Skip to main content

View Diary: Israeli newspaper: Israel attacked Gaza knowing truce was in the works (238 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Blimey. (10+ / 0-)

    What I said, is the a de facto truce had succeeded in "reducing" rockets to virtually zero. It's right there in the quote. So plainly, rockets were not 'virtually zero' prior to the truce. If they were, a truce could not have reduced them to 'virtually zero'.

    But what was this de facto truce? When was it? Well, I provided a link to the post (and diary) where I documented that in the 24 hours prior to Israel's attack, Palestinian groups observed a tacit truce, during which time rockets 'trickled down to a small number' (as the Jerusalem Post put it), indeed, to virtually zero.

    •  Oh, I get it now. (4+ / 0-)

      Your 'truce' covers the twenty-four hours before the Israelis started bombing. What you're leaving out is that there were 130 rockets launched from Gaza into Israel since Saturday as part of Hamas escalation, per the BBC:

      Now it's possible that you just have a pretty warped idea of what a truce implies, or that you believe a certain number of indiscriminate attacks on Israeli civilians is tolerable, or that you just don't give a fuck about accuracy, as long as you can somehow massage the data into the usual Hamas-are-misunderstood-bunny-rabbits dreck.

      Jeez, you gotta wonder.

      Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

      by MBNYC on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 08:06:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, look (5+ / 0-)

        get back to me when you can bring yourself to represent a perfectly straightforward argument fairly.

        •  I think the point is that you can't launch 100+ (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sandbox, MBNYC, volleyboy1, risasperson

          rockets then say 'ok, yeah, truce time!!'

          That's why I think the whole 'peace talks' meme is nonsense.  I don't think either side is remotely interested in peace.

          •  But that's utterly misleading. (6+ / 0-)

            It's not that one party to a conflict launched 100 rockets. There was escalating violence going back to (depending on where you want to start the timeline) the end of october or early November, during which time Palestinians fired rockets (killing no Israelis) and Israel fired on Gaza (killing several Palestinian civilians).

            Thankfully two days ago a lull was agreed. Even more thankfully, it appeared to be holding, a few rocket attacks and continued Israeli strikes aside. Unfortunately, Israel decided to break that lull with a massive escalation, killing several civilians (so far) in the process and provoking a further round of violence whose end is not yet in sight. Even more regrettably, it apparently did so knowing full well that a long-term truce agreement was in the works.

          •  If anyone were counting Israeli shells (7+ / 0-)

            fired into Gaza, I could produce an exact analogue of your comment: "you can't just fire [x] shells into Gaza, killing civilians including several children who had committed the crime of playing football in public, and then expect a truce". But it would be an equally silly framing to use.

            •  this conflict is a two-way street. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              volleyboy1, MBNYC

              which is kind of my point.  That's why I don't really buy into this 'truce' idea.  I don't feel that either side is remotely interested in peace negotiations at this time.

              There have been hundreds (thousands?) of 'lulls'.  These lulls are always broken, unfortunately.  By both parties.

              •  A 'truce' (5+ / 0-)

                is different from peace negotiations, and ceasefires have proven remarkably effective in the past: in 2008, there were months of quiet as Hamas unilaterally adhered to a ceasefire, which was then broken by Israel (to give one example). If you want examples of other ceasefires, check the link to the Jadaliyya timeline in my diary.

                Moreover as I explained, the lull in violence before Israel's attack wasn't merely proposed, it was being implemented: rocket attacks dropped to virtually zero. If Israel was interested in calm, it wouldn't have launched its attack, which was guaranteed to provoke (and itself represented) a new round of violence.

                You say that lulls are always broken 'by both parties'. Sorry, this is too easy. You're helping yourself to a broad generalisation without investigating the facts, which show something quite different: Israel typically ends ceasefires (see the link in my diary, for example). Moreover, Qassam rockets typically follow, rather than provoke, Israeli strikes.

                The grain of accuracy in your comment is, I think, this. When violence breaks out between Palestinian groups and Israel, it isn't because either party is simply bloodthirsty or bored or spoiling for a fight. It's because the fundamental situation is one that produces conflict. Maintaining a military regime over a hostile population for decades requires, inherently, the use of violence to quell the resistance which, inevitably, that regime will provoke. But the solution to this is not for Israel to shell Gaza. It's for Israel to agree to withdraw to its legal border, in line with the international political and legal consensus.

        •  Oh, I'm sorry, cupcake. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          volleyboy1

          I'll try harder to be fair to your delusions of candor in the future. Promise.

          Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

          by MBNYC on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 08:23:11 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Maybe the Israelis were smart/lucky enough (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MBNYC

      to catch their targets just as they were reloading? Maybe they also wanted to watch and see where they were reloading from.

      Sort of like when we had a defacto truce with the Japanese at Midway when they were reloading after the first attack wave.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site