Middle East News 2

[dteowner]

I was referring to this event rather than recanted testimony:
http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1060928582&postcount=703

 

[Prime Junta]

Sorry, I meant the 1:3 death ratio...
You've been saying that there would be more and more civilians found death, while the death toll hasn't really increased nor have they found many more civilians to be death.

I was saying it *might* go up. Turned out it didn't, thank God.

And about the UN school. If what the article says is true then Israel didn't really attack a UN school and the argument of Israel attacking specifically UN targets is false, hence Israel's accuracy is better than I thought and they never wanted to attack the UN as claimed by some.

Sure. If it's true.

 

[Pladio]

Why wouldn't it be though ?

 

[Prime Junta]

Why should we believe it was? Not the specifics, mind -- but the bigger picture: that Israel targets UN facilities whenever it finds an excuse. This is virtually impossible to prove, since all it takes in conditions like Gaza is for a rocket or bomb to "accidentally" go a bit wide, whenever something's going on in the general direction of a UN facility. Hell, they even got away with a completely blatant, sustained, and repeated attack on the UNIFIL outpost in Qana in 2006, 'cuz, as dte pointed out, all the UN can do is express its outrage in the strongest possible terms. (It did seem, though, that a French Foreign Legion unit under the UN flag, keeping the peace there after the ceasefire came within 30 seconds of shooting a SAM at an IAF fighter that was repeatedly violating Lebanese airspace. Real shame they pussied out at the last moment.)

Now, you yourself posted some pretty good reasons why Israel hates the UN in general and the UNRWA in particular like poison. Given these conditions, you tell me why Israel *wouldn't* intentionally-accidentally-on-purpose target UN facilities? Because they're such lovely pure-as-milk humanitarian sweethearts who wouldn't hurt a fly if it didn't first shoot a bottle rocket at them? Get real.

 

[Pladio]

Just asking why this couldn't be true... and saying the same could have-might have happened in Qana...

 

[dteowner]

(It did seem, though, that a French Foreign Legion unit under the UN flag, keeping the peace there after the ceasefire came within 30 seconds of shooting a SAM at an IAF fighter that was repeatedly violating Lebanese airspace. Real shame they pussied out at the last moment.)

Well crap, PJ...They're UN and French? You should be happy they even had a gun. They might have even fired the thing, but none of them would admit to understanding English so they couldn't read the instruction manual.

 

[Prime Junta]

Well crap, PJ...They're UN and French? You should be happy they even had a gun. They might have even fired the thing, but none of them would admit to understanding English so they couldn't read the instruction manual.

Foreign Legion, dte. You know what "foreign" means, don't you?

Seriously, though -- I don't get where this rep the French have with the Americans comes from. Sure, they lost against the Wehrmacht in WW2, but that was... the Wehrmacht. You know, only the strongest military since the Mongols, before Hitler had pissed it all away in the Russian winter.

Before that, there was the little matter of, oh, you know, the French Empire which was second only to the British, Napoleon, Louis XIV, what have you. They even saved your asses on a couple of occasions, if I recall correctly. When's the last time *you* ran over a continent that was fulled with actual, armed nation-states instead of tribes with bows and arrows, hmm?

 

[Prime Junta]

Just asking why this couldn't be true... and saying the same could have-might have happened in Qana...

Almost any of these individual incidents *could* be true. (Not Qana, though -- there hasn't been any plausible explanation for that forthcoming.) But together, they make a pattern. You know, the gypsy *could* really, genuinely trip and fall down the stairs at the police station, but once it happens a second, third, and fourth time, it kinda starts to look a bit suspicious.

The thing with war is that it's... foggy. You have to proceed from the assumption that everybody's lying as far as they think they can get away with it. Then you have to figure out what they *can't* get away with, and try to fit the pieces together from that. It's not an exact science, far from it. With the Gaza dustup, I think I had a pretty good handle on the overall picture -- timeline, general options, general tactics, objectives, results -- but I certainly was wrong on the details.

For example, I was wrong about the casualty figures. I based my estimate on how these things worked out in previous urban conflicts. Israel, however, clearly had even better intel than I thought and did know exactly where to hit. We now know enough to be able to do a pretty good back-of-the-envelope estimate of their accuracy, by using a simple, known metric: the sex ratio of the casualties.

