PM: We may continue operating in Gaza even if Qassams stop

[bemildred]

Reminds me of Gandhi's saying: "first they ignore you, then they attack you, then you win." We seem to be moving from the "ignore you" phase to the "attack you" phase now, WRT Hamas, although it isn't quite that neat. But it seems clear that the policy of boycott and isolation of Hamas is being superseded, from which one can infer that it has failed to have the desired effect.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told ministers Sunday that Israel would act independently of Hamas activity in the Gaza Strip, regardless of whether the militant group continued to fire Qassam rockets at southern Israel or called for a cease-fire.

"I will not commit to coordinating our behavior with Hamas actions, either it opens fire or halts its fire," Olmert told the weekly cabinet meeting in Jerusalem, shortly after a Qassam rocket attack killed an Israeli man in the western Negev town of Sderot.

"Even if there were an internal cease-fire in Gaza, and if such an agreement held, it would apply to the factions only," Olmert said.

"We need to prepare for a long confrontation that does not depend on agreements between themselves, and act in accordance with the circumstances and knowledge that we have, which is of a long-term confrontation."

That last quote is Bushlike in it's circularity.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/863634.html

[papau]

1. While a rather clear statement IMO better would be just say that until Hamas ends their

goal of destruction of the Jewish state of Israel, there is little reason to talk to them. Qassams stopping just lowers the level of the quid pro quo - and who started what is a pointless discussion if you want peace in the future between the two rather victory of one side over the other.

It's a bit like asking the US to work with Nazi Germany on trade barriers during WW2.

The 3 conditions laid out by the US and the others for talking with Hamas are must have conditions - end of story.

[azurnoir]

2. His statement was clear

"I will not commit to coordinating our behavior with Hamas actions, either it opens fire or halts its fire,"
That kind of says it all, so will Israel is continuing to bomb, Hamas should "recognize" Israel? Would that stop the bombing?
Under the circumstances it is like an abusive spouse screaming "say you love me and make me believe you" while punching the spouse. The last thing Olmert wants is capitulation from, Hamas, the statement is goading Hamas to keep up the Qassam's, it seems Olmert is willing to "sacrifice" a few Sderot civilians to accomplish a bigger goal.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[azurnoir]

9. It is hardly one way

But Olmerts statement says he will not stop even if Hamas does. It makes the possibility of Hamas stopping all the more remote, but should they stop and Israel continue then it is indeed revenge killing on Israels part.

[pelsar]

11. olmerts statement is clear...

israel will act in its best interests reguardless of the actions of hamas..meaning hamas may take a break in firing kassams, but they'll still be rearming...and if israel decides to bomb the tunnels then it shall do so.

nothing to do with "revenge" killing. I was actually waiting patiently while the kassams landed on sederot and israel did nothing to hear the reactions the second israel "had enough" and decided to react.

and it came:
The last thing Olmert wants is capitulation from, Hamas, the statement is goading Hamas to keep up the Qassam's, it seems Olmert is willing to "sacrifice" a few Sderot civilians to accomplish a bigger goal

so what is the "bigger goal"......and i am impressed how olmert convinced hamas to keep up the kassams...those palestenians are just so gulible doing israeli bidding all the time and killing israelis.

[azurnoir]

14. As I have said IMHO

the right wing in Israel would like to see the Palestinians gone, elsewhere or dead doesn't matter. Olmert did not say tunnels; recently they don't seem to going for tunnels or their aim is very bad. It seems Israels supporters are reading things into the statement he said this but he meant that I am taking it on face value, the same way Hamas's statements are taken. The difference when Hamas says they will destroy Israel it is well known they do not and will not have the means. Israel however could destroy the Palestinians they do have the means, even though they would nebver plainly state that intent.

[papau]

19. Israel bombs and kills Hamas leaders that order rocket firing - Hamas then threatens

suicide bombs.

A road to peace? Other than accomplishing the goal of bleeding innocent Israeli non-combatants, no doubt as retaliation of innocent Palestinians that are "collateral damage" in the attacks on Hamas leaders, where does Hamas think they are leading the Palestinian people?

The male ego is such that killing something is always satisfying - so Hamas no doubt gets a self esteem boost with the rockets and suicide bombs - but the path they are on is a dead end that accomplishes nothing but to delay the eventual two state solution peace agreement.

[msmcghee]

12. You are very wrong.

If someone killed your child. Tried to kill your other kid - and then said he would never stop until you, your wife and your whole family was dead - there's no doubt in my mind what any sane person would do.

