Israel warns: free soldier or PM dies

[Azure]

Some more news on the situation in Israel/Gaza.

Middle East correspondent Martin Chulov
July 01, 2006

ISRAEL last night threatened to assassinate Palestinian Prime Minister Ismael Haniyeh if Hamas militants did not release a captured Israeli soldier unharmed.


The unprecedented warning was delivered to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in a letter as Israel debated a deal offered by Hamas to free Corporal Gilad Shalit.
It came as Israeli military officials readied a second invasion force for a huge offensive into Gaza.
Hamas's Gaza-based political leaders, including Mr Haniyeh, had already gone into hiding.

[calculoso]

And people were afraid that Sharon was a loose cannon / warmonger.

WOW.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by calculoso

And people were afraid that Sharon was a loose cannon / warmonger.

WOW.

No kidding. Me thinks Israel means business.

[Zarathustra]

What a mess. Global volatility is at an alarming level. Kim Jong Il launching missiles in NK, Iran threatening to wipe Isreal off the map while developing nuclear technology, and of course the everpresent Palestine/Isreal struggle.

[Resolute 14]

Nothing overcomes terrorism like terrorism.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Unbelievable.

Bush better get those guys reeled in pronto.

[FireFly]

Right, because it is solely the US' responsibility to police the world. Half the time I think we should all just leave these people alone to fight their own battles but then I remember what happened the last time we tried that strategy.

[Cowperson]

Sounds fair . . . . .

Sure, it was all fun and games when Hamas was just a carefree, garden variety terrorist organization, accountable to no one, least of all the Palestinian Authority but look what happens when they grew up and got themselves elected in a free and fair vote . . . . . nothing but problems!!

Now they got responsibilities, accountability and all the crap associated with being a formal government representing a defined population on an international stage.

Where's the fun in kidnapping and killing anymore!!! Just because we got elected, people take these hijinks so seriously!!!

The headaches!!!

Cowperson

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Right, because it is solely the US' responsibility to police the world. Half the time I think we should all just leave these people alone to fight their own battles but then I remember what happened the last time we tried that strategy.

Well it is the US's responsibility by their own choice so it's not like anyone is coming crying to the Americans because something bad has suddenly happened. The Americans are in deep over there and it's just where they want to be.

What are you referring to when you say "the last time we tried that strategy"?

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Well it is the US's responsibility by their own choice so it's not like anyone is coming crying to the Americans because something bad has suddenly happened. The Americans are in deep over there and it's just where they want to be.

What are you referring to when you say "the last time we tried that strategy"?

??? I don't think I understand what you're referring to in your first comment. It's not the US' sole responsibility to stop a civil war. (The comment I was referring to was the one made by DFF about 'Bush better get these guys reeled in'. I don't recall the Americans being involved in the Israel/Palistinian war except to say that they support a free and independant Israel, and a democratic peace keeping process between the two entities.

The last time the Americans decided to stay out of things was right before WWII. They decided to work towards rebuilding the US and making it a stronger nation. It didn't work, they were dragged into a fight they didn't want to be involved in.

If you'll note how the US is handling the N. Korean situation, they've stepped away from wanting to be the world's police. The war we're talking about in this thread was not their choice, and they've worked very hard to avoid it, except to help in negotiations. (At least recently, it wasn't always that way.)

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by FireFly

??? I don't think I understand what you're referring to in your first comment. It's not the US' sole responsibility to stop a civil war. (The comment I was referring to was the one made by DFF about 'Bush better get these guys reeled in'. I don't recall the Americans being involved in the Israel/Palistinian war except to say that they support a free and independant Israel, and a democratic peace keeping process between the two entities.

I don't think it's really a civil war.

I don't want to speak for DisplacedFlamesFan, but I took his comment to mean "Bush should use his considerable influence to get this situation under control". Normally I don't like George trying to get control of anything, but right now it might not be such a bad idea considering how crazy things appear to be getting.

You may not recall the Americans doing anything more than lending moral support to the Israeli cause, but they have sent over a lot more than just warm feelings, I can assure you of that.

[Red Mile Style]

The U.S. is Israel's biggest ally. If it wasn't for the U.S., Israel would not possess nuclear weapons or even exist. However, I do not think that the U.S. should get too involved in this dispute, because if/when they do, it is always in favour of the Israelis which isn't really an effective balance of power.

In any UN resolutions, the U.S. and Israel always vote the same way, and I think some people are underestimating the huge influence the U.S. has over Israel's policies. Some even argue that Iraq is an overt operation to have a better geopolitical placement in the middle east for Israel. Israel also recieves a lot of foreign aid from the U.S.

The whole situation is messed up for sure, but it isn't entirely Hamas' fault, this conflict has been around long before they were elected, and it will probably continue on long after they are out of office.

[FireFly]

It's not really a civil war, but it's not really a war between states either as it's citizens fighting the war more than a state's military. (Although recently military is getting involved, the people throwing rocks at each other are not soldiers.)

In regards to sending things over more than warm feelings, I did say recently. The US has been too preoccupied to do otherwise, unless I've completely missed a serious headline in the last few years.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by FireFly

It's not really a civil war, but it's not really a war between states either as it's citizens fighting the war more than a state's military. (Although recently military is getting involved, the people throwing rocks at each other are not soldiers.)