Total casualties: 1324, of which there were 114 women and 437 children. Assuming half the children were boys, that gives a sex ratio of 991 : 332, which is almost exactly 3 men/boys for each woman/girl killed. If they had been killing people at random, the ratio would be 1:1. So we can reasonably estimate from this that about every other person they killed was an actual Hamas operative, i.e., that about 660 of the victims were combatants, at least by the somewhat stretched definition Israel uses, and the rest were civilians. That's pretty impressive precision considering the conditions.

(Incidentally, the official Palestinian Center for Human Rights count has the civilian casualty number at 894, which is higher than my estimate. I suspect the discrepancy may be due partly to bias, and partly to different definitions -- PCHR uses the traditional definition for combatant, meaning someone actually bearing a weapon and currently engaged in military activities, whereas Israel considers any Hamas operative fair game, which of course includes everyone from armed cadres to the people running whatever miserable water and electricity utilities they have in place there.)

 

[coyote]

Reading the news about tomorrow's Knesset elections, I kept wondering: why would the Hamas continue to fire missiles into Israel after the cease-fire when this keeps pushing people in Israel to the political right?

If this is really a game of chess for them, they might hope to fuel their own war machine and isolate Israel internationally - whatever good that will do them - by escalating the situation further with people like Netanyahu and Lieberman in power, ultimately at the cost of their own people. Or, considering their frustration and anger, at least some of them might act out of vengeance, without political agenda and oblivious of the consequences. Or I simply missed something?

Either way, I am far from the point where I can see any hopeful outcome, but since politics is more chaotic and unpredictable than a game of chess, I suppose the situation might just as well not be as completely lost as it looks at the moment <- that's the naïve fool in me speaking.

 

[Prime Junta]

Reading the news about tomorrow's Knesset elections, I kept wondering: why would the Hamas continue to fire missiles into Israel after the cease-fire when this keeps pushing people in Israel to the political right?

If this is really a game of chess for them, they might hope to fuel their own war machine and isolate Israel internationally - whatever good that will do them - by escalating the situation further with people like Netanyahu and Lieberman in power, ultimately at the cost of their own people. Or, considering their frustration and anger, at least some of them might act out of vengeance, without political agenda and oblivious of the consequences. Or I simply missed something?

A quite a bit of both. I'm sure much of the Hamas rank and file is driven by pure anger, frustration, hopelessness, and hatred -- they don't care about getting killed as long as they can make some Israelis suffer while they're at it. But the leaders take a long-term view.

Some of 'em have in mind a South Africa kind of scenario -- provoking Israel to harsher and harsher measures which will eventually cause its seemingly inexhaustible political capital to evaporate, and make it a pariah state like Apartheid South Africa was. That would wreck the economy, get all the smart people to leave, and eventually weaken it enough that a Muslim coalition could topple it, either peacefully like South Africa went, or, less likely, with a wonderful apocalyptic mother of all battles that would leave the entire neighborhood glowing real prettily in the dark.

By the way, Pladio, there's a pretty good example of a state being ostracized far more than Israel ever has been, with no Jews anywhere in the neighborhood. And, IMO, for much the same reasons -- white South Africans -- Boers and English-speakers -- are very much the same tribe as you, I, and Israel are, that is, Westerners. That's why we held them to a higher standard than the usual run of thugs in their neighborhood. Israel has a long way to go before it's in as deep diplomatic and economic isolation as South Africa was, but if things continue on this track, I've no doubt it will end up there, sooner or later.

Either way, I am far from the point where I can see any hopeful outcome, but since politics is more chaotic and unpredictable than a game of chess, I suppose the situation might just as well not be as completely lost as it looks at the moment <- that's the naïve fool in me speaking.

Yup, I've pretty much written off Israel/Palestine. The two-state solution won't work, and there's no one-state solution visible that both parties would be willing to accept, so it'll just keep circling the drain for years and years and years. I'm trying to figure out what, if anything, I should do about it, other than try to build up some emotional distance so that every flare-up there won't tear me up as badly as it usually does.

 

[coyote]

A quite a bit of both. I'm sure much of the Hamas rank and file is driven by pure anger, frustration, hopelessness, and hatred -- they don't care about getting killed as long as they can make some Israelis suffer while they're at it. But the leaders take a long-term view.

In contrast to their Israeli counterparts, who can only plan ahead for four years if they are lucky.

Some of 'em have in mind a South Africa kind of scenario -- provoking Israel to harsher and harsher measures which will eventually cause its seemingly inexhaustible political capital to evaporate, and make it a pariah state like Apartheid South Africa was.

