From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Six Israeli soldiers killed in Gaza incursion: report
At least six Israeli soldiers have been killed in the Gaza Strip after a landmine destroyed a troop transport military vehicle, Dubai-based Al Arabiya television has said.
According to witnesses, the vehicle was completely destroyed in the attack which occurred during an Israeli incursion into the Gaza City neighbourhood of Zeitoun, which is believed to be a stronghold of the militant Hamas group.
According to witnesses, the vehicle was completely destroyed in the attack which occurred during an Israeli incursion into the Gaza City neighbourhood of Zeitoun, which is believed to be a stronghold of the militant Hamas group.
Flames shoot up to the sky after an Israeli armoured carrier was blown up by Palestinian militant in Gaza May 11, 2004. At least six Israeli soldiers were killed in the Gaza Strip (news - web sites) on Tuesday after a landmine blew up their military vehicle, Dubai-based Al Arabiya television said. REUTERS/Khaled al-Goulah
---
Three Palestinians, at least two of them gunmen, were killed in the fighting and more than 20 people wounded, witnesses and medics said.
"A force has entered the [Zeitoun neighbourhood] and we are carrying out a pinpoint operation against the terrorist infrastructure," an Israeli military source said.
The Gaza military operation began when Israeli undercover forces sped into Zeitoun in civilian taxis and jeeps, the witnesses said.
They were later joined by tanks and armoured personnel carriers as helicopters fired their machine guns and loud explosions echoed across Gaza City.
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, now preparing an amended Gaza pull out plan, has vowed to continue to strike against militant groups.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1106053.htm
---
Three Palestinians, at least two of them gunmen, were killed in the fighting and more than 20 people wounded, witnesses and medics said.
"A force has entered the [Zeitoun neighbourhood] and we are carrying out a pinpoint operation against the terrorist infrastructure," an Israeli military source said.
The Gaza military operation began when Israeli undercover forces sped into Zeitoun in civilian taxis and jeeps, the witnesses said.
They were later joined by tanks and armoured personnel carriers as helicopters fired their machine guns and loud explosions echoed across Gaza City.
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, now preparing an amended Gaza pull out plan, has vowed to continue to strike against militant groups.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1106053.htm
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
I think you'd agree with the proposition that the Israelis should immediately cease their occupation of Gaza (and also the West Bank and we can argue about Jerusalem neighborhoods later). And I mean pull out entirely, just guard the border on their side, allow the Palestinians to set up the government of their choice, and live in peace unmolested by the Israelis IF THEY CAN.
It's that last bit I'd like to see you discuss. The what happens if they can't, if for reasons internal to the dynamics of Palestinian society that isn't enough. If the newly unoccupied Palestinian "state" continues attacking across the border. I want YOU to describe what YOU think would then be reasonable and/or justified Israeli responses. Or rather the other way around, would you find any of the below unreasonable and/or unjustified and if so why. Some scenarios?
1) An artillery position within Gaza opens fire on Israel (mortars, rockets, etc.) Rather than responding with an incursion of armor in a "pinpoint" response, a battery of Israelis 155 mm howitzers returns fire on that posiiton. This risks far fewer Israeli lives, but of course could be very costly in terms of Palestinian collateral casualties, especially if the attackers set their launchers or mortars up in a heaviily populated neighborhood. My question is how you would assign responsibility for the consequences and why.
2) Borders imply checkpoints where crossing them is allowed. An attack occurs directed at the Israeli guards at one of these. The Israelis make no armed resonse whatsoever, simply permamently close that border crossing point. If over time all crossing points have been attacked, then that has become a totally closed border. We agreed that the Palestinians have a right to their own state but does that OBLIGATE the Israelis to allow any border crossings. Usually we consider that a matter of mutual consent between the states involved, not a "right" to cross a border. Comment.
It's that last bit I'd like to see you discuss. The what happens if they can't, if for reasons internal to the dynamics of Palestinian society that isn't enough. If the newly unoccupied Palestinian "state" continues attacking across the border. I want YOU to describe what YOU think would then be reasonable and/or justified Israeli responses. Or rather the other way around, would you find any of the below unreasonable and/or unjustified and if so why. Some scenarios?
1) An artillery position within Gaza opens fire on Israel (mortars, rockets, etc.) Rather than responding with an incursion of armor in a "pinpoint" response, a battery of Israelis 155 mm howitzers returns fire on that posiiton. This risks far fewer Israeli lives, but of course could be very costly in terms of Palestinian collateral casualties, especially if the attackers set their launchers or mortars up in a heaviily populated neighborhood. My question is how you would assign responsibility for the consequences and why.
