News from Gaza Part 2

I mentioned a “thimble full of Ebola dust, simply thrown from a Tel Aviv high rise apartment window”, not a "bomb" or Gaza rocket with biological warhead.

I pointed out that Israeli's current "High-Kill-Ratio" retaliatory policy (instead of a defensive one) is making many Arabs very angry and that the oil funds and internet will eventually make a biological weapon for some to deliver. Personally I doubt it would be coming from Gaza - more likely a well funded Indonesian "tourist" etc. will deliver it.

Again, you are falsely assuming I think some Arabs will arm Hamas with Ebola dust bomb or rocket. - I have specifically called attention to the anger Israeli is generating among so many everywhere in the Moslem and Arab communities. I never suggested Hamas agent would deliver the Ebola.

In fact your point is supportive of my fears. - Many of these oil wealth funded terrorists who are angry at Israel are not friends of Hamas and thus would not be unhappy, if Israel did destroy Hamas in reaction.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You'll have to excuse me for mistaking your intention, since you included the comments on Ebola dust in an extended technical discussion of Gaza rockets.

Well, the oil funds have dried up for the moment, although biological weapons research isn't the sort of thing that requires giant piles of cash. It has more to do with access to the relevant expertise and materials.

But why hypothesize? Several Arab states have *already* developed biological and chemical weapons at least as nasty as your hypothesized Ebola bombs, and they have yet to be used against Israel. Indeed, the pursuit of such weapons is generally seen as a poor overall strategic choice, and with good reason.

And, again, there are measures that Israel could take to prevent such an attack, should they think it likely. Not allowing Arabs (or Muslims, or even any foreigners at all) into Israel, for example. Short of giving the Arabs nuclear arsenals and conventional militaries that can overcome the IDF, no escalation in their capacity for violence against Israel is going to change the fundamentals of the situation.

Then there's the issue that it will take a state to invent and produce these biological weapons, and they will not be able to count on Israel not knowing which state it was. And, given the assumption that Israel possesses nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, it is extremely unlikely that said state would allow these weapons to be used against Israel, for fear of devestating counter-attack. This is the same reason that none of the vast stocks of weapons of mass destruction that various states have held for the past 100+ years have ever been employed by sub-state terrorist actors.

And, again, there's the not-so-minor point that all of the Arab states are geographically close to Israel, and it is generally considered a bad idea to release weaponized biological agents in the vicinity of your own populace. You stand to kill as many Palestinians as Israelis, which makes it a poor choice for punishing Israel for mistreating Palestinians.

That the Arab street despises Israel, and that the Arab states could conceivably produce biological weapons, does not add up to surety that the Arab nations will launch a biological attack on Israel. Iran would be more likely, but even then, it's really far-fetched.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I can understand their feelings of frustration and desperation, but children...all this could have been avoided sixty years ago, or even longer ago, by simply being respectful of the religious minority of Jews. The whole argument is predicated on "land grabs"; none of which was true until 1948, which involved a little thing called a war. No room for the other as an equal, I guess.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

To Quadraphonics:

Developing atomic weapons is a major state operation, fortunately; but making an effective biological weapon, even just inhalable anthrax, is a task for a couple of smart, internet aided, guys in a basement lab within a decade. That was done by one guy using the mails in the US a few years ago. The agent could just be spread in self-serve restaurants etc.

I agree that mutual deterrence between STATES with WMDs has worked for more decades than I thought it would back in the 1960s, (but still a very short time for civilization), but that is irrelevant to non-state tiny groups that are driven by extreme angry and religious ideas.

You have probably already heard the Moslem extremist warfare plan:
"Kill them all, and let Allah sort them out."
That is sort of “thinking” I fear.

I do not understand why no one takes seriously the possibly of Israel adopting a defensive alternative, especially as it may in a generation or two make a peaceful two state solution possible and until them can greatly reduce the killing (and also saving most of the Israeli lives now lost with the failed High Kill ratio retaliatory policy.)

 

That "one guy" was a world-reknowned biological weapons researcher working at the US Army's biological weapons program. He was about as far as you can get from "guys in a basement lab." And even then, his attack was largely ineffectual, in material terms. Certainly not the sort of thing that would pose an existential danger to a state.

And it's really far-fetched to suggest that "guys in basement labs" could one day soon be producing biological agents an order of magnitude more deadly than we currently have. For that matter, given how few government resources are being put into the subject, it's also unlikely that any states will invent such weapons in the near future.

