Israel strikes Hard at Hamas In Gaza- Dec/ 27/ 2008

[tomahawk6]

The IDF now has its own youtube channel for Gaza strike video.

http://www.youtube.com/user/idfnadesk

 

[a_majoor]

Looking at the larger context of the conflict:

http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen/2008/12/29/the-battle-of-gaza-and-the-real-war/

The Battle of Gaza and The Real War

Posted By Michael Ledeen On December 29, 2008 @ 10:03 am In Uncategorized | 35 Comments

It was only a matter of time before Israel lashed out at Hamas in Gaza.  Even the appeasers in Israel, of whom there are many, could not indefinitely accept thousands of rockets landing in civilian centers, especially after the battle against Hezbollah in 2006, which was widely viewed as a fiasco for the Israeli Army and for the leaders in Jerusalem who are facing an election in two months.  Defense Minister Barak says it’s “all-out war,” which suggests ground operations.  The usual rule in these cases is that Israel doesn’t have much time to accomplish its objectives;  the “international community” rallies to the side of Israel’s enemies, and Israel’s leaders invariably convince themselves that if they play ball, they’ll be rewarded for it.  But that never happens.  So far the Brits and the Vatican have already demanded an end to operations against Hamas, and by the time I finish typing this there will be more.

Israeli leaders say they want to bring an end to the rocket and missile attacks from Gaza.  But, as opposition leader Netanyahu said, that can’t be done without regime change.

    Our goal should be twofold - stopping the attacks on our cities and eliminating the threat of rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip…Stopping the attacks can be done within a short period of time, while eliminating the threat of rocket attacks from Gaza will entail toppling the Hamas rule over the Strip and uprooting the Iranian base there.

The last five words are key, because, as others have said, this is one more battle in the terror war in which we have been engaged since 2001.  The Battle of Gaza cannot be understood as a thing in itself, but only as part of a broader whole:  the war against the terror masters.  And Iran is the most lethal, the most dangerous, and the most aggressive terror master in the world today.

Step back from the Gaza battle for just a second, and look at the war itself:  it extends from Afghanistan to Pakistan and India, to Somalia, to Gaza/the Palestinian Authority/Israel, to Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Saudi Arabia, with occasional skirmishes in the vast Kurdish domain (which embraces areas of Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran), across Europe, into the United States and Canada and down to South America, including Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, with attendant terror/narcotics mafias that in turn operate in West Africa.  Iran is present in all these theaters, primarily via its proxies Hezbollah and the Revolutionary Guards (Quds Force).

Like the global totalitarian movements and regimes that threatened Western civilization in the last century, the Iranians come with a messianic ideology that admits no compromise with its enemies.  This war will only end with a winner and a loser, not with two contented negotiators.  We can win this war–we’ve delivered a stunning defeat to Iran and her proxies in Iraq, for example–and our most powerful weapons are political, not military.  Had we taken the war to Tehran, the terror forces in Gaza would, at a minimum, be a lot weaker today, as they would be in Afghanistan and Lebanon.  But we continue to dither, and the new American leaders are fooling themselves when they say that vigorous diplomacy can induce the mullahs to retreat.  It won’t happen, any more than the Israelis got the terrorists to retreat from all-out war against the Jews when the Oslo Agreement was signed, or when Rabin shook hands with Arafat.  It only delayed the days of reckoning, at the cost of many lives, mostly of innocents, on both sides.

There is a disgusting conceit that underlies the “realist” position that negotiations will solve these problems:  the conceit that tyrants will be easier to deal with than free peoples.  Rabin and Peres actually said this, once upon a time, with their smug statements to the effect that Arafat and the others would control the terrorists because they didn’t give a damn about the Geneva Conventions or other legal niceties.  They, and those who think the same applies to the Iranians, forget that our enemies want us dead or dominated, they don’t want a world at peace in which they will have to deal with real problems of governance.  They are waging jihad, not diplomacy.

It follows from this that you cannot “solve” Gaza by fighting in Gaza alone, you have to win the terror war.  And to do that, you must accomplish regime change, just as Netanyahu said.  But the crucial regime change must be accomplished in Iran.  Whatever Israel accomplishes in Gaza (and the same holds for our battles in Iraq and Afghanistan), it is only a matter of time before the mullahs reorganize, rearm, and return to battle.  And the next battle may involve nuclear weapons.