2) Borders imply checkpoints where crossing them is allowed. An attack occurs directed at the Israeli guards at one of these. The Israelis make no armed resonse whatsoever, simply permamently close that border crossing point. If over time all crossing points have been attacked, then that has become a totally closed border. We agreed that the Palestinians have a right to their own state but does that OBLIGATE the Israelis to allow any border crossings. Usually we consider that a matter of mutual consent between the states involved, not a "right" to cross a border. Comment.
You were astute to highlight the "if".
As for the extent of Israeli territorial concessions:
I don't think it must be performed in accordance with the seemingly universally accepted notion of returning to the 1949 armistice lines. In the northern Gaza strip, there are 3 Jewish towns or villages that are pretty close to the Green Line. I don't see why they can't remain there, much as Sharon's "unilateral disengagement" plan presumed. This way the Gaza strip also won't be made Jew-free. I object much more strongly to ceding all of Judea-Samaria. It's immoral to pluck all Jews out of Hebron and E Jerusalem where there are Jewish holy sites and some land and property is Jewish-owned - hell, Arabs are still illegally occupying some Jewish property after all Jews were driven out in several phases starting from 1929 and ending 1948. And I certainly disagree with evacuating Jews from the areas nearest to the Green Line.
As for the extent of Israeli territorial concessions:
I don't think it must be performed in accordance with the seemingly universally accepted notion of returning to the 1949 armistice lines. In the northern Gaza strip, there are 3 Jewish towns or villages that are pretty close to the Green Line. I don't see why they can't remain there, much as Sharon's "unilateral disengagement" plan presumed. This way the Gaza strip also won't be made Jew-free. I object much more strongly to ceding all of Judea-Samaria. It's immoral to pluck all Jews out of Hebron and E Jerusalem where there are Jewish holy sites and some land and property is Jewish-owned - hell, Arabs are still illegally occupying some Jewish property after all Jews were driven out in several phases starting from 1929 and ending 1948. And I certainly disagree with evacuating Jews from the areas nearest to the Green Line.
While I might agree that it's not going to be exactly back to the '48 armistice line that should NOT include any significant amount of territory.
NONE of Gaza. There is NO good reason for any of Gaza to be retained other than pure expansionism. This area was never Israeli. Not even in ancient days (the ancient city of Gaza was a traditional outpost fort holding of Egypt --- a "tripwire" position on the far side of the Sinai intended to provide warning of approaching enemy armies and giving time for Egyptian mobilization.
And I don't agree about Hebron -- notwithstanding it being a holy site and having been a Jewish town prior to the '29 massacres. I think the prognosis for reaching a PEACEFUL settlement would be better if "access to the sites in Hebron" remains a bargaining chip held by the Palestinians << they have so few >>.
Jerusalem (the "Old City") and some of the close in suburbs lost in the '48 war are going to be a problem. No I don't think Israel is going to give up Jeruslaem. Sorry, but I cannot visualize a possible coalition in the Knesset for that. And some of those neighborhoods? No, I don't think Israel will agree to the university on Mt Scopus returning to being an isolated outpost (it successfully held out surrounded in '48) and if the history of some of the other suburbs in '48 was anything like that of Gush Etzion .......well I don't know about the others, but the siege and eventual massacre of the four Etzion Blok settlements has been well documented << Uh -- this area to the SW of Jerusalem guarded the main Jerusalem-Hebron road. It was scheduled to be tuurned over to the Palestinians when the UN partition went into effect but we'll never know what WOULD have happened because this is where the war started several months before the effective date. FYI the last settlement holding out, Kfar Etzion itself, fell the day BEFORE the state of Israel was declared.>>
Personally I think the Palestinians would have a better chance in negotiating a more favorable settlement if they could agree to unite behind a firm "return to the Green Line" demand. But that's their decision to make, and if they can't accept the outcome of the '48 war, then they can't. They have been cruely treated by history. With the aid of hindsight it is obvious that they would have been FAR better off to have accepted the UN '47 partition plan. It doesn't matter if you subscribe to silly theories about the "Zionist" intentions because the reality is that the "Zionists" could not have initiated the war which turned out so badly for the Palestinians. Unfortunately military opinion AT THE TIME grossly underestimated the fighting ability of the "Zionists" --- the advice followed by the Palestinians that they could do better by fighting with the "help" of Arab neighbors proved bad advice -- but it IS what just about everybody believed at the time. The cause of the "Nabka" was that they COULD run away, had some place to run to, and perhaps the reason for the outcome of the fighting was that the "Zionists" knew that they could not, that they either won or died. It is a maxim of war "leave your enemy an escape route and punish the withdrawal" and to recognize that a cornered enemy has no option but to figh it out.