Resistance against Apartheid in South Africa was decidedly different, though, for the most part carried out through strikes and demonstrations. The Hamas are not even waging a guerilla war any more, as they are targeting civilians specifically since about 1994. This clearly is terrorism, and no sane politician will sanctify terrorism by supporting the political goals of its instigators.

That would wreck the economy, get all the smart people to leave, and eventually weaken it enough that a Muslim coalition could topple it, either peacefully like South Africa went, or, less likely, with a wonderful apocalyptic mother of all battles that would leave the entire neighborhood glowing real prettily in the dark.

Given that a counterstrike is the whole point of nuclear deterrence, I doubt that Israel will be the only place glowing prettily in that scenario, though.

Yup, I've pretty much written off Israel/Palestine. The two-state solution won't work, and there's no one-state solution visible that both parties would be willing to accept, so it'll just keep circling the drain for years and years and years.

I would say that the two-state solution might work if both parties were willing to sacrifice, to swallow their pride and for a few also their hatred and to cooperate - if not for their own, then for the sake of their childrens future. That alone might be impossible, but are there any other reasons why it would not work?

I'm trying to figure out what, if anything, I should do about it, other than try to build up some emotional distance so that every flare-up there won't tear me up as badly as it usually does.

I do not know. If this tears you up, you are not alone and in my opinion it shows that you are a good guy.

 

[Prime Junta]

Resistance against Apartheid in South Africa was decidedly different, though, for the most part carried out through strikes and demonstrations. The Hamas are not even waging a guerilla war any more, as they are targeting civilians specifically since about 1994. This clearly is terrorism, and no sane politician will sanctify terrorism by supporting the political goals of its instigators.

One man's terrorism is another man's freedom fighting. Most great powers have supported terrorist groups at one time or another, if their goals align. And the struggle against Apartheid wasn't all that non-violent either -- both the ANC and the Inkatha were armed resistance movements. Hell, the USA only took Nelson Mandela off the terrorism watch list last July. (Google for corroboration, I'm not making this up.)

Given that a counterstrike is the whole point of nuclear deterrence, I doubt that Israel will be the only place glowing prettily in that scenario, though.

Of course not. Still, I was thinking more along the lines of a nuke falling into the hands of an international terrorist group. It's hard to retaliate if you don't know who hit you. Not that that would stop them.

I would say that the two-state solution might work if both parties were willing to sacrifice, to swallow their pride and for a few also their hatred and to cooperate - if not for their own, then for the sake of their childrens future. That alone might be impossible, but are there any other reasons why it would not work?

Economic reality. Gaza is a city of 1.4 million, with the sparsely populated Sinai to the south. There are only two ways it can survive: by becoming an independent center of banking, finance, and manufacture, à la Singapore, or by integrating its economy with Israel. A Palestinian state consisting of the West Bank and Gaza, with a separation wall between them and Israel, is not viable. The West Bank could survive by orienting itself towards Jordan, but not Gaza.

IOW, a two-state solution would only work if it included pretty much completely open borders between Gaza and Israel, with most Gazans commuting to Israel for work, and the Israeli market absorbing anything Gaza manages to produce. That would be a very similar arrangement to South Africa with it's "independent" homelands à la Lesotho and Transkei; it would only work as a prelude towards full political and social absorption by Israel.

I don't see Gaza turning into Singapore any time soon, and I don't see the separation wall coming down any time soon. That means that independence will make no difference to the misery in Gaza, which means that the violence will continue. Handing it to Egypt isn't a solution either, since it's physically located where it's located -- Sinai isn't prosperous nor populous enough to support it.

I do not know. If this tears you up, you are not alone and in my opinion it shows that you are a good guy.

Or it shows I'm a tribal guy torn between two tribes; my wife's Lebanese with Palestinian roots. Take your pick.

 

[Pladio]

Which is the other tribe ?

 

[Prime Junta]

Western post-Enlightenment. You know, everyone from, roughly, Poland in the East to the USA in the West, Norway in the North, Spain in the South. Plus a few enclaves here and there.

 

[Pladio]

Probably tribal psychology with some good guy attached to it

 

[V7]

Resistance against Apartheid in South Africa was decidedly different, though, for the most part carried out through strikes and demonstrations. The Hamas are not even waging a guerilla war any more, as they are targeting civilians specifically since about 1994. This clearly is terrorism, and no sane politician will sanctify terrorism by supporting the political goals of its instigators.

