a call to action.

What I mean is this: the situation is not one that makes for much hope. From the outside, there is a catch-22. If one expresses disdain for Hamas’ behavior of late, or the Arab world’s lack of positive action for the average Palestinian, one could be labeled an imperialist, a Muslim-hater, a Zionist of the most ruthless variety.

If one decries Israel’s behavior in any way, or raises the uncomfortable issue of dehumanizing checkpoints, the restriction of resources, etc – one is likely to be called an anti-Semite, the bedfellow of terrorists, etc.

However, the “imperialist” and the “bedfellow of terrorists” would both have a point. A point that the other refuses to stomach, but must. That is – if anyone is ultimately interested in peace.

The world has been intimidated onto its tiptoes, gingerly avoiding real discussion of the issue. Indeed, even as numbers of civilian dead grow by the day, I hear the same strains of debate today that I heard before the start of the 21st century. Politicians and diplomats call for “restraint.” What does that even mean? Does that solve the issue? No. Does that empower Palestinian civilians so that Hamas may no longer exploit their vulnerability? Does that implore Israel to recognize that a 2,000 pound bomb is more than is needed to hit one legitimate – and small – target in an area densely populated with those who should not be targets? No and no again.

Calling for restraint is a gesture of polite verbiage. It makes us feel better. But it does not save lives.

I don’t claim to have the answers, but I’m also sickened by most responses. In the interest of being constructive, what are the steps the world (and individual states) should take? We are all embroiled in this conflict, and whether we like it or not – our passivity in constructive response leaves blood on our own hands.

The best to each person keeping his or her eye on the distant point of peace rapidly moving further out of sight.

And therein, I think, lies part of Khalid’s point.

(I meant to have “and therein, I think, lies part of Khalid’s point” come right after “blood on our own hands” – my apologies.)

Hi RES,

However, the “imperialist” and the “bedfellow of terrorists” would both have a point. A point that the other refuses to stomach, but must. That is – if anyone is ultimately interested in peace.

Agreed, but I’ve found that most of the people I argue with on blogs about these issues don’t really want peace at all… they want victory. So, I tend not to engage in sincere discussions about such matters any more. I get a lot fewer headaches, now

Does that empower Palestinian civilians so that Hamas may no longer exploit their vulnerability?

It seems to me that Palestinians were well aware of HAMAS’s history of sponsoring suicide attacks against Israeli civilians, before they elected HAMAS to represent them in Gaza. If Palestinians are disenchanted with HAMAS now, then nobody can rectify the situation except Palestinians themselves. That’s why I think Israel’s campaigns against both HA in Lebanon and HAMAS in Gaza have been and will continue to be futile. But, the Israelis have had justification for both, so if they choose to go that route I won’t second guess them.

Does that implore Israel to recognize that a 2,000 pound bomb is more than is needed to hit one legitimate – and small – target in an area densely populated with those who should not be targets?

I’m a bit puzzled by this one. I would agree a 2000lb JDAM is way too much for a single small building… it would be likely to destroy not just that building but several buildings nearby as well. But it would be appropriate for a warehouse. I don’t know if you are aware of how air power operates in a combat zone, but the planes rotate in shifts so that there are always planes in the air and “on station” as it is called. They don’t get armed and then take off from an airfield when somebody calls in an air strike. That would take way too long. So, if an FO calls in an air strike on a garage workshop and wants a 500lb JDAM, but the pilots only have 2000lb JDAMs, then its likely the FO will modify the fire mission to use the 2000 pounder. I wish I could say that the FO would scratch the mission, but that isn’t reality.

Unlike a lot of people on the net, I support use of “precision air strikes”. The alternatives aren’t very good… artillery, for instance? The best gun crew in the world would have to be very lucky to hit a target the size of a house with their first shot, rather than some other house on the street. Artillery and mortars are not designed for attacking point-targets… they are area effect weapons. A 500lb JDAM is currently as good as it gets when it comes to hi-tech methods of trying to precisely hit small targets, without producing much collateral damage… and that isn’t very good.

Sorry for all the technical details, but I seriously get annoyed sometimes when I see people slamming the Israelis (or us Americans) for collateral damage, as if we do it deliberately.

I don’t claim to have the answers, but I’m also sickened by most responses.

Me too! I read a BBC article yesterday that had the official responses from the UN Secretary General, the British PM, the French PM, the US President, etc… it’s like they just issued the exact same statements they’ve issued 100 times before! I think I could have written a synopsis of what each would say ahead of time, and been right on the money. I’d rather they just kept their silence than repeat the same old, all over again.

Craig,

You call this disengagement?

Sorry to have puzzled you. I’m not all that aware of how air combat works, but allow me to clarify that I’ve got my big-girl pants on for this one: Nizar Rayyan, a senior Hamas leader, was killed when a 2,000 pound bomb was dropped on his family home. The home was located in a refugee camp.

