Haaretz (Saturday): Gaza Palestinians fire 21 Qassam rockets at Sderot

From Haaretz (Tel Aviv)
Dated Saturday September 24


Read more.

We even have it in the spoken word, the golden rule in every culture, or am I the dumb one that doesn't belong here.

militants. Hmm, he must have been mistaken.

They are going to lose investors for Gaza if this kind of stuff keeps popping up in the media. Rockets exploding in trucks killing 19 of their own people, injuring 80, rockets here, there....

I hope the innocent civilian Israelis who were injured in this attack get well.

Could this be a new pattern? Hmmmm.

And people are doing their own foreign policy and military operations versus their government.

What was supposed to happen after the withdrawal?
The sudden bloom of a Palestinian authority with the
means and motive to instill order? Don't make me
laugh. This was entirely predictable, and I predict
yet more of it. Blame fat boy if you don't like it,
it's very much his work.

that the PA would have immediately started publicizing and implementing plans they had ready for developing Gaza, to give people hope, new jobs, new places to live, etc. Of course, hardly any time has passed since the withdrawal. It's a big step. I hope the government is working quickly to move development along there...the more quickly things will settle down. That is, if the government isn't falling apart

I am not trying to make you laugh nor is using pejoratives for leaders of either side effective. Least of all would I deflect blame to where it doesn't belong. Because I don't like it, I will put the blame where it does belong and it is on those who shot off the rockets

Expecting Herculean efforts from them is a fool's game.
You can put blame where you like, it's a popular activity,
but don't expect that sort of thing to improve the situation,
it won't. You bomb the rocket makers too, if you like, and
be sure to clobber the neighborhood around them, but it ought
to be clear by now that that will not work either.

n/t

israel targeted 'factories"....perhaps israel should use bigger bombs and blow up not just the factory but the area around it?....let the palestenians understand that its their whole society that is resonsable for the shooting missles at israeli cities?

I'm just pointing that out, not advocating anything in particular.

and we are responsable for what our IDF does....what our settlers do....etc...and the PA is responsable for what the Hamas does.

why do you think we left gaza?...because the israeli society as a whole decided it was time to leave....

the palestenain society now has to show that it was a smart move...shooting rockets in to an israeli city is not showing that....the return fire should be 10fold

I'm not denying that the Kassams are a bad idea. I'm talking
about how one ought to respond to it, based on your previous
post?

T-O-T-A-L

Abbas does not let these people keep shooting off these rockets, etc.
Israel holds back likewise.

There isn't going to be any total cease fire anytime soon.
Abbas does not allow doodle in Gaza, as ought to be clear
by now.

meaning?

The "gazan society" just commited an act of WAR...they attacked a neighboring society.....what do they have to "retailiate for"...there are no israelis in gaza?

israel can no longer "arrest" those who are shooting at her cities....what are the choices?....send in the UN (as in sudan/bosnia?)

or do we just go in to our shelters and cower?

as written above...the blame is squarly on the the palestenians society and abbas...no gray areas, nothing like "but but but the israelis did......"

that has the capability to be responsible for anything.
There are individuals that are guilty or complicit in these
acts, and one may certainly take action against them, but
that there is a "gazan society" that one may apply collective
punishment against for the acts of these individuals or gangs
is false, even more false than it would be in the case of
Israel, which at least has a coherent society and economy and
a lame but functional government that is capable of making
decisions and enforcing them. In Gaza there is nothing.

in gaza they have nothing...and it was very irresponsable of abbas to encourage israel to leave.......

if they dont have a society that they control...then what business did the PA have of declaring that the they shall control gaza and they want israel out?

they cant have it both ways...either the palestenians have a society that they control or they dont...if they dont then they had better invite somebody in to help them....

40 kassams falling in israel.....

so...seems to me that...and tell me if you agree....if they cant control gaza...no sane israeli would want to give them the westbank...anarchy on two sides of the border?

Israel has no good choices. Israel did not leave Gaza
out of kindness, but because staying there was thought to
be worse. So sue me.

but now the problem....is whats next?....if abbas and the PA cant control Gaza......seems to me they have no right to demand that israel leave the westbank

more so..if kassams continue to rain down on israel from gaza, israel may have no choice but to retaliate not with down sized missles but with the larger ordance...the small stuff wont even be felt.....

Well, more of the same that we have seen this last 5 years or so,
I would think. There is no reason I can see to expect any
fundamental change.