PJ already mentioned the SA resistance wasn't compleatly non-violent but you're also missing Rhodesia.

 

[coyote]

One man's terrorism is another man's freedom fighting. Most great powers have supported terrorist groups at one time or another, if their goals align. And the struggle against Apartheid wasn't all that non-violent either -- both the ANC and the Inkatha were armed resistance movements. Hell, the USA only took Nelson Mandela off the terrorism watch list last July. (Google for corroboration, I'm not making this up.)

I did not know that about Nelson Mandela, but at least they were embarrassed about it. Still, contrary to the Hamas, violent actions were always controversial in the ANC and peaceful protests gathered international sympathies while violent acts like the Church Street bombing only hurt their cause in my opinion.

Of course not. Still, I was thinking more along the lines of a nuke falling into the hands of an international terrorist group. It's hard to retaliate if you don't know who hit you. Not that that would stop them.

You mean a nuke 'accidentally' falling from Ahmadinejad's hands into the hands of some terrorist group? That would be too obvious not to retaliate - although either way, the nuclear scenario is by far the most inhumane I can think of.

Economic reality. Gaza is a city of 1.4 million, with the sparsely populated Sinai to the south. There are only two ways it can survive: by becoming an independent center of banking, finance, and manufacture, à la Singapore, or by integrating its economy with Israel. A Palestinian state consisting of the West Bank and Gaza, with a separation wall between them and Israel, is not viable. The West Bank could survive by orienting itself towards Jordan, but not Gaza.

IOW, a two-state solution would only work if it included pretty much completely open borders between Gaza and Israel, with most Gazans commuting to Israel for work, and the Israeli market absorbing anything Gaza manages to produce. That would be a very similar arrangement to South Africa with it's "independent" homelands à la Lesotho and Transkei; it would only work as a prelude towards full political and social absorption by Israel.

I don't see Gaza turning into Singapore any time soon, and I don't see the separation wall coming down any time soon. That means that independence will make no difference to the misery in Gaza, which means that the violence will continue. Handing it to Egypt isn't a solution either, since it's physically located where it's located -- Sinai isn't prosperous nor populous enough to support it.

You brought up the population in Gaza strip, and since I sometimes hear of a scenario where Arabs quickly dominate over Jews in Israel by shear number, let's consider the population growth rates:

Israel has about 7.35 million citizens, among them about 5.64 million Jews and 1.48 million Arabs. Population growth in Israel is 1.71 percent plus an immigration rate of 0.25 percent per year. Gaza strip has about 1.5 million inhabitants increasing with 3.46 percent per year - doubling the population in about two decades. In fact many of the problems in Gaza strip can be attributed to the quickly growing number of people, but it is quite typical for families to have many children in the worst of situations while comfortable people are far less proliferous.

Naïve extrapolation gives about 110 years until Israel and Gaza strip populations catch up at around 60 million - a number impossible to sustain in Gaza strip I would imagine - and 70 years until the Jewish and Arab populations are equal at around 22 million inhabitants for the combined Israel and Gaza strip area.

70 years is a long time: in most industrialised countries, families with 7 children and more were common around 1939 while populations are now dwindling. If Israel really opens up its borders and starts to cooperate economically - I agree with you on all points here - eventual absorption might be a very real possibility and the Jews would probably not even have to be afraid of loosing power in their own state.

Or it shows I'm a tribal guy torn between two tribes; my wife's Lebanese with Palestinian roots. Take your pick.

I already knew that from some other post and do not believe that it really matters why you think and feel a certain way, so I will stick with my judgement thank you very much

Of course, you could probably change my opinion by starting a hateful tirade against Jewish people in general, but I have yet to see that coming from you.

 

[Pladio]

You forgot the West Bank's pop of about 2 million too...

 

[Prime Junta]

I did not know that about Nelson Mandela, but at least they were embarrassed about it. Still, contrary to the Hamas, violent actions were always controversial in the ANC and peaceful protests gathered international sympathies while violent acts like the Church Street bombing only hurt their cause in my opinion.

I agree. But then, the ANC, like Gandhi's movement for that matter, was in a completely different position than the Palestinians: the white South Africans (or the Brits in India) depended on them for their livelihood, and they outnumbered them by a considerable margin. That means that non-violent economic and social protests are very effective. The situation in Israel is completely different: if the Palestinians all suddenly curled up and died, Israel would heave a huge sigh of relief and go about its business. They simply have no leverage of that kind -- they can strike, protest, and perform interpretative dances 'til they're blue in the face, and it won't make the least bit of difference to Israel.