You stated yourself that a bomb of this size is excessive for such a small and specific target. I presume that you’d agree with me, then, that this was in fact excessive? You’ll note that I am not lamenting Rayyan’s demise. He encouraged suicide bombings and the murder of civilians. Rather, I’m both lamenting the death of the civilians this overuse of ammo took with it and the illogic of using such force to target Rayyan. It is incidents like these that make it very hard for even me to discuss this conflict in a balanced manner.

A further question for you: your rundown of “technical details” provides me with additional clarity. I appreciate that. Given the information you yourself have provided, don’t you think that it would never make sense for combatants to be flying with such enormous firepower? After all, Gaza is densely populated, and it is a remarkably small area. The targets are miniscule – rocket launchers in neighborhoods, specific buildings, police stations. Given the destruction a 1-ton bomb brings with it, how can I be convinced that a sincere effort is being made to reduce civilian casualties? Wouldn’t it make sense to at least try and save face by using the smaller power, all the time, for this terrain?

You call this disengagement?

I guess I thought I wasn’t being political

You stated yourself that a bomb of this size is excessive for such a small and specific target. I presume that you’d agree with me, then, that this was in fact excessive?

Yes. I also assume that was a pre-planned mission, not one that was called in by a forward observer. I don’t know why the Israelis chose a 2000 pound bomb for that mission. The US took out Zarqawi with a 500 pound bomb, and I’m betting we wanted him dead as much if not more than the Israelis wanted Rayyan.

It is incidents like these that make it very hard for even me to discuss this conflict in a balanced manner.

I understand.

After all, Gaza is densely populated, and it is a remarkably small area. The targets are miniscule – rocket launchers in neighborhoods, specific buildings, police stations. Given the destruction a 1-ton bomb brings with it, how can I be convinced that a sincere effort is being made to reduce civilian casualties? Wouldn’t it make sense to at least try and save face by using the smaller power, all the time, for this terrain?

No, not necessarily. The larger bombs would still be chosen for targets out in the open. An explosion in open air is a lot less lethal than one in an enclosed space… something to do with the concussion being amplified (don’t quote me on that because I’m not an engineer). I don’t know about you, but I’d rather Israel used the big conventional bombs instead of cluster bombs, against targets that are outside in the open.

I’m going to read up on Rayyan now. You’ve got me curious what was going on with that. I just skimmed the article I read, the day it happened.

Raquel Evita Saraswati said:

“Does that implore Israel to recognize that a 2,000 pound bomb is more than is needed to hit one legitimate – and small – target in an area densely populated with those who should not be targets?”

This is part of the comment I put on the “Israel is the Opium of the People blog post.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1230456505080&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

“The GPS-guided GBU-39 is said to be one of the most accurate bombs in the world. The 113-kg. bomb has the same penetration capabilities as a normal 900-kg. bomb, although it has only 22.7 kg. of explosives.”

“Palestinians reported that they received phone calls to their cellular phones and landlines from the IDF. The phone call, the Palestinians said, conveyed a recorded message ordering the immediate evacuation of homes that were next to Hamas infrastructure or being used by the terrorist organization.”

So, you see, Israel is only using 50 lb bombs, not 2000 lb bombs *and* they are calling people up ahead of time. Since Israel is using the 50 lb bombs if for some reason they used a larger bomb it must be because the 50 lb bomb would not solve the problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-39_Small_Diameter_Bomb
“The SDB carries approximately 50 lb (23 kg) of high explosive”

Meanwhile, as I explained in an earlier post which nobody has yet answered, when Israel called one house which had weapons in it giving a 30 minute warning, Hamas intentionally send dozens of mothers and their babies to the bomb site. It is pretty clear that people that would intentionally send dozens of mothers and their babies to a location which Israel that Israel is planning on bombing in 30 minutes are monsters that don’t care about their own citizens and yet nobody has commented on this in the blog post. Would somebody please explain how Palestinians could allow such people to lead them?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/washington/05diplo.html?hp

“In the absence of any new statement, many have recalled Mr. Obama’s remarks last July in the Israeli town of Sderot, where he implicitly recognized Israel’s right to respond militarily.

“If somebody was sending rockets into my house, where my two daughters sleep at night, I’m going to do everything in my power to stop that,” he told reporters.”

“Asked whether sending troops into Gaza was a mistake, the vice president replied that “it’s important to remember who the enemy is here,” adding, “You haven’t had a conflict between two U.N. charter-member states, you’ve got a U.N. member state being attacked by a terrorist organization.””

“Leading Democrats, including Senators Harry Reid of Nevada and Dick Durbin of Illinois, both of whom appeared on programs on Sunday, have also expressed support for Israel. “I think this terrorist organization, Hamas, has got to be put away,” Mr. Reid said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.””

As is usual, the Palestinians have brought disaster upon themselves. For whatever reason, they elected a terrorist organization to be their leadership and now they are paying the price. How can anyone blame Israel for the Palestinians choosing to elect a terrorist organization to govern them. Clearly the Palestinians are at fault for causing what has happened to them today?