They'd kill that person is a matter of defense of their family. Based on the statements and actions of the parties involved - this situation could not be any clearer.

Conflating an honorable act of self-defense with revenge is a rather despicable thing to do in my opinion. Anyone who would do such a thing is not much better than those doing the killing.

It makes one wonder where the left is headed when its members so casually defend cold blooded murderers out to kill innocent civilians and condemn those defending their families as acting out of revenge.

Or, is it that you just can't imagine Israelis acting out of moral purpose for some reason?

[papau]

18. Should Hamas both recognize Israel and stop the attacks, I'm sure Israel stops the bombing - but

Hamas will do neither -

"say you love me and make me believe you" while punching the spouse - ?

Is it not more like the spouse (Hamas) punching Israel and planning to kill Israel while Israel punches back with bombings - granted this has gone on so long that the above could be formulated as Israel punches Hamas with bombs and then Hamas punches Israel and continues to plan to kill Israel. Either formulation describes a path that does not lead to peace.

I disagree with your opinion that Olmert wants war forever - but of course you are entitled to your opinion. As to "goading" Hamas to fire Qassam's, what Israeli action is the "goading" Hamas other than the fact of no peace agreement/continuing brutal occupation that only be ended by peace negotiations that accept the continued existence of the Jewish state of Israel - and what action - that still preserves a Jewish state of Israel - is your suggestion for getting Hamas to drop their goal of destruction of the Jewish State of Israel?

[bemildred]

4. It appears to me that the present course is just strengthening Hamas

at the expense of Fatah, to the point that we are giving direct military aid to Fatah in an effort to save it. If that is what is wanted, then by all means continue with the present course. Jump right in on the losing side in the Palestinian civil war and make sure it loses what little credibility it has left.

It is worth noting that some of us have urged better cooperation and support of Fatah for some time now. It seems to me that it is now too late for that sort of approach to work. Israel can learn to deal with Hamas or everybody on both sides can learn to live with rockets.

[Jim Sagle]

5. It takes two sides to deal. Can Hamas accept that?

I believe they would find a wlling partner.

[azurnoir]

8. That is the problem

Olmert just stated that he will not deal. Does it not occur that an inflammatory statement such as the one in the article is quite possibly putting Israelis in more danger then they all ready are?

editted for spelling

[bemildred]

10. Yeah, Livni thinks talking would be a terrible mistake too.

Personally, I think this guy has it right:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x175291

It's all about not admitting that their stupid and pernicious policy of trying to starve and isolate the Palestinians into rejecting Hamas has had the opposite result. It's sort of like the US in Iraq, you can't admit your policy was stupid and wrong to being with, so you stonewall and try even more of the stupid policy.

[azurnoir]

15. Thank you

I hesitate to make that comparisine because i do not want to debate whether this or that occupation is illegal or immoral.

[bemildred]

21. You don't have to "debate" unless you want to.

And if someone won't take the trouble to understand what you have already said correctly, there is little reason to want to.

[msmcghee]

13. Now, that really is funny.

Does it not occur that an inflammatory statement such as the one in the article is quite possibly putting Israelis in more danger then they all ready are?

Like, Hamas has been holding back out of respect for the peace process and only firing a few rockets every day in an attempt to kill and maim as many innocent Israeli civilians as possible. But look out Israel, Hamas is really mad at you now.

:rofl:

[azurnoir]

16. According to some the Qassam attacks have decreased

they apparently are holding back, there have been no suicide bombs for a while and Israeli casulties have decreased since the last Intifada.

[msmcghee]

17. The qassam attacks have decreased . .

. . because Israeli attacks make it harder for them to move them into position and fire them.

There have been no suicide bombs for a while because the IDF occupies the WB and has built the "apartheid wall" which is saving countless Israeli lives. Although there's been several attempts.

Israeli casualties have decreased since the last intifada for one reason - Israel is defending itself more effectively and is ignoring the idiots in the west who condemn Israel for doing it.

[pelsar]

22. cause and effect...

doesnt seem to exist on the DU:

hamas launches kassams in large doses for days....israel does nothing........the kassams keep coming.......israel starts bombing....the kassams are then reduced....

the reason?....according to some here because hamas is "apparently holding back" all of a sudden.....the idea that bombing the kassam launchers, hamas personal might have an effect doesnt seem to occur to some.

of course hamas did threaten to try to kill more israelis if the bombing is kept up....but "apparently" its only coincidence that the kassams dropped off when the IDF started bombing hamas.....just a coincidence.

like i wrote above, its amazing how no matter what israel does they are some how the guilty party.....gaza has made that just so obvious.