NONE of Gaza. There is NO good reason for any of Gaza to be retained other than pure expansionism. This area was never Israeli. Not even in ancient days (the ancient city of Gaza was a traditional outpost fort holding of Egypt --- a "tripwire" position on the far side of the Sinai intended to provide warning of approaching enemy armies and giving time for Egyptian mobilization.
And I don't agree about Hebron -- notwithstanding it being a holy site and having been a Jewish town prior to the '29 massacres. I think the prognosis for reaching a PEACEFUL settlement would be better if "access to the sites in Hebron" remains a bargaining chip held by the Palestinians << they have so few >>.
Jerusalem (the "Old City") and some of the close in suburbs lost in the '48 war are going to be a problem. No I don't think Israel is going to give up Jeruslaem. Sorry, but I cannot visualize a possible coalition in the Knesset for that. And some of those neighborhoods? No, I don't think Israel will agree to the university on Mt Scopus returning to being an isolated outpost (it successfully held out surrounded in '48) and if the history of some of the other suburbs in '48 was anything like that of Gush Etzion .......well I don't know about the others, but the siege and eventual massacre of the four Etzion Blok settlements has been well documented << Uh -- this area to the SW of Jerusalem guarded the main Jerusalem-Hebron road. It was scheduled to be tuurned over to the Palestinians when the UN partition went into effect but we'll never know what WOULD have happened because this is where the war started several months before the effective date. FYI the last settlement holding out, Kfar Etzion itself, fell the day BEFORE the state of Israel was declared.>>
Personally I think the Palestinians would have a better chance in negotiating a more favorable settlement if they could agree to unite behind a firm "return to the Green Line" demand. But that's their decision to make, and if they can't accept the outcome of the '48 war, then they can't. They have been cruely treated by history. With the aid of hindsight it is obvious that they would have been FAR better off to have accepted the UN '47 partition plan. It doesn't matter if you subscribe to silly theories about the "Zionist" intentions because the reality is that the "Zionists" could not have initiated the war which turned out so badly for the Palestinians. Unfortunately military opinion AT THE TIME grossly underestimated the fighting ability of the "Zionists" --- the advice followed by the Palestinians that they could do better by fighting with the "help" of Arab neighbors proved bad advice -- but it IS what just about everybody believed at the time. The cause of the "Nabka" was that they COULD run away, had some place to run to, and perhaps the reason for the outcome of the fighting was that the "Zionists" knew that they could not, that they either won or died. It is a maxim of war "leave your enemy an escape route and punish the withdrawal" and to recognize that a cornered enemy has no option but to figh it out.
>>>"There is NO good reason for any of Gaza to be retained other than pure expansionism."<<<
So you think.
Fact is, there were a few Jewish towns there prior to Israel's 1948 independence war, including Kfar Darom (which was established 1936) which is situated deep within the strip. These were legally owned by Jews. These places were settled for the same reasons that guided Zionists in respect to territory within today's Green Line.
I don't mind dismantling KD, yet do not see why 3 towns/villages near the Green Line which are not surrounded by vast numbers of Arabs must be abandoned.
Here's a URL I found on a brief search (feel free to skip over the "holy moly" part at the beginning):
http://www.blessisrael.com/articles/settlers.html
>>>"This area was never Israeli."<<<
Granted, the ENTIRE strip was never Israeli. We're on accord on that. Let me cut you some slack for your failure to distinguish between "Israeli" and "Jewish". See above.
Hope you won't accuse me of nitpicking. Just read on.
>>>"Not even in ancient days"<<<
I agree that the Gaza strip wasn't a Jewish or Israelite teritory during the biblical period and the few consequent centuries. Yet, somewhat later Jews did settle there. To my recollection, Jewish settlement in what's today the Gaza strip began between 129 BCE - 76 BCE during the wars the Jewish Hasmonite rulers fought against other powers in the land. Constantine the Great ordered to have Gaza City itself purged of Jews when he ascended the thrown ~331 AD. A synagogue was built in 'Aza Yam / Mayumas (spelling?) some 1500 years ago. Here are some pictures of the relics (sorry for the absence of English translation):
http://www.katif.net/history.php?un=4
>>>"I think the prognosis for reaching a PEACEFUL settlement would be better if "access to the sites in Hebron" remains a bargaining chip held by the Palestinians"<<<
Experience has amply shown that's a surefire way to have the whole site ransacked and desecrated and to prevent Jews from having access to the tomb. I also suggest you read about how the Arabs had prevented Jews since 1266 from entering the Tomb of the Patriarchs, allowing them only to ascend to the fifth, later the seventh, step outside the eastern wall. For this sort of reasons Israel has always insisted to maintain this holy "bargaining chip".
