Israel hopes nonviolent response to bombing pays

[Violet_Crumble]

JERUSALEM - A shaky, unofficial cease-fire between the radical group Hamas and the Israeli government has survived its harshest test after an Islamic Jihad suicide bomber killed nine people in central Tel Aviv.

Israeli leaders, courting international opinion to block funding of Hamas and the Palestinian government, refrained from a counterattack, so the bloodshed did not spread after the Monday bombing, which wounded dozens.


But analysts and activists on both sides warned that the two governments are on a collision course that may lead to a resumption of full-scale confrontations in the coming months unless direct negotiations are held.

"The Israeli reaction, the decision not to hit back hard, shows that they don't want to escalate right now," said Ali Jerbawi, a Palestinian political scientist at Birzeit University in the West Bank. "I'm sure they want Hamas to fail, but I don't think they want Hamas and the Palestinian Authority to collapse altogether tomorrow."

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/3812838.html

[Poll_Blind]

1. And the Palestinians killed by heavy Israeli shelling both before and...

...after the event thank them. What a fountain of mercy is the IDF.

PB

[Violet_Crumble]

4. Yeah, I know there's been deaths before and after...

..but to be fair, the usual over the top response, ala Jenin, didn't happen this time. The rocket attacks on Gaza, while heavy and totally unacceptable, aren't a response to the suicide bombing. I know that's kind of like being grateful that someone hasn't done something that they shouldn't have done in the first place, but the motive for the bombing wasn't solely to kill civilians and instill fear in the population - it was to try to provoke the Israeli govt into the kind of retaliation that was common for it when Sharon was PM. Israel's also into the provocation thing, mind you, and I've noticed that Hamas hasn't been responding in any way than verbally. And this time the provocation was aimed at Israel and Israel hasn't responded in the way in which we're all accustomed (though if they went and blew up the family home of the bomber, I'm going to start eating my words). I might be overly optimistic right now, but out of this whole mess, I'm getting the feeling that tentative steps towards a mutual recognition, however hostile the words accompanying it might be, are happening. Israel does the tough talk thing and blusters around, then takes one small step back and makes a small concession, and Hamas is doing something very similar. In their case they give indications that they'll be willing to negotiate, then go 'oh bullshit! we didn't say that at all!!!' But the reality is that they did say it, and there has been low level communications between Hamas and Israel - if there wasn't the electricity supply to Qaligya (I spelt that like shit, sorry) would have been switched off by now...

So I think there's going to be a shitload of babysteps from both Hamas and Israel, with a whole lot more blustering to try to hide the concessions on both sides. And both sides have similar issues to get around when dealing with the other - Israel can't and shouldn't forget that Hamas was responsible for the deaths of Israeli civilians, and Hamas can't and shouldn't forget that the Israeli military and settlers have also been responsible for the deaths of Palestinian civilians. But at some point they are going to have to talk, and I saw the lack of a retaliation for the suicide bombing from Israel as one of those moments where there is an attempt being made to lower the heat on the whole situation...

Then again, I could just be talking out of my arse coz I'm watching Rolf Harris painting the Queen on telly as I type and it's doing my head in :)

Violet...

[Poll_Blind]

6. Where did you glean that this bombing was to provoke Israel?

I don't see the thinking going that far.

I have a hard time believing anyone driven to strap explosives to themselves is concerned with the political nuances of their actions- who pulls the detonator cord thinking "I am the pawn that forces the King to move his rook two spaces to the left"? Or worse, pulling the cord and thinking "I am doing this, in part, so that the IDF will come in and kill more of my countrymen, making them look bad in the international community."

I would be equally-hesitant to claim that the IDF is shelling Palestinian civilian areas, in part, so that more suicide bombers will come in and kill their countrymen.

The hatred, grief and rage on both sides is elemental, leaving room for precious little else.

PB

[geek tragedy]

9. The terrorist masterminds in Islamic Jihad and Hamas

certainly do make such nuanced calculations.

They are the ones who plan these operations. The actual suicide bombers is mere cannon fodder--a replaceable delivery mechanism for explosives.

[Violet_Crumble]

15. This was done by Islamic Jihad, not Hamas...

To be fair, Hamas hasn't planned or carried out a suicide bombing for a fair while now. This is all down to Islamic Jihad, and the area where Hamas should be criticised is for refusing to condemn the attack...

Violet...

[geek tragedy]

19. That, and refusing to do anything to curb

the activity of known terrorist groups, except when there's a turf dispute.

[Violet_Crumble]

14. Of course the bomber isn't thinking provocation...

but the folk who planned the bombing usually are trying to provoke Israel into a response. And when it comes to Israeli provocation, the destruction of a Palestinian prison and the killing of some Palestinians in the process was definately an act of provocation, despite the fact that the troops involved wouldn't have been working out of a desire to provoke...

Violet...

[uppityperson]

2. Oh hell, I thought you meant Iran.

bit jumpy these days

[Oversea Visitor]

3. What your nuke and high tech army cannot protect you

:rofl:
I think it is easier to sit down and talk
Then talking someone to blow themself and others up

[bemildred]

5. Always good to see a bit of discipline and good sense.

It's not like the aggressive approach was going anywhere, and it was a political disaster.

[geek tragedy]

8. Good sense that should not be equated with good will

Economically, Israel has put Hamas in a stranglehold. Retaliation would only weaken the current support for the cut-off in funding to the Palestinians.