In regards to sending things over more than warm feelings, I did say recently. The US has been too preoccupied to do otherwise, unless I've completely missed a serious headline in the last few years.

The Israeli military is has been involved all along. I don't know that it's ever been a rock fight.

American support for Israel doesn't make a lot of headlines, but you don't see many headlines about the sky being blue either.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Right, because it is solely the US' responsibility to police the world. Half the time I think we should all just leave these people alone to fight their own battles but then I remember what happened the last time we tried that strategy.

Nope, not our responsibility to police the world, but it is our responsibility to make sure Israel doesn't completely alienate itself from everybody but the US.

Cowperson's points are bang on, but I still don't think the open threat of the assassination of an elected leader is appropriate.

There is something to be said, too, about Israel's irresponsible Naval actions of a few months ago that no doubt led to this whole mess.

Peace is the end goal, and getting rid of Hamas' influence in Gaza and the West Bank is probably the only way to make that happen. Israel, of late, hasn't done a whole lot to help itself IMO.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

The whole situation is messed up for sure, but it isn't entirely Hamas' fault, this conflict has been around long before they were elected, and it will probably continue on long after they are out of office.

Why isn't it? Israel gave up the Gaza Strip to try and better the relationship between the two governments. Clearly, one side has tried to make diplomacy work, while the other has elected, like Cowperson said, a terrorist government.

Maybe Hamas should give back the kidnapped soldier and get their militant wing under control.

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by Azure

Why isn't it? Israel gave up the Gaza Strip to try and better the relationship between the two governments. Clearly, one side has tried to make diplomacy work, while the other has elected, like Cowperson said, a terrorist government.

Maybe Hamas should give back the kidnapped soldier and get their militant wing under control.

So you're blaming the Israeli/Arab conflict on Hamas?!?!?!? That's a little ignorant, don't you think? This conflict runs much deeper than a democratically elected Palestinian government.

The reality behind Gaza is that it belongs to the Palestinians anyway. Israel illegally took that land away in a illegitimate war. Israel, if it bothered to follow international law, should consist of pre 1967 borders. Of corse Israel isn't going to do this, instead they are going to erect an illegal wall, claiming land that is not theirs, but hey, they gave up Gaza. They were supposed to give up Gaza a long time ago, but now they martyr it, and package it to make it look like the Palestinians are not negotiating or compromising anything in return.

Why does anybody do anything that is radical, such as that of kidnapping a political figure? It is clear that a group is being repressed, and feeling like nobody is listening to them, so they resort to whatever can get their message across. The democratically elected Hamas government is not being recognized, and therefor they have to do whatever is in their power to try and get their message relayed. The FLQ did it in Quebec, and I believe that if Israel and other states around the world took Hamas seriously, this wouldn't have happened.

I am not supporting the kidnapping, but obviously when groups have to resort to such an act, there has to be more to the story.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

The reality behind Gaza is that it belongs to the Palestinians anyway. Israel illegally took that land away in a illegitimate war.

If you want to make it that simplistic, then Hamas shouldn't exist - as they don't accept that Israel exists.

Hamas isn't innocent in all of this, but neither is Israel. Hamas wants to exterminate Israel, Israel wants to exist (which may mean exterminating Hamas to do so).

It's unfortunate that they can't all "just get along"... but with the history, that's a pipe dream.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Cowperson's points are bang on, but I still don't think the open threat of the assassination of an elected leader is appropriate.

.

About two years BEFORE Hamas was democratically elected to represent the Palestinian people, Israel made the decision to begin killing the very top of the Hamas leadership. . . . . .

After three or four of these leaders were killed in rapid succession, including the top spiritual advisor, Hamas STOPPED attacks against Israel . . . . . in fact, Hamas, if I'm not mistaken, didn't claim responsibility for an attack on Israel for a year and a half prior to the election.

So . . . . . . now that these attacks appear to have resumed AND can't help but have the appearance of being official Palestinian government policy, why wouldn't Israel think its a good idea to resume killing the very top of Hamas leadership, democratically elected or not?

It certainly worked before . . . . and targetting specific individuals, the guys actually responsible, seems to be a little less bloodthirsty than flattening the place, as the Israeli's could certainly do.

I've said before I had absolutely no problem at all with Hamas being democratically elected to represent the Palestinian people, unlike other panic-stricken people out there. Good for them. Come over here for a hearty handshake and a hug.

By being elected, however, the actions of Hamas have now become offical government policy with all the accountability that goes along with it.

They can't hide behind other people who say they can't control them . . . . which is what they used to do.

Maybe its time for Hamas to grow up . . . . . before they get their heads blown off.

Cowperson

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Sounds fair . . . . .

Sure, it was all fun and games when Hamas was just a carefree, garden variety terrorist organization, accountable to no one, least of all the Palestinian Authority but look what happens when they grew up and got themselves elected in a free and fair vote . . . . . nothing but problems!!

Now they got responsibilities, accountability and all the crap associated with being a formal government representing a defined population on an international stage.

Where's the fun in kidnapping and killing anymore!!! Just because we got elected, people take these hijinks so seriously!!!

The headaches!!!

Cowperson

Great point. Totally true, from where I stand Hamas has totally gotten themselves in this mess. Shows how much they actually care about the Palestinian people.