Paradoxically, those people who fume at the very idea of challenging the Iranian regime are actually making a truly terrible war more likely, not less.  Those few of us who believe that support for Iranian democratic dissidents could bring down the mullahs are almost universally scorned, and even accused of seeking war.  It is just the opposite.  The same accusations were directed against us when we supported Soviet dissidents, and called for regime change in Moscow.  And yet the Soviet Empire came down.  The Iranian regime is far weaker than the Soviet state.  An overwhelming number of Iranians oppose the regime, and are dreaming of the day when we finally embrace their cause.  Perhaps there are still some brave men and women in the Democratic Party who understand that America is a revolutionary country, and that we are bound by our honor, our principles, and our national interest to support the democratic forces in Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia, the three leading terror masters, along with those in Venezuela, Cuba and Bolivia, now scurrying to jump on the bandwagon of Islamic tyranny.

Finally, if I am right, it is impossible to address the Arab/Israeli conflict by itself, for the context is all wrong.  Nobody in Gaza or the West Bank, nor in Amman or Cairo, can guarantee peace for Israel.  Today, that decision rests in the hands of Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran.  Until there is a different government in Tehran, there cannot be peace between Arabs and Israelis, any more than there can be peace in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Lebanon.

It’s a big war, but we’re a big country with enormous capacities.  Time to fight the real war.

Faster, Please.

UPDATE:  David Horovitz in the Jerusalem Post gets it:  [1] http://www.jpost.com
<http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1230456504726&pagename=JPArticle
%2FShowFull>

Article printed from Faster, Please!: http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen

URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen/2008/12/29/the-battle-of-gaza-and-the-real-war/

URLs in this post:
[1] http://www.jpost.com: http://www.jpost.com/

 

[Shec]

Thought readers might be interested in relevant excerpts from a note I just received from a bud who lives just outside current missle range:

"Day 4 of Operation Cast Lead
....We are still hearing jets and choppers flying over at all hours of the day and night.  The only time you don’t hear them is when the IDF opens the gates to Gaza to let in humanitarian aid...

...They have hit targets in the 40 Km range now so they are using the Russian made GRAD Missiles now and less of the home made KASSAMS and mortar shells. (We took out most of the machine shops that made them) The GRADS are going to be less and less in my mind since the drones are picking up the transport trucks and the IAF is taking them out along with the crews. (Hence the growing body counts on their side)..."

 

[Brad Sallows]

>While Israel may have gained at best a short respite from rocket attacks, it has killed perhaps nearly a hundred civilians.

Israel can't fight a war against Hamas without causing civilian casualties.  The question is one of proportionality: how many innocent civilians are at risk for a given operation/target?  Some not-strictly-military persons and things are legitimate targets.

 

[Rodders]

Given geographic density it is reasonable to presume that if Israel's targetting had been somewhat less surgical a hell of a lot more than 270 odd pals would be meeting 72 virgins right now.

You know, this is the kind of post that really pi$$es me off!

First off, I don't fault Israel for its actions, and I think they are justified. Hamas was killing it's civilians, so Israel has every right to defend it's territory and it's people.
But if killing civilians is not preferred, if not unacceptable, is it not always so?

I don't suggest that Israel is targeting civilians in the way that Hamas is. But the above statement makes it sound like simply being Palestinian makes one a viable target. It shows a great deal of cultural intolerance.
Are all Palestinians supporters of Hamas? Beats me, but I doubt it!
Even if they are, do the deaths of civilians who have not engaged in rocket attacks against Israel warrant such a cold and dismissive comment as that made above? If so, then how is that any different than the attitude clearly held by Hamas?

 

[belka]

Are all Palestinians supporters of Hamas? Beats me, but I doubt it!

Probably not all, but a majority are since Hamas was elected by the Palestinians.

The Palestinians are not helpless children who bear no responsibility for their own actions. They have utterly failed to take steps to improve their lot in life. They have collectively decided that a continuing violent conflict with Israel is somehow in their own interest. It is stupidity on a massive scale. The solution to this issue is simple:

1. Elect/Select representatives who actually work to achieve the interests of the Palestinian People rather than those who support the status quo of death, destruction, and terrorism.

2. Stop attacking Israel in any way, shape, or form.

If they really did that, the pressure on Israel to deal with this issue would become overwhelming, even the US would insist on fundamental changes in Israeli policy.

On the other hand, if the Palestinian grand strategy is to continue with the rockets, bombing, and terrorism,… well then, they should probably expect serious consequences for that choice too.

 

[aesop081]

but what sounds like indiscriminate bombing takes no regard to civilian deaths.