[azurnoir]

23. Still what sense does it make

for Olmert to say such a thing publicly? It reminded me of "bring it on" and they did.

[pelsar]

24. it may "remind you" of the bring it on...

but since the kassams were being launched way before olmert even said anything....it doesnt really fit now does it?...and the fact that hamas is now threatening even more if israeli doesnt stop bombing them...well doesnt that even sound a little ridiculous?

"lets us send our rockets into sederot with getting bombed....bomb us and try to stop the kassam and not only will we really get mad...but many on the progressive left will start blaming you for being aggressive" (ok i added the last part)

[breakaleg]

25. It doesn't sound remotely riduculous. It appears you expect them to lay down and give in,

as usual and you can't seem to understand why they won't. Human nature, which you seem to know nothing of. But then if your attitude is typical of most Israeli's then it's no wonder Olmert has taken the position he has and it's no wonder there is no peace in your country.

This is what Israel needs to learn: beating 'them' into submission will never work. Period. It's time to try a new approach.

[pelsar]

27. so its better...

to let them bomb sederot and the surrounding communities at will.....

to each his own.....

[breakaleg]

28. Who said that? No one, that's who. Are you deliberately misunderstanding the post we are referring

to or would you like me to try to explain again what it means? Because I can assure you that no one here said what you just claimed.

[pelsar]

31. i understood very well....

the discussion was about kassams landing in sederot and the surrounding communities...israel does nothing...and when israel does attemp to stop the kassams by bombing

presto: the kassams are lessened and somehow its not because of the bombing, that is just a mere coincidence. In fact if israel continues to bomb, well then, then for sure hamas will just have to retaliate

which then translates into "israels being responsable for the enusing deaths".......pretty neat trick, to avoid it is simply to let the kassam shooters shoot in peace and not bother them.

[breakaleg]

33. The discussion was about Olmert making a ridiculous statement that does nothing

but add fuel to the fire, and make it clear to Hamas that they are damned if they do, and damned if they don't. I suspect they might figure that since they have nothing to lose, they might as well continue with the kassams.

[oberliner]

35. Unless they actually care about not killing innocent civilians

In which case they ought to stop with the kassams.

Can you imagine what would happen if the leadership of Hamas renounced violence as a means of achieving their objectives and committed themselves exclusively to peaceful resistance from now on?

What would happen if all the kassam fire was halted without any action from Israel? What would happen if the Palestinian leadership declared that they themselves were going to arrest anyone who is involved with groups that have been involved with or are involved with attacks against Israeli civilians?

I wonder what would happen if that approach was attempted.

[breakaleg]

36. Come on. That goes both ways! And if you want to get technical, let's compare the number

of civilians killed by each side and then see who cares more about killing innocent civilians.

I would like to see Hamas do that. But I suspect it would get them exactly nothing. You see, I think they are speaking Israel's language - violence and death. I think Israel would declare themselves a winner in this beat them into submission game and call it a day. Oh, and meanwhile, I suspect the expansion of those illegal settlements would continue right along.

The group that needs to make concessions here is the group that is occupying the other's land. They need to give back what isn't theirs. Period.

[oberliner]

37. Alternatively, it might lead to Israel being more likely to negotiate an agreement

I understand where you are coming from, but I would argue that if such a commitment to peace was made by the Palestinians that there would be an increased likelihood of an agreement being reached that is acceptable to both sides in this conflict.

I am encouraged by these words from Abbas earlier today:

But in an interview with Associated Press Television News, Abbas said the militants should take the first step. Under his plan, Gaza militants would halt rocket fire for a month to allow for negotiations on a more comprehensive truce that would include the West Bank.

"The truce project means all acts by all parties stop, the Palestinians first and the Israelis, so we can move after to the West Bank," Abbas said. "Israel ... Can do what it wants, whenever it wants, but we say we should do our duties and put the ball in the Israeli court."

Excerpted from here: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3405815,00.html

[breakaleg]

39. There have been periods of relative calm before and there was no peace.

Israel chose to build up the settlements in drastic ways during Oslo. Other than their word, there is no proof or evidence to show that they will work out an agreement should the fighting stop. They have had chances.

I support any truce. However I don't think it will yield Palestinians a damned thing. The fact is the minimum that Israel has to give up for peace, they are not willing to do. And pressure from the US is about the only thing that can convince them. And we all know that's not going to happen.

[Shaktimaan]

40. Oslo was a period of relative calm?

Hahahaha. Hamas never accepted Oslo and attacks increased during that time.