As you might gather, I could care a fig what Abbas might demand,
he has no means to enforce his will and his demands are therefore
empty blather. Likewise, I see no reason to think that Israel
would care a fig for his demands, rightful or not.

Nothing short of genocide or a political settlement agreeable to
the vast majority of the Palestinian people (and Israelis too for
that matter) will stop the Qassams, that's the problem.

Nothing short of genocide or a political settlement agreeable to
the vast majority of the Palestinian people"

i would guess that the vast majority of the palestenains in gaza arent too thrilled with having israeli jets fly over...all day today and occassionly letting loose with some bombs....

the problem is NOT the majority..its the loud violent minority thats causing the trouble. Gaza was exactly that.. a political settlement based on the majority wishes....and so far the minority has turned it into a mess, because the majority cant seem to control them.

until that majority that got what it wished for..a political settlement...can control its minority i dont believe there is much to talk about.

I don't expect anything to work, I don't expect peace,
I expect more of the same, like I said. Even to consider
a settlement agreeable to the majority of both sides requires
both a political agreement and then a long term effort by the
political leadership (assuming some of that was present) to
convince the populations on both sides of the merits of the
deal. I see no reason to expect anything of the kind at
present.

and it was very irresponsable of abbas to encourage israel to leave.......

As the disengagement from Gaza was unilateral on the part of the Israeli govt, Abbas didn't have any say one way or the other. So shouldn't you really be saying that it was irresponsible of Israel to opt for leaving unilaterally, rather than negotiating a withdrawal?

I totally disagree with yr last sentence. Only two weeks after the settlers have been removed from Gaza is not long enough to know what's going to end up happening in Gaza. As for the West Bank, I'll use yr logic about society being to blame for things, and remind you that using that logic, Israeli society is responsible for every murder of a Palestinian civilian by extremists amongst the settlers. When is Israel going to control its society, pelsar? And the West Bank isn't something that the Israeli population can choose to give away or keep - it's not part of Israel and it's occupied territory...

Violet...

The withdrawal was unilateral; therefore, by definition, it didn't matter what Abbas thought.

This was predictable: Israel withdraws unilaterally; the militants take advantage of the situation to launch attacks, ignoring a hapless PA; Israel sends the IDF back into the territory.

The only good thing that came of unilateral disengagement is the dismantling of the settlements in Gaza. That, along with dismantling the settlements in the West Bank, could have and should have been done a long time ago, independent of withdrawing the IDF.

No one forced Sharon to do anything. He did not take responsibility for Israel's security as he should have and the rocket attacks were something he should have forseen.

and so too does the world hold us responsable for the acts of our settlers...true we dont control them completly..and politics are involved..but no one here is saying "we arent responsable for them".

same too with the palestenians....the occasional kassam or mortor signifys more of lack of total control over the groups than anything else....40 kassams represent absolutly no control.

as far as the unilateral disengagement...dont fool yourselves, there were constant talks with the palestenian leadership through out and during...which explains why it went so smoothly and why "all of a sudden the shooting stopped".

it was a smart move and the wise one. There is absolulty no reason to think that negotiations would have produced an agreement....no written agreement in my memory has ever worked between the palestenians and israel that i can remember. Demanding that the palestenans do this or that would have accomplished zilch. For the palestenains I doubt if they could have demanded that the IDF stay around after the settlers have left....politically that would have been suicide...what was to negotiate?

The palestenains leadership had ample time to organize,...and could have easily ask israel to delay a couple of days...if they werent ready...they didnt...as far as i know they requested nothing of israel....knowing we were leaving and happy that we were....so we did.

the palestenain society in gaza is the 100% responsability of the palestenians...an occasional mortor, like a murder is not significant in terms of the nation as a whole...like i said 40 kassams is a very different story.

no spin can take away their own responsability toward their own....responsability doesnt come easy and they have to change their culture to accept it.....they got what they've been fighting for....we left....and complaints that we "left to fast" is absurd, given all the complaints that we have to leave...leaving too fast?...all of a sudden people who said we should leave are now saying we should stay?....absolutly absurd!...... i doubt the palestenains feel that way....and it is their land...put the responsability where it belongs without any if and buts and maybes....

it may take them a day to organize or a year or never....but its the palestenains in gaza and only the palestenains in gaza that are responsable for the actions of the palestenains in gaza....leave us out of it...were not there any more

we can no longer be blamed for what the palestenains in gaza do or not do.....

and the Palestinians knew it was coming. They had weeks to prepare for security and other issues. You're right, they can't spin this one saying they didn't have time to organize properly .