It may sound indiscriminate to you, but that does not make it so.

 

[Scottheus]

Wow, there seem to be a lot more opinions than facts in this thread. Such "matter of fact" responses from some. I do not in any way support the continued Hamas rocket attacks, but maybe there is a reason that they persist. It might not be a bad idea for some to investigate the Israeli blockade that was set up during the ceasefire. What about the excessive force that is being used? 1 Israeli civilian was killed and now over 300 Palestinians have been killed?? Please do not for one second think that everything was peaceful and Hamas decided to get up one day and start a fight with the Israelis. If you lived in the same conditions that many Palestinians do then I am sure that some of you would post drastically different responses. Don't believe everything that you hear in the media. Things are not as black and white as they like to portray it. And God Bless us for living in Canada!

 

[aesop081]

If you lived in the same conditions that many Palestinians do then I am sure that some of you would post drastically different responses.

The Palestinians have it in their power to get rid of Hamas, rather than support them.

 

[tourza]

You convince the Palestinians that their innocent children will continue to be killed, as long as they allow Hamas, Hezbolah, or any of these other organizations, to launch rockets into Israel, killing their innocent children.

The Hizballah don't operate in the Occupied Territories, just in Southern Lebanon.

Regards.

 

[FastEddy]

>While Israel may have gained at best a short respite from rocket attacks, it has killed perhaps nearly a hundred civilians.

Israel can't fight a war against Hamas without causing civilian casualties.  The question is one of proportionality: how many innocent civilians are at risk for a given operation/target?  Some not-strictly-military persons and things are legitimate targets.

So you really think they are just poor innocent civilians, they just happen to be the ones who voted them in and rally around their Banner and cheer them on as they launch their Rockets.

Did your heart bleed for the poor civilians in Germany when our Bombers flatted practically every City there.

And how about storing Weapons and Ammo in Religious Sites and Training Facilities near schools and hospitals, it really seems that Hamas cares a whole lot about collateral damage, except for propaganda.

 

[Rodders]

Probably not all, but a majority are since Hamas was elected by the Palestinians.

But surely voting someone into power doesn't automatically make you responsible for all things that government does.

I have family in the States who vote Republican because of their economic policies, yet (hold on to your hats) they don't support the war in Iraq.
I won't profess to know a great deal about the entire political philosophy of Hamas, but I refuse to believe that the only (or even the chief) reason that some (if not many) Palestinians voted for them was/is because of their position on Israel. At very least I do not accept that every single Palestinian supports Hamas attacking Israeli civilians. No one side in a conflict is pure and noble while the other devoid of any positive human qualities!

As I stated, I'm not condemning Israel. Not at all! They have as much right as any other sovereign nation to defend and protect its territory and citizens. I just despise the attitude expressed by a very few here that any and all Palestinians are accountable for the actions of Hamas, and as such, are individually deserving of any fate that befalls them.

And to another poster, some of the Palestinians who have been killed ARE innocent children. And should you decide to call me a "bleeding heart" or some other dated term of convenience, I hold such tragedies in equal regard no matter their race, colour, or religious affiliation.

 

[Shec]

You know, this is the kind of post that really pi$$es me off!

First off, I don't fault Israel for its actions, and I think they are justified. Hamas was killing it's civilians, so Israel has every right to defend it's territory and it's people.
But if killing civilians is not preferred, if not unacceptable, is it not always so?

I don't suggest that Israel is targeting civilians in the way that Hamas is. But the above statement makes it sound like simply being Palestinian makes one a viable target. It shows a great deal of cultural intolerance.
Are all Palestinians supporters of Hamas? Beats me, but I doubt it!
Even if they are, do the deaths of civilians who have not engaged in rocket attacks against Israel warrant such a cold and dismissive comment as that made above? If so, then how is that any different than the attitude clearly held by Hama

If being intolerant of a culture whose mighty warriors hide behind their children rather than standing in front of them makes me "culturally intolerant" than I plead guilty as charged.   And, quite frankly pal, I don't care whether that "really pi$$es you off" or not.

 

[aesop081]

It shows a great deal of cultural intolerance.

Hamas considers any Israeli a legitimate target. What would you call that then ? Doesnt it sound exactly like what you have called "cultural intolerance " ?

Hypocrite.

Even if they are, do the deaths of civilians who have not engaged in rocket attacks against Israel warrant such a cold and dismissive comment as that made above?