The evidence that Israel would support an agreement for peace is there, look at Jordan or Egypt. Peaceful, no?

There is no "minimum" for peace. Your idea of what should be Israel's and what should belong to Palestine is arbitrary. Israel has been willing to make pretty wide concessions for peace, despite settlement activity Oslo helped the Palestinians quite a bit in regards to gaining autonomy. Yet they did not hold to their side of the agreement. Not for any time in fact. The opposite is true for Israel.

Throughout Oslo it was very clear that the only party who rejected peace outright and made every effort to derail the process was Hamas. It's funny to now say that Israel, as compared to Hamas, would be the one unwilling to work out an agreement.

But you know all of this, don't you?

[breakaleg]

41. The difference between

the situations with Egypt and the Palestinians is that Israel has long term designs on Palestinians' land.

My idea is not arbitrary. I'm pretty sure the British didn't give the West Bank or Jerusalem to Israel.

"despite settlement activity Oslo helped the Palestinians"? Please. BECAUSE of the settlement activity, Oslo was a joke. As if it wasn't a joke already.

[Shaktimaan]

42. Palestinian land being...

all of Israel?

Or do you mean anything past the green line?

Whose standard are we using? Hamas'? Israel's? Sweden's? America's?

You see it is arbitrary. The British surely didn't give this land to the Palestinians. (When did they give Jerusalem to them? I must have missed that.) The British Mandate mentions the Jews, no mention is made of Palestinians. (So the last standing treaty gives rights of settlement to the Jewish people for that land.) The UN floated a partition plan which was rejected by everyone save Israel, so that isn't exactly valid at this point in time. And every treaty between Israel and every concerned Arab party clearly states that the border defining Israel's eastern side is TBD via negotiations.

You are deciding preemptively that such and such land belongs to Israel and such and such land belongs to Palestine. Based on a border that all parties always agreed was irrelevant. You seem certain that everything east of the green line is Palestinian. Why?

Oslo was a joke? So the creation of the PA was a joke? Giving the Palestinians the vote and an interim government with autonomy over areas of Palestine was a joke? Increasingly autonomous self rule for the Palestinians is a joke? The settlement activity violated the spirit, if not the word, of Oslo. But the Palestinians were never prepared to accept any kind of compromise for long term peace. And Arafat spent the Oslo period playing both sides of the fence, he never did anything to curb terrorism which flourished under the freedoms offered by Oslo.

It is hypocritical to dismiss Oslo as "a joke" because it did not meet YOUR standards. It was a hard won agreement that the PLO accepted, thus they had an obligation to at least attempt to fulfill it. If it was not good enough they could have rejected it. But to accept it and then refuse to abide by it (all the while taking full advantage of its benefits) is not justifiable on the grounds that the terms were not favorable enough.

[pelsar]

38. doesnt work...been there..tired that....

The group that needs to make concessions here is the group that is occupying the other's land. They need to give back what isn't theirs. Period.

lebanon....gaza.....also we already did the pacifist thing, the second class citizen thing......none of them seem to work out to well for us.....

[azurnoir]

26. Sure it fits

Not the exact quote but the attitude it comes, What Olmert said was that Israel may not stop bombing even if Hamas or who ever stopped the Qassams. That seems an encouragement to escalation by Hamas or what ever group is firing Qassams at the moment. WE probably won't stop even if you do? I do not think you have to be a leftist to see what's wrong with that statement, Even if; maybe especially if; that is Israels intent why announce it publicly? At times since he was elected Olmert(and that is who I blame) comes off as sounding as bombastic as his enemies, almost if you'll excuse, like a Jihadi himself.

[pelsar]

29. olmert may not be the "smartest politician"

but he did let hamas bomb sederot for about a week without doing anything about it......and the world was pretty quiet about it as well.....he gets "points" for his patience and for winning the moral upperhand...

now its clear that if israel does nothing.....the only thing israel gets is "bombed".....its now time to stop the kassams

[breakaleg]

30. Out of curiousity, who believes Olmert got the moral upper hand? Was that in some

newspaper, from the foreign press or is it something that is a commonly held belief inside Israel?

[pelsar]

32. us in israel....and others

letting hamas bomb sederot and not do anything...made it clear what hamas will do if not "bothered" by the IDF.

it left any ambiguity behind for those who were confused about Hamas intentions

[breakaleg]

34. It's just I haven't come across any assertion that Olmert has the upper hand. amusing though.

[papau]

20. I believe you are correct n/t

n/t