I take it you would have all the Jews in Hebron evacuated. But your stand doesn't take into account the right Jews have to redeem property that is currently illegally occupied by Arabs.
So you think.
Fact is, there were a few Jewish towns there prior to Israel's 1948 independence war, including Kfar Darom (which was established 1936) which is situated deep within the strip. These were legally owned by Jews. These places were settled for the same reasons that guided Zionists in respect to territory within today's Green Line.
I don't mind dismantling KD, yet do not see why 3 towns/villages near the Green Line which are not surrounded by vast numbers of Arabs must be abandoned.
Here's a URL I found on a brief search (feel free to skip over the "holy moly" part at the beginning):
http://www.blessisrael.com/articles/settlers.html
>>>"This area was never Israeli."<<<
Granted, the ENTIRE strip was never Israeli. We're on accord on that. Let me cut you some slack for your failure to distinguish between "Israeli" and "Jewish". See above.
Hope you won't accuse me of nitpicking. Just read on.
>>>"Not even in ancient days"<<<
I agree that the Gaza strip wasn't a Jewish or Israelite teritory during the biblical period and the few consequent centuries. Yet, somewhat later Jews did settle there. To my recollection, Jewish settlement in what's today the Gaza strip began between 129 BCE - 76 BCE during the wars the Jewish Hasmonite rulers fought against other powers in the land. Constantine the Great ordered to have Gaza City itself purged of Jews when he ascended the thrown ~331 AD. A synagogue was built in 'Aza Yam / Mayumas (spelling?) some 1500 years ago. Here are some pictures of the relics (sorry for the absence of English translation):
http://www.katif.net/history.php?un=4
>>>"I think the prognosis for reaching a PEACEFUL settlement would be better if "access to the sites in Hebron" remains a bargaining chip held by the Palestinians"<<<
Experience has amply shown that's a surefire way to have the whole site ransacked and desecrated and to prevent Jews from having access to the tomb. I also suggest you read about how the Arabs had prevented Jews since 1266 from entering the Tomb of the Patriarchs, allowing them only to ascend to the fifth, later the seventh, step outside the eastern wall. For this sort of reasons Israel has always insisted to maintain this holy "bargaining chip".
I take it you would have all the Jews in Hebron evacuated. But your stand doesn't take into account the right Jews have to redeem property that is currently illegally occupied by Arabs.
>>>>It's that last bit I'd like to see you discuss. The what happens if they can't, if for reasons internal to the dynamics of Palestinian society that isn't enough. If the newly unoccupied Palestinian "state" continues attacking across the border. I want YOU to describe what YOU think would then be reasonable and/or justified Israeli responses. Or rather the other way around, would you find any of the below unreasonable and/or unjustified and if so why. Some scenarios<<<<by-Mike
If the Israeli superior military was used to guard and control the 1967 (green line) border, there would be less chance of attacks inside Israel Proper.
If the Palestinians had their State in the Whole of the West Bank and Gaza (only 22% of what is today Israel, West Bank and Gaza), more Palestinian would be happy not being under Israel Occupation and Oppression that there would be fewer people willing to kill themselves in suicide bombings.
If the Israeli Military were just guarding the Border instead of confiscating Palestinian land and demolishing Palestinian Homes. The soldiers and the rest of the Israeli People would not be disliked as much and therefore have a greater chance at Peace and Security.
If the Israeli superior military was used to guard and control the 1967 (green line) border, there would be less chance of attacks inside Israel Proper.
If the Palestinians had their State in the Whole of the West Bank and Gaza (only 22% of what is today Israel, West Bank and Gaza), more Palestinian would be happy not being under Israel Occupation and Oppression that there would be fewer people willing to kill themselves in suicide bombings.
If the Israeli Military were just guarding the Border instead of confiscating Palestinian land and demolishing Palestinian Homes. The soldiers and the rest of the Israeli People would not be disliked as much and therefore have a greater chance at Peace and Security.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network