Qassam rockets being fired .... are "Israel's problem

[pelsar]

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/661888.html

bbas even said that the Qassam rockets being fired from the Gaza Strip at Israel are "Israel's problem" and that he does not intend to interfere. "Let the Israelis deal with it," he said


__________________________________________

any suggestions that the israeli govt or idf might do to stop the kassams?.......that will "not make matters worse'?

[Fredda Weinberg]

1. their short range suggested the solution

This is why Sharon was so eager to disengage the populations - a buffer zone greater than the distance of these short-range rockets will make the attacks futile.

[pelsar]

2. actually no....

the buffer zone is a mere few kilometers....their range (kassams) are now about 15 and improving....the "buffer zone" is really just a threat of what could or might happen to other areas if they dont stop....

the buffer zone wont stop the shooting

[Fredda Weinberg]

3. Actually yes ...

>General Staff sources conceded that even if the rocket-launch cells are pushed back beyond the buffer zone, they will still be able to hit Israeli territory, although not as far north as Ashkelon, as they did when firing the Qassams from the ruins of the settlements.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/663447.html

The range may be improving, but the IDF measures it at about 6 miles.

http://www1.idf.il/dover/site/mainpage.asp?sl=EN&id=7&docid=32640.EN

[pelsar]

4. work in progress....

Palestinian gunners have begun deploying an enhanced
Kassam-class short-range missile.

Israeli military sources said the missile had a larger diameter and longer
range than previous Kassams. They said the enhanced Kassam has expanded the
strike range of Palestinian missiles fired from the Gaza Strip

http://imra.org.il/story.php3?id=27712

plus smuggling in longer range katushas are no longer are a real problem on the egyptian/palestenian border....

and the buffer zone is only the north part of gaza...the east side there is none....

[pelsar]

5. abbas is a moderate....

or so I've been told........so the "moderates" attitude toward missles going in to israel is something to the effect of "i've no responsability toward palestenains that try to kill israelis".

so i'm lost as to why the palestenains should get more territory, closer to israels infrastructure....

[Colorado Blue]

6. Seen in context with the other events in Gaza recently, Abbas

doesn't seem able to control the extremists. Also there are kidnappings, the attack on Rafah, on election offices, which don't seem related to Israel but are a reflection of lawlessness in general. So the rockets are only part of his problem.

Maybe the upcoming elections will strengthen his hand? Impossible to tell. It does seem that the police might need a bit more training. And Wolfensohn's idea, that an improved economy and more jobs will help solve the problem, still seems like a good concept. But that is hard to accomplish in a violent scenario.

Also, the Lebanese army interdicted rockets that were to be fired from the north. I'm very concerned that the violence both within the P.A. and against Israel, will escalate.

[barb162]

9. I share your concerns. I can't imagine that the pledges

for billions annually by foreign investors and governments will keep coming in when the money is seemingly not used for anything constructive. And I don't see how elections will be held with this level of violence in the streets, gunmen openly stealing election equipment in broad daylight, etc. What, 30,000 Palestinian police and EU border monitors are fleeing the Rafah crossing? The Palestinian situation seemingly worsens by the week in regard to lawlessness.

[barb162]

7. I don't know about making matters worse, but I would make the

buffer zone always greater than the range of the rockets, for starters, and I would do exactly as Israel is doing in using the Palestinian side of the land, since that's from where the rockets are coming. Israelis have the absolute right to self-defense. Abbas refuses to do a damned thing on this and other issues regarding attacks on Israel other than to do his usual meaningless blab routine about condemning the attacks. The Palestinian militants know he won't go after them...his condemnations are all a big game for the world press.

The world is catching on slowly, very slowly... the press was extremely negative this past week or two on the continuing chaos, kidnappings, gunfights in the streets, warring clans, overall civil strife, election office thefts, rocket attacks, etc., by the Palestinians. All a person has to is put himself in the place of the Israelis being bombarded by these rockets with a neighbor government who openly refuses to do a damned thing to stop it. The clan or family fighting in the streets in front of the Abbas residence was widely reported also. Israel is winning the propaganda war hands down because it is very clear Israel has nothing to do with this internal Palestinian civil strife which is now becoming very public.

[Violet_Crumble]

8. Pelsar, I've got a few questions before I come up with my suggestion...

This 'buffer zone' that some have been gleefully advocating - what's in that area in the way of towns, industrial areas, etc? Basically what I want to know is how many civilians would be negatively affected by that 'buffer zone', and also if the 'buffer zone' were to be in Israel, how many civilians would be negatively affected there...

Violet...

[eyl]

10. You might find these maps useful

Israel
Gaza (somewhat old map)

A buffer zone is only a limited solution in any event - especially as a long-term proposition. Extending it to the full range of the Qassams (some estimates have the most advanced Qassams' range at 15 km) is impossible - you'd have Gaza City in the zone then. Even if you exclude Gaza City, on the assumption that missiles wouldn't be fired from it, you still have quite a few villages in that area - which means we'd be right back to occupying part of the Strip.

As for a buffer zone on the Israeli side, that won't happen for two reasons:

1) Especially right before an election, the Israeli public is likely to take badly thenotion of designating considerable of portions of Israel no-go zones as a response to Palestinian actions. (the Knesset isn't likely to view it favorably either)
2) More importantly, that would mean evacuating a lot of Israeli communities. Even if you could evacuate the smaller ones, there's no way you could evacuate the city of Ashkelon - which is the main port for Israel's central and central-south regions. A buffer zone on the Israeli side would do nothing to stop missiles launched at Ashkelon - which is theoretically in range of Qassams launched from norther Gaza (and I think a few have already fallen near it) - and a missile hitting the oil refineries or the chemical storage areas there could have disasterous consequences.