The number of people with the relevant knowledge and expertise to perform this type of biological weapons research is quite small, and the materials to do it quite hard to come by. So much so that states tend to have a very good idea who these people are, and where the materials are, and keep a close eye on both.

The use of Sarin by that Japanese cult back in the 1990's is the closest example I can think of to a "basement lab" WMD attack, but that's a chemical weapon, and wasn't particularly effective. Again, not the kind of thing that's going to pose an existential threat to a state. Your average suicide bomber (or just gunman) is much more deadly.

Indeed: my point was that STATES will be deterred from transferring these weapons to such groups. And, since said groups are not capable of producing the weapons on their own, that still adds up to a deterrent. The real risk is that substate actors could illicitly obtain the weapons, either by infiltrating the facilities, co-opting people with access, or exploiting a breakdown in state control. For them to be intentionally armed by the states, or develop advanced bioweapons on their own, is extremely unlikely.

Flip your argument around: there are plenty of Jewish extremists that would presumably love to launch apocalyptic attacks on, say, Palestinians, and Israel (as well as many of its allies) is widely believed to possess weapons that would enable this. For that matter, many Israelis fall into the category of "people with knowledge and expertise to produce basement WMD." Yet it has not happened (nor do you seem worried about it happening). Likewise, there are plenty of very nasty existing biological agents, and yet no terrorist group has yet managed to use one against Israel. So why would hypothetical future weapons make any difference?

They HAVE taken a defensive alternative. It consists of removing Israelis from indefensible areas (such as the Gaza Strip), and consolodating the remaining zones (such as by building a huge wall and closing the borders). Likewise in southern Lebanon. The issue is that it hasn't bought them the peace and quite they expected out of it.

Technical defenses against specific rockets are neither here nor there. Israel could spend millions building an anti-rocket system, and Hamas would just spend a few thousand to get better rockets, or switch to another type of attack. These kind of tactical games have little effect on the strategy of either side, or the overall outcome. Do you really think that if it were possible to provide a technical solution that would allow Israel to forget about Gaza, at least in security terms, they would not do so?

 

Standard or no, the claim of "minimizing civilian casualties", when confronted with the facts of aerial bombardment and long range shelling of densely populated areas in any circumstance short of total war, is invalidated.

 

Okay. You may recall that what we were actually talking about was Israel's purported uniqueness in this regard. Can you not think of (many) other examples of states making similarly invalid claims?

And have you abandoned your earlier assertion of uniqueness regarding the "better your civilians than our soldiers" line of argument?

The inclusion of the "short of total war" clause is kind of interesting, by the way... perhaps it is the case that one or both sides in the conflict view it in those terms.

 

As I am firmly convinced, Israel could provide a defensive system, much like the one I have described in detail, which would significantly reduce the number of Israelis injured and killed and yet have not done so, is cause for speculation as to why the high kill ratio policy, has been supported for 40+ years and is obviously only making things worse for both sides of the conflict as time passes very much worse every year for the Palestinians.

I can think of only one reason: Israel learned from its own history that rapid genocide (of non-Negros at least), is not acceptable but slow genocide (spread over several generations) is not very risky to the state doing that.

For example: The Sinai and Negev Bedouins no longer exist.* - not all are dead. Many fled to other desert lands in Arab countries. Many Palestinians have also fled to escape the harsh conditions Israel imposes on those that remain in their ancient home lands. (Israel has periodically forcible expelled many and passed laws making it illegal for them to even seek compensation in the Israeli courts.
--------------
*Some still live in one of seven Israeli controlled Negev camps, which have Israel guards surrounding them to prevent their escape back into the desert. A few do periodically escape and re-build their crude shelters, which Israel soon bulldozes down, and since 2004 (? not sure of date but I have previously posted it correctly, with reference to source.) Israel has been spraying the crops they plant and nearby natural grasses with herbicides, so most who do escape from the camps, return to the camps as Israel does supply food and truck in water to these camps.

All-in-all Israel has run a very successful program that has eliminated the Bedouin Problem, with essentially no global reaction to the elimination of the Bedouin Culture and most of the once much larger population of Bedouin. (Bedouin men are encouraged to leave the camps and work in Israel, some even join the IDF! There is no work inside the camps. Thus the birth rate in the camps is far below the replacement rate. - Bedouins will soon not even exist in the camps.) They seem to be doing the same plan with the Palestinian problem, but with the world watching, are proceeding more slowing.