David, I’m not going to belabour the point of bomb size – the reports on the size of explosive used to take out Rayyan are not, I’m assuming, fabricated. 2,000 pounds is what every major news network reported.

Best,
RES

Hi RES,
I liked your posting on your blog. I was just making the point that Israel *is* using the GBU-39 (50 lb high explosive) bombs that I mentioned and that undoubtedly if the GBU-39 would have done the job they would have used it. If they used a larger bomb it was likely because in their judgment the GBU-39 would not do the job.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1230733139262&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

“The IDF said it had called the house before the strike and warned the family to leave.”

So, it would appear there was the warning and the family did not leave.

“Rayyan’s house, the IDF said, served as a weapons warehouse and as a Hamas communications center.”

“Rayyan was both the director and the financier of the 2004 terror attack at the Ashdod port, which killed 10 Israelis, and in October 2001 he sent his son to perpetrate a suicide attack in the Gush Katif settlement Elei Sinai, where two Israelis were killed.”

Rayyan was a wonderful human being and loving father. Even after the shooting starts he leaves his family in a home that served as a weapons warehouse: an obvious military target. Instead of criticizing Israel for using a 2000 lb bomb, why not criticize Rayyan for leaving his family in a building he knew would be bombed because it served as a weapons warehouse?

Rayyan is such a loving father to send his son to blow himself up in a suicide attack killing other innocents. What a fantastic example to the Palestinian people….such love, such caring about others…

Aren’t you sickened by this man and by Hamas sending the dozens of mothers with babies to a location that Israel said it would bomb in 30 minutes? Doesn’t this sort of behavior demonstrate to you that these people are not fit to govern? Does this only sicken me or does it sicken others?

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1051880.html

“Defense officials said a one-ton bomb was used to attack Rayan’s home, and that weapons stored inside set off secondary explosions.”

Thus it would appear that the secondary explosions by keeping his family in a weapons warehouse contributed to their deaths. The weapons warehouse was probably far in excess of the 2000 lb bomb in explosive force.

“A lecturer at Gaza’s Islamist University, Rayan, 49, had mentored suicide bombers… ”

“He was also an outspoken advocate of renewing suicide bombings against Israel.”

David,

Read my comment again. I did not call Rayyan a loving father, I did not lament his demise. I simply questioned the necessity of using such intense firepower on a home in a densely populated area. Of course keeping ammo in his house could only increase the damage. However, I maintain my point that a ton of explosives is excessive for the terrain in question. That is the issue being addressed in the above exchange between Craig and myself.

Further, I have made clear and regular denouncements of terrorism and behavior like Rayyan’s. That doesn’t change by having a logical and measured conversation about responsible use of force. Disagreeing with a tactic on the Israeli side is not the same as supporting suicide bombings or thinking Rayyan was a good father. If you liked my posting, you clearly read that I’ve openly criticized Hamas and the violence they engage in. In the conversation above, I in fact mentioned Rayyan’s training of suicide bombers. Of course that is sickening. He clearly was a legitimate target – I am not disagreeing with that, nor have I suggested otherwise.

We could beat this horse into the ground for days – and some of your contributions are only enhancing my point: for example, if the IDF knew that this was a weapons warehouse, all the *more* reason to use smaller explosives – after all, the place is going to be obliterated with even less help!

At this point, the “why don’t you criticize Rayyan” is a circular dialogue – one that can only sidestep an important conversation about responsible use of force. I think I speak for many when I say that criticizing a dead man is a less useful way to spend our time then trying to minimize the civilian deaths on both sides.

I’m stepping away from this dialogue, but you can feel free to comment on my site if you like.

Best,
Raquel Evita Saraswati

http://www.raquelevita.com

Good response, RES

David, I wasn’t aware Israel was using that bomb already… I thought it was still in development. I don’t think the US has even used it yet, but I might be mistaken! It sounds like a good design for use in an urban setting. In American terminology, that would be called a 250 pound bomb… just an FYI. We use the overall weight, not the weight of the explosive.

I haven’t commented before on the things you’ve said here, simply because I think you go too far with the cheerleading for Israel. That’s your prerogative but I can’t with a clean conscience criticize the other side for propagandizing and one-sided presentations and then turn a blind eye to what you’ve been doing. No offense intended… I assume you are Israeli, so being partisan is perfectly understandable.

Hi Craig & RES,
I’m not Israeli — I’m worse — I’m an American but frequently visit and work in Israel and am here for the American holidays…New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg is here in Israel as well and when visiting Sderot got a welcome call from Hamas in the form of a 15 second warning to a bomb shelter.

Just today I was telling an Israeli soldier that their problem (as in Lebanon) is that Israel is too nice….America would never have been as “nice” as Israel is…

My points are that Israel is hardly perfect but it does much more than others to minimize civilian casualties and if they used the larger 2000 lb bomb when they have been using the smaller SBU 39 250 lb bomb they must have had a legitimate reason for using the larger bomb. Wouldn’t you agree, Craig?