[eyl]

17. BTW, a correction to this

for the record - I just noticed I got things a bit mixed up (which is what I get for posting at 23:00, I guess). The port, refinery, and chemical storage areas are not in Ashkelon, as in my post, but in Ashdod - which is about 10 or so km further north, and therefore not currently within range of the Qassams (though if they continue improving them, or worse, manage to import "real" missiles such as Katyushas, the situation may change). Nevertheless, the point stands - Ashkelon is a large city (by local standards, anyway) which can't really be evacuated, and it also contains a major desalination plant (the largest in the world of its type) - damage to it could be...unpleasant.

[pelsar]

11. a few more details...

the northern buffer zone is where the settlements used to be...at this point i dont know of any rebuilding on the part of the palestenains in that area. There is a bedouin village at the which the buffer zone "goes around" which is the southern part of the buffer zone.

but as eyal pointed out...its not really a "bufferzone" but more of a limiting some of the firings of the kassams.

[Violet_Crumble]

14. What about one of Chautauqua's ideas?

The one about the UN taking on an armed peacekeeping role in Gaza? Good? Bad? Eyl mentioned something that I think must be avoided at all costs, and that is for the IDF to reoccupy Gaza...

I see what you guys are saying about the 'bufferzone' thing. I don't think even as it'd exist now, it should be anything but a temporary measure, and I would have been opposed to even that if it had meant that people would have been moved from their homes....

Violet...

[pelsar]

15. the UN in gaza....

i doubt the UN would have the stomach for it.....they would be the "next occupying force" and targeted as such. In principle i have nothing against it, just dont think the various gangbangers would take to it.

maybe an egyptian force, but again, any force is going to have to be willing to have in the beginning some gun battles with the various gangs...and thats a political hot potatoe....

[eyl]

16. At least from Israel's POV

UN peacekeepers aren't especially desirable either, for several reasons.

First of all, while UN troops have been somewhat successful at peacekeeping duties, in this situation they would have to impose peace. That would require them to enter into conflict with Palestinians, leaving bodies from both sides - something which is likely to be highly unpalatable politically "back home".

Second (and partly as a continuance of the first) UN troops have a bad habit of avoiding risk to themselves at the expense of the people they're supposed to be protecting. Srebrinca is perhaps the most famous example, but hardly the only one.

Third, by their nature, UN forces are far more advantegous to the Palestinians than to Israel. They'd largely restrict IDF action in the area, but they'd have a much lesser effect on Palestinian terorists. This is because the IDF, as a regular army, has a government to which it is accountable, which means the UN has someone to complain to or threaten, and any actions (which in the extreme case may be a declaration of war) have a clear "address".

In the case of the Palestinians, that's not the case. Unless you assume they'll suddenly roll over at the sight of a blue helmet, they'll need to be fought. Assuming the PA security forces don't do so, the UN troops will - something which will involve police actions and patrols, and various other duties. Eventually, there will be civilian casualties, which gets us back to point #1.

Lastly, Israel just doesn't trust UN troops much. This is both because of the distrust between Israel and the UN in general, and because of a distrust of UN troops, especially because of incidents like the kidnapping of the three IDF soldiers after the withdrawal from Lebanon*.

In short, UN troops might be a possibility, but they either need to have a mandate which is very clear on their duties, or as a supplement to Palestinian security forces.

*For those unfamiliar with the incident, Hizbullah troops disguised as UN troops crossed the border, kidnapped three IDF troops, and withdrew, subsequently refusing to divulge any details on their condition (eventually, it was discovered they'd apparently died from their wounds shortly after the kidnapping; Israel ended up trading over 400 Lebenese and Palestinian prisoners for the bodies and for Tenenbaum, another kidnap victim). The UN troops, who witnessed the whole incident, did nothing but videotape it; the UN at first refused to admit the tapes even existed. Eventually, it agreed to show the families an edited version of the tape, removing any hints which might have helped Israel determine the kidnapees' location.

[Chautauqua]

12. Let's see now

An effective "buffer zone" would need to be 15KM from the Gaza/Israel border. If my reading of the maps is correct, that would place it somewhere in the Mediterranean and it would include all of Gaza. Clearly that's not possible and it is only a matter of time before Abbas has to make some choices. I'd say they're really limited to the following:

1. Use his police to enforce the law he publicly supports.
   1. If he can do this and stay in office, he deserves the role. Problem Solved.
   2. If he can't stay in office and enforce a coexistance policy then he has to admit that his people prefer war to coexistance and he's got the following choices.
2. Internationally state that he cannot stop his people from launching their own military actions and do one of the following:
   1. Step down and call for new elections with coexistance with Israel as the primary goal with the result that if he wins he has a mandate to stop these idiots and if he loses then there's no question that the majority don't want a country but want an ongoing war.
   2. Ask the UN to put armed peacekeepers in place throughout Gaza to maintain order
   3. Declare martial law and establish a dictatorship
   4. Follow your suggestion of an Israeli buffer around the anarchy with Israel resuming the peacekeeping role. (Obviously you aren't asking Israel to just keep moving their border back as the anti-peace factions in Gaza get better weapons indefinitely - that'd be insane - but I thought I'd clear that up before somebody read your statement that way)

[pelsar]

13. first attempt....

now that was an interesting attempt...seems few others have risen to the challange

trouble is.....if abbas cant control....he wont have the ability to be a dictator, nor will the palestenians accept a foreign force within (the first killings would force them out)...that leaves.....

two more kassams fired off today