To justify this "slow final solution" to the Palestinian problem (like has already been achieved for the "Bedouin problem") Israel needs to allow the Palestinian terrorist to kill a few Israelis every year. If there is some other reason why Israel does not prevent, or at least greatly reduce the number of Israeli deaths via active defense, I would like to hear it.

 

strange ring to that - got the quote involved ?

I think the Israelis are the most flagrant I've seen about asserting - publicly admitting - that kind of justification in this kind of situation.

Well, there are some suspicions that Israel is - either trapped or original startegy - looking at this as, long term, a total war: the Palestinians destroyed, terms dictated to them, a clean slate.

That's the trend. it would be pretty ugly.

 

ice never abandons his assertions, he just makes up new ones to fit the moment.

 

Please substantiate the emboldened areas or retract the statement.

How come you can go to Bedouin dinner parties while in Israel? They make great food.

By the way I think you're grouping all of the Bedouins into one large group of people...they're individual tribes with individual philosophies.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Bedouins currently today work for Israel expelling Palestinians from crossing the borders. While other Bedouins are Palestinian martyrs.

Some Bedouins are enemies of Israel, some Allies. So don't act as if it's some form of genocide...

 

A must have sticky in this journal

This is what "taking out the trash" looks like:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Ridiculous...we need to make this a tear-jerking thread to prove right from wrong?

This is what Qassam rocket attacks have looked like for 8 years.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

- Was near the impact.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

- Don't have a father anymore due to a random Qassam attack in Israel during the cease fire

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

- Kids in Israel forced to do this 3 times a day SINCE BIRTH out of fear...


I'd rather be dead than live in fear.

 

Hmm so sad. Too bad they won't stop the occupation instead.

The Palestinian children are clearly doing so much better.

Wanna switch places?

 

Hamas is only a extortion group that uses others to get what they want, money. They don't care who they kill.

 

Posts #471 and #481 in this thread would be what I have in mind (as well as my subsequent responses).

Again, I'd like to hear said argument coming from someone with a legitimate claim to be representing Israel before we go judging an entire nation on this basis. Which would be more than just any "Israelis," by the way.

To date, the only people I've heard advance such an argument are anonymous posters on SciForums. But I don't watch TV, so maybe I've missed something.

And the other objection remains: it seems a bit bizarre to be tarring Israel for avoiding sending its soldiers, when Israeli soldiers are, right now, on the ground in Gaza. Perhaps events have overtaken this topic, which seems geared to the previous aerial phase of the fighting.

Indeed. And, for their part, the Palestinians?

 

Are Israeli civilian communities valid military targets? Since Israel claims any house 'known' to be occupied by Hamas fighters or supporters is a target, and since every Israeli family contributes members to the IDF, and supports the Israeli military?

So that from a purely military perspective, Israeli civilian homes are valid targets for the Arab side's military assets. The fact the Palestinian military is actually Hamas, from Damascus and heavily influenced by Iran, is a detail, they are a valid army since they're defending a people's right to exist.

 

????? Hamas is all Palestinian and they are Sunnis, unlike the Iranians. I doubt the Syrians have as much influence over Hamas as everyone likes to believe. They don't allow any "mujahideen" from outside Palestine to enter. In fact, Hamas has many "wars" with the Islamic Jihad, which is influenced by Salafi factions outside Palestine [ led by Abu Mustafa]

Opinions of the Salafis:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,566740,00.html

 

OK, the paradigm in the West, is that Hamas is an Iranian-backed organisation, based in Damascus?
I don't think it's that important - at least to the Palestinians who were 'tricked' into voting them in, after Israel undermined any hopes of Arafat's PLO becoming a moderating or cohesive influence (but that's only my opinion of course).

 

I don't think the Palestinians were tricked into voting for them. They voted for them because every other political party had stopped standing up for their rights. Only Hamas has consistently, without corruption, stood up for the Palestine state and the Palestine people. And they are willing to change their own ideology to support the Palestinian people.

For instance, they accept the Oslo accords, because the PLO was a legitimate representative of the Palestinians, they offered the Israelis a long tern 10 year truce in return for going back to the 1967 borders and have agreed to stop rocket attacks in return for lifting the seige. They also took the destruction of Israel off their manifesto.

Finally, they also agreed to accept a state with '67 borders.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1035414.html

All this before the current invasion.