(I)t was a smart move and the wise one.

No, it wasn't. Sharon simply said, "Here, you do it," without any consideration as to whether Abbas was capable of doing it. The PA needs to rein in Hamas and Sharon should have been aware that all Abbas can do is say, "please, observe the cease fire."

Again, I have no problem with Israel maintaining an occupation until the cows come home as long as it is for security and not territorial expansion. The settlers are gone and hopefully they will not return.

(It's) the palestenains in gaza and only the palestenains in gaza that are responsable for the actions of the palestenains in gaza....leave us out of it...were not there any more.

It is, of course, ridiculous to say that Sharon fired the rockets at Sderot; of course, Hamas is responsible for that. However, Sharon had an obligation to maintain the IDF in the occupied territories as long as no other force is capable or willing to prevent this kind of attack on Israeli territory. He abrogated his responsibility to the Israeli people.

where is it written that the PA can prevent the firings...and even if they could would they?

how long would the IDF have to stay in gaza..how many UN resolutions condemming israel for staying even after the settlers have gone...would be sufficent?

who would even support israels case?...anybody?

If it never happens, then the IDF should not leave Gaza.

You are a member of the IDF. You will support Israel's case. Are you among those who will now have to return to Gaza?

I will support Israel's case for security on this board and elsewhere, just I will support the case for Palestinian rights. one should not be an exclusive of the other.

i m a reservist..though i spent much time in gaza...the IDF no longer has any strain on manpower (used a lot of resources on those settlements...), so i wont be called up, as far as i can see.

it would be untenable not just on an intl arena for israel to stay in gaza....but the israeli population wouldnt allow it...it would remind us too much of lebanon.

theres also a psychology involved...this is the first time the palestenains have full responsability..this is important for us..its no longer "muddled". It may cost us in lives but its also important to clarify the issue....the future of the westbank depends upon it.

diddley squat? :shrug:

I mean he says so himself.

I was not able to respond yesterday. I spent the day doing my patriotic duty in San Francisco marching against the occupation of Iraq. Before leaving, I did engage in a discussion on another forum with express some of the same thoughts below, which I have expressed before.

This was predictable. I see now that Israel is sending the IDF back to Gaza. Hopefully, this won't put us all the way back to square one.

Israel has a right to be secure from attacks by Palestinian militants. However, settlements aren't about security. They are about territorial expansion. The settlement program as we know it began soon after Begin, who apparently couldn't read a map, declared the occupied territories to be "integral part(s) of Israel." Not only are they not about security, they diminish Israeli security by placing Israelis in harm's way, require a more elaborate occupation to protect them.

The settlements in Gaza were dismantled. I've advocated that and the dismantling of settlements in the West Bank for a long time. However, this looks like a case of be careful for what you wish.

The withdrawal was unilateral and therefore no formal demands were made on the PA as Sharon removed the IDF. This did no good for the Palestinians in the long run or the Israelis in the short term.

Israel needs a Palestinian state as badly as do the Palestinians. It's obvious why the Palestinians need it. A state is a tool for people to protect their human rights. Since 1948, the rights of the Palestinian people were entrusted at various times to the governments of Jordan, Egypt, Israel and Lebanon. For this, the Palestinians have suffered Black September, the Sabra and Shatila massacre and the demolition of their homes and businesses in occupied territory to make way for housing in which they cannot live and roads on which they cannot travel. Perhaps they would do better to take control of their own affairs than to entrust it to others.

Israel can't continue to act like all the land west of the Jordan belongs to her, as Begin said it did in 1977, and remain a democratic state. A state that is at once both Jewish and democratic must define its territory such that Jews will remain a majority for some time to come. The demographic time bomb is ticking. Jews may already be a numerical minority in the combined populations of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank. The Likudist idea of a Greater Israel is a bust.