Hamas lanches these attacks from within Palestinian neighbourhoods. Do you see many Palestinins stopping them ? Its not like your average Palestinian is not aware of who is Hamas and who is not. They know full what what Hamas is doing right under their nose and allow it to happen. They know full well what will result.

 

[Rodders]

Hamas considers any Israeli a legitimate target. What would you call that then ? Doesnt it sound exactly like what you have called "cultural intolerance " ?

Hypocrite.

You find a quote by me that suggests in any way that I defend what Hamas has done! I defy you to find such a quote!
In fact, I have said several times that I think Israel's response IS justified!

And yes, Hamas is a great example of a VERY culturally intolerant group! One of the many reasons I have no sympathy for any fate that befalls them.

But if you will actually read my initial reply, I was stating an opposition to the implication that any and all Palestinians are by default responsible for the actions of Hamas, and therefore the deaths of Palestinian civilians is grounds for flippancy. 
Not all Germans were Nazis, and not all Palestinians support the attacks by Hamas.

If you wish to engage in name calling, fair enough. But make sure your basis for doing so is as a result of something I've actually said, and not simply because I don't subscribe in entirety to your opinion.

 

[Rodders]

If being intolerant of a culture whose mighty warriors hide behind their children rather than standing in front of them makes me "culturally intolerant" than I plead guilty as charged.   And, quite frankly pal, I don't care whether that "really pi$$es you off" or not.

Condemn these "warriors" all you want! I won't disagree with you!

But when you lump the entire culture, regardless of age, or non-involvement, than culturally intolerant is a pleasant term.

 

[1feral1]

You find a quote by me that suggests in any way that I defend what Hamas has done! I defy you to find such a quote!
In fact, I have said several times that I think Israel's response IS justified!

And yes, Hamas is a great example of a VERY culturally intolerant group! One of the many reasons I have no sympathy for any fate that befalls them.

But if you will actually read my initial reply, I was stating an opposition to the implication that any and all Palestinians are by default responsible for the actions of Hamas, and therefore the deaths of Palestinian civilians is grounds for flippancy. 
Not all Germans were Nazis, and not all Palestinians support the attacks by Hamas.

If you wish to engage in name calling, fair enough. But make sure your basis for doing so is as a result of something I've actually said, and not simply because I don't subscribe in entirety to your opinion.

Kind Sir,

I took every word you said the same way the Cdn Av did, so if I was you, I'd rethink what you've been gobbing off about.

EDIT: Civilians die in war. Sad but true, but when you are told that an attack is on its way, and you have rockets in your back yard and you don't leave - too bad, you were warned. Israel is not directly atatcking civilians, and are doing their best to keep these casualties light. The reality of war pal, the nature of the beast. You can shove your cultural intolerence.

 

[aesop081]

or non-involvement,

You dont have to personaly launch rockets to be involved. Allowing it to happen is also being involved.

 

[Rodders]

I'll fill out my profile if it means so much to you.

But it is your kind of reply that was the basis for my initial reply. That anyone who doesn't whole-heartedly and absolutely conform to the ideal that all people on a given side are either the enemy or ally. The world is not white and black, good and evil. Anyone who believes the world is so simple has watched entirely too many John Wayne movies.

Try reading my initial post/reply, and tell me what was so incorrect. Was it the fact that I think Israel is justified, while at the same time thinking it's unfortunate that people who are not involved in the conflict are being killed? Should I only feel bad for the Israeli civilians? I think civilian deaths on any side are unfortunate, and if you actually read my reply, and read objectively, you would see that's all I was saying!

If such duality is not welcome here, or if I am only permitted to lament the death of allied civilians, then I think I understand why there was some problems here some time ago.

So feel free to name call and spew venom. But I hope you will read what I've posted, and make a serious effort to understand what I was saying.

 

[Rodders]

Kind Sir,

I took every word you said the same way the Cdn Av did, so if I was you, I'd rethink what you've been gobbing off about.

EDIT: Civilians die in war. Sad but true, but when you are told that an attack is on its way, and you have rockets in your back yard and you don't leave - too bad, you were warned. Israel is not directly atatcking civilians, and are doing their best to keep these casualties light. The reality of war pal, the nature of the beast. You can shove your cultural intolerence.

Have a happy do-diddly day.

Well since you have clearly inferred something from my posts that was not present, why don't you tell me what I've said that was so inaccurate or incorrect! Tell me what part of my "gobbing off" you disagree so vehemently with!

Of course civilian casualties are a part of war. Does this mean that we denigrate them?
Does thinking civilian deaths are unfortunate make me a bleeding heart? Apparently it does here.