[bemildred]

13. I was talking about Israel, showing restraint, like the OP says. nt

[geek tragedy]

7. The economic sanctions are the most effective

weapon against Hamas. Israel can do far more damage to Hamas by keeping those in place than by launching military raids.

The economic sanctions will eventually cause the complete collapse of the PA.

[pelsar]

10. collapse of the PA....

is hardly in israels interest. Chaos in the territories and gaza where the palestenains have access to lots and lots of bombs and guns will not help israels security...furthermore israel left Gaza of its own "free will", going back there would be a step backward, not to mention the politica chaos it would cause.


sometimes one has to try to attribute some common sense to the israeli people and its govt.....

[geek tragedy]

11. I think the Israelis are assuming that the complete collapse

of order in the Palestinian areas is inevitable. Hence the wall.

The choice may be between an effective, armed, funded Palestinian goverment dedicated to the complete and utter destruction of Israel, and chaos.

[pelsar]

12. that could be....

i never thought of that way, but there may be something to it. A collapse of the PA, the possibility of a massive refugee march into israel, would put israel in an impossible position. (let them in and the guard them like in a prison?)

just thinking of the various scenarios, not just the suffering, the bombers that would have sneak in with the refugees, the camps setup up....a massive PR nightmare for israel......

of course that puts Jordan in that very posistion.....

a collapse of the PA would be a disaster for everyone involved.

[Violet_Crumble]

16. Uh, the wall's built so it's taking in Palestinian areas...

n/t

[pelsar]

17. no argument...

in that some areas is a "land grab" and others is pure security...the reality is that its a combo:

its building was brought on by the avg israelis (the settlers were against it) who demanded a better method of security..and one that also seperated the populations for both short and long term...and possible for the scenario mentioned above.

a good govt also attempts to predict the future and prepare for possible scenarios, the above mentioned is one of many.

it may be ugly, may be cruel....its a lot of things....but it also works

[ShalachEtAmi]

20. Originally Israeli right wing opposed building `the wall`,

It had to be `sold to them on the basis of security.

The constant wave of suicide bombings convinced them for security reasons of its validity.

What people call a land grab ,is also securing the big Jewish settlements from these suicide bombers too.It would be impossible to leave for example: Maaleh Adumim or Ariel unprotected as it is impossible to transfer these Israeli citizens out of the disputed territories.

Israel would be negligent if they did not protect these citizens and left them to the `mercy` of those trying to attain martyrdom .

[Violet_Crumble]

21. That's complete rubbish...

The right wing opposed building the wall solely because it was planned to go along the Green Line and would mean the end of the illegal settlements in the West Bank. If Israel cared for the safety of its citizens it would NOT allow them to move into territory that isn't part of Israel and is under occupation...

There is nothing disputed about the status of the West Bank and Gaza. Those territories are occupied...

Violet...

[ShalachEtAmi]

25. Rubbish?

Well thats your opinion,if you do some research you will see that its not`rubbish` or `garbage` but true...

[Violet_Crumble]

29. Yes, rubbish...

And that opinion is based on research and a strong belief that Israel does not own the West Bank, and that it's settlement activity is illegal...

Here's some information for you...

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's government was originally reluctant to build the barrier - which was first championed by the centre-left opposition Labour party.

Right-wing ministers and their hardline supporters were not keen to build any structure which might be construed as a future Israeli-Palestinian border which left Jewish settlements stranded in Palestinian land.

Pro-settlement objections have been largely assuaged by the fact that the structure is not being built on Israel's pre-1967 boundary, but snakes several kilometres into the West Bank to link settlements with Israel.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3111159.stm

So, what sort of research am I supposed to be doing that will show anything you said was true?

Violet...

[Englander]

23. 'Disputed territories'.

That's *Occupied* Territories. The Occupier doesn't get to decide whether the Occupation
is disputed, it isn't.

[ShalachEtAmi]

26. I never heard of that rule...

But it is definatly `disputed` .Nothing has been settled yet,and the way Hamas is going it will continue to be DISPUTED for quite a long time,NOTWITHSTANDING the rule you manufactured in your post.

[Englander]

27. Nice ad hominem.

The territories illegally occupied by Isreal are illegally occupied, hence the use of the
word 'Occupation'.

See also;

'Israel and the occupied territories'
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41723.htm

'Israel/Occupied Territories'
http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?l=1&id=2745

'Israel/Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT)'
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/18/isrlpa12224.htm

'Israel and the Occupied Territories'
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE150352006

[Englander]

28. ~~

[geek tragedy]

18. No doubt that there's an illegitimate land grab going on

with the path of that wall.

[Englander]

22. 'Chaos' is more of an existential threat.

You can't negotiate or bargain with 'chaos'. 'Chaos' isn't the best neighbour to have, especially
when it's only 50km away.

The destruction of Isreal stuff is a red herring, this P. govt, couldn't 'destroy Isreal', even
if that *was* the intention.

[pelsar]

24. destruction...for israelis...

also means a constant rain of missles and attacks upon our homes.....destruction of israel also means destroying our chance to live normal lives without people attacking our villages and cities and busses while we go about our daily business. It also means not having to hear our neighbors constantly threaten us with their attempts to destroy us...all of which is nothing new, nothing to do with any wall or any territories or any other excuse people make for attacking israelis and jews-(pick a year..any year)


ones persons "red herring' on an internet is anothers one funeral......one is fantasy one is real