The only acceptable solution which leaves Israel at once Jewish and democratic is to allow a Palestinian state to be declared in Gaza and the West Bank and to reach a negotiated non-aggression pact with the government of that state. That pact would contain guarantees that the state of Palestine will not allow its territory to be used for attacks against Israel either by another state or private militias. The alternatives to that is:

• Maintain the occupation and suffer the violence that goes along with it;
• Annex the territories and limit or deny the rights of Palestinian Arabs as citizens, in which case Israel ceases to be a democracy (this "solution" will look little different than maintaining the occupation);
• Annex the territories and grant Palestinian Arabs full rights as Israeli citizens, in which case Israel ceases to be Jewish;or
• Ethnically cleanse the territories of Arabs, which would be one of the major crimes of modern times.

Were I an Israeli, I would find none of those alternatives acceptable. In fact, they are unacceptable to me regardless of whether or not I am an Israeli.

I have always supported the dismantling of the settlements and the continued presence of the IDF in the territories until a negotiated agreement is reached. The occupation should be a military occupation about security, not a colonial occupation about expansion. The former treats the Palestinian territories as a post-war occupation and recognizes the rights of the Palestinian people. The latter has created a situation that B'Tselem, the Israeli human rights organization, compares to "dark regimes of the past, such as the Apartheid regime in South Africa."

By withdrawing the IDF, Sharon has failed to take responsibility for Israeli security. It is problematic as to whether the IDF, had it remained in Gaza, would have prevented this rocket firing, but there can be no doubt that the IDF couldn't prevent it in their absence.

What Sharon could have done that would have made more sense would have been to evacuate the settlements in Gaza and the outlying settlements in the West Bank (which could be done unilaterally) and left the IDF in place until such time as a negotiated agreement is reached.

well written but your assuming that the palestenains can create and maintain a modern country and not produce a failed state.......

Do you maintian the occupation as it is? You don't seriously want more of the same, do you?

Are you assuming that Palestinians as a people are incapable of creating a viable state? Of course I'm assuming the are capable. What makes you think they're not?

What's your solution?

interesting question...yet on another thread you say that israel has to stay until the PA can control the Hamas....what if they cant? do you suggest that the IDF stay?

as far as creating a viable state...i dont know....in fact nobody knows...failed states do exist...dont get me wrong...i surly want a palestenains state far more than you do..the lives of my kids depend upon that..but i'm also not blind to the possibility that they might fail and try to drag us down with them....

my solution is bit by bit...gaza first...let them make a working, peaceful, viable society out of gaza (i'll ignore the occasional kassam or mortor..cant control everything and everybody)....

let those in the westbank get jealose...let us israelis see how good neighbors we can be to each other....and then it should be easy to hand over the westbank...the settlers will no longer have a case for security..that will leave them with "god given rights"..which wont get them very far.

but if they cant make anything out of gaza..and its a haven for attacks against us, it would be absurd to give them even more territory with which to attack us.

(I)f they cant make anything out of gaza..and its a haven for attacks against us, it would be absurd to give them even more territory with which to attack us.

The problem is that it isn't Israel's territory to give. It's the Palestinians' territory. What Israel has is control over it. It occupies it. It has occupied since 1967 when Israel fought a defensive war and won.

One of the darkest days in modern Middle Eastern history was the day the Begin declared the West Bank and Gaza to be parts of Israel and began expanding the settlement program. That simply negated the whole idea of any kind of Palestine. Israelis would move there and Palestinians would have no more rights in these territories than the government wished to give them. That is odious.

That's not occupation. That's annexation. Worse than that, it is annexation with a denial of equal rights for 92% of the inhabitants of the occupied/annexed territory.

For there to be peace, everybody has to give up the idea of winning. There can be no peace and a Greater Israel. There can be no peace with Israel driven into the sea. There are two nations west of the Jordan. The trouble comes from those who do not admit that and try to drive the others out or otherwise dismiss the other nationality as inferior and without human rights.

We should expect the Israelis to do what they can to protect themselves from attacks from Palestinian territory and the Palestinians to do what they can to prevent the construction on their land of housing in which they cannot live and roads on which they cannot travel.