You mean a nuke 'accidentally' falling from Ahmadinejad's hands into the hands of some terrorist group? That would be too obvious not to retaliate - although either way, the nuclear scenario is by far the most inhumane I can think of.

I was thinking more along the lines of Pakistan collapsing and its nukes falling into the hands of random terrorist groups, or a corrupt government agent in North Korea selling one to the highest bidder, or a guard at a bomb depot in Siberia being bought off and replacing a warhead with a dummy; that sort of thing.

You brought up the population in Gaza strip, and since I sometimes hear of a scenario where Arabs quickly dominate over Jews in Israel by shear number, let's consider the population growth rates:

(snip calculations)

Yeah, the Gaza strip isn't much of a demographic threat to Israel; it and the West Bank are, though. The thing that's easy to forget is that the kind of straight-line extrapolation you did almost never works out. One of the few hard-and-fast rules in demographics is that population growth is inversely correlated with wealth and education. Put another way, once women learn to read and get jobs, the birth rate drops precipitously. This is a universal trend, you can see it everywhere in the world, in immigrant populations and in countries undergoing industrialization. IOW, if Gaza suddenly became stable and prosperous, the population growth would flatten out too.

The catch-22 is that Gaza won't become more prosperous until the borders are opened, but security conditions won't allow opening the borders until it is more prosperous (and therefore stable). IOW, there's no way out.

Of course, you could probably change my opinion by starting a hateful tirade against Jewish people in general, but I have yet to see that coming from you.

Yeah, I try real hard to keep a lid on it.

 

[coyote]

You forgot the West Bank's pop of about 2 million too...

Actually, I was simply going along with Prime Junta's logic:

A Palestinian state consisting of the West Bank and Gaza, with a separation wall between them and Israel, is not viable. The West Bank could survive by orienting itself towards Jordan, but not Gaza.

And since you wrote "you forgot ... too", maybe you want to elaborate on what else I forgot in your opinion - or are snotty insinuations just part of your new style, Pladio?

The situation in Israel is completely different: if the Palestinians all suddenly curled up and died, Israel would heave a huge sigh of relief and go about its business. They simply have no leverage of that kind -- they can strike, protest, and perform interpretative dances 'til they're blue in the face, and it won't make the least bit of difference to Israel.

Instead, they are giving Israel an excuse to wall them in and strike against them. If they want international support, terrorism is not going to work, and they are not substantially harming Israel with their Quassam rockets, either.

I was thinking more along the lines of Pakistan collapsing and its nukes falling into the hands of random terrorist groups, or a corrupt government agent in North Korea selling one to the highest bidder, or a guard at a bomb depot in Siberia being bought off and replacing a warhead with a dummy; that sort of thing.

They probably even have the money for these ventures. Good point, I was being too naive there.

One of the few hard-and-fast rules in demographics is that population growth is inversely correlated with wealth and education. Put another way, once women learn to read and get jobs, the birth rate drops precipitously. This is a universal trend, you can see it everywhere in the world, in immigrant populations and in countries undergoing industrialization. IOW, if Gaza suddenly became stable and prosperous, the population growth would flatten out too.

That was exactly my point, although I put it less eloquently and probably hid it too well inside the calculations you probably jumped over. And just for the obvious smart ass comment: it can not be inversely correlated, because population growth does not go to infinity for zero wealth and education

(I already answered Pladio regarding the 'missing' West Bank population, which I probably should have elaborated on earlier.)

The catch-22 is that Gaza won't become more prosperous until the borders are opened, but security conditions won't allow opening the borders until it is more prosperous (and therefore stable). IOW, there's no way out.

I agree, it would work only if Hamas' top ideologists decided to stop the violence if Israel opens its borders and tries to help the Palestinians economically. As I said, it would require sacrifices on both parts - Israel would have to call back the settlers, recompense people for the land they lost and support the families of those they killed during their military campaigns, and the Palestinians would have to swallow their sorrow and abstain from vengeance.

Yeah, I try real hard to keep a lid on it.

Since I cooperate with scientists in Israel - beyond that I talk with them not only about science and consider them as friends - I know that many of them are equally disgusted by the violence. But I know that you already know this, so... whatever