If neither side gives up the idea that it can just stick it to other, then expect the conflict to continue.

its clear that the palestenains will have their state on the westbank one day..but its not clear whether that state will be successful or not

its not clear how to give them their land without endagering israel...nobody can possibly read the future...know who is going to have what influence..what as yet to happen experiences will influence those yet to be born future leaders....

and there lies the problem.....the only way to look at the future is to look at the past and the present in hoping to understand what might be...but here it doesnt help. The palestenain history in jordan and lebanon do not tell tales of peace and integration...quite the opposite for a variety of reasons...the present..well thats now gaza, and more than anything its gaza that will have the major influence on the westbank.

the worst thing the world can do now....is to give the palestenians excuses for not making gaza work.....it should be made clear to them....they are now in charge..we'll all be watching to see how you do.

if they fail....wouldnt it be stuiped to expect the more complex westbank to succeed?...if they succeed in gaza...then we all win...and the westbank will be theres because they will have won over the israelis.....but it should be made clear to them....life isnt fair and somethings have to be earned....israel may or may not have legal rights to the westbank...but it does have the right to defend itself...and the pa has not been clear as to whether it will use the westbank to attack israel or not....and only gaza will give us a better perspective on that.

A Palestinian state that has Israeli settlements on its territory with the GOI guaranteeing the security of those settlements is not a sovereign state.

The PA could resolve tomorrow to to sign a non-aggression pact and not to use its territory to attack Israel. Years from now, circumstances could change and Israel and Palestine will again be at war.

A Palestinian state that does not have the ability to go to war against Israel does not the ability to prevent Hamas and other private militias from going to war against Israel.

Ponder that for a while.

of course i've considered those aspects:

they are not a state....but they are now a society with responsability towards their own inhabitants including their security....nobody else has that responsability....they have all the means at their disposal to succeed or fail.

there is no question that said society/state can in years to come attack israel....but it would be foolish to let that type of attack be its foundations. The foundations have to be the opposite, one of building, one of trade....let that be the starting point...not one of war.

Whether or not they have the ability to control their own population, though it affects me, is bascially "none of my business"....they've been shooting at me, attacking us, UN resolutions, protests all across the globe....they won (well actually we did..but thats a side thought)..........no longer do we or people like me have to go to gaza. More so,

I really dont feel like getting killed to protect palestenians from killing palestenains who also want to kill me....

I am very relieved that we're out of there for three main reasons:
oppressing the population is not good for the morals of our kids
showed us that the settlers do not own israel, its govt or its people

no more ambiguity with the palestenains. no more blaming us for their failures, no more claiming "retailiation".

any attack from gaza is a blatant declaration of war....any failure on their part is their own...we can protect our borders reguardless of what happens within gaza....and i dont have to get killed protecting palestenians from themselves...send in the ISM for that.

_______________________

another thought, think it through...by keeping the IDF in gaza because the PA cant...that would mean i would have to patrol gaza city with all its back alleys, jebalya etc...thats absolutly crazy! That would mean occupying all of gaza and for what end?....members of the jihad are also members of the PA, we've already seen what happens with joint patrols.......keeping us in gaza if and when the PA might be ever be ready to take control?...be real..the PA could never request that the IDF stay, nor should we....

isnt that the UNs job?

I am very relieved that we're out of there for three main reasons:
oppressing the population is not good for the morals of our kids
showed us that the settlers do not own israel, its govt or its people
no more ambiguity with the palestenains. no more blaming us for their failures, no more claiming "retailiation".

I agree, but what I don't understand is how withdrawing will make Israelis in Israel safer. This thread is anchored by an article about a rocket attack by Hamas on Sderot. Sderot is not a settlement in Palestinian territory. Sderot is in Israel. Also, this was not a suicide bombing. This was an act of war performed by members of Hamas without leaving Gaza. Fortified borders were no help. It is just fortunate that no one in Sderot was killed.

So, how is this now to be prevented? Were I an Israeli, I would want attacks on Israel stopped.

It's clear that the PA can't stop it. Doesn't the job of stopping then fall to the IDF? Can't they best do that by maintaining some presence in Gaza?

the sole thing putting me back in gaza is to make me a target of all the different terrorist groups, meaning they will have the motivation and the support to continue...not stop more than that..it lets abbas off the hook in terms of no serious political decision....keeping the palestenain society from maturing and taking things in to their own hands...keeping the complaints in the world against us...keeping them on "unempolyment" from the UN.

there is not a single good thing that will come from it....most of all, the palestenains get one more excuse as why they dont have to take responsability for their own...as many here would post......they cant all the while under "occupation".

we'll take a few kassams, and mortors...they'll receive some larger ordnance in return...and eventually they'll figure it out..it may take them sometime though.

think of it as "tough love'....or "somtimes you "have to be cruel to be kind"..(give me some time i'll find a few more cliches)

That's the best rationale I've seen for this move. I'm still not convinced it is best, but I understand it better.