Gaza "beach" -- what really happened

[Togo]

The Economist did a series of articles covering the elections and the immediate aftermath. Many other news sources at the time were broadly in agreement, in part because Hamas actively solicited foreign journalists to come and see for themselves. I suspect you'd have to pay to see them on-line, however.

The issue is not Hamas's promises, but whether it delivered. Reports near election and its aftermath is not relevant, it's reporting following Hamas taking power.

Which is exactly the period I'm talking about. After they started to deliver on campaign promises, but before the civil war.

I seriously doubt that Gazans themselves are feeling safer, better eduated, or otherwise better off at any point after 2006 than they were before.

At any point? Why? You have a conflicting source?

I have none, but the overall impression I get from Gaza is that it's a hellhole.

But that's not what you're saying. Gaza has never been a great place to live, but what you're saying is that things can only have been worse, at every point, since the election of 2006. That isn't anything about Gaza being a hellhole, that's about a partisan view of Hamas versus Fatah in terms of local service provision in Gaza. I guess it's not a hugely critical point, but I thought it was worth emphasising just how far your preconceptions are leading you away from anything that might actually be supported by evidence.

Is there any reason why Hamas, whatever else you might think of them, can't have a sensible views on government workers, sanitation and healthcare, pensions liabilities and a good tax plan? Relations with Israel is an important issue, but it's not the only that people care about. Similarly, in Israel, the political groups aren't just about settlement expansion versus settlement retraction, even if the PM has to lean increasingly on the religious right and pro-settler groups to keep himself in power.

]

The massive police force is to keep the people in line and suppress dissent, not law and order.

Source? Or is this just a political opinion you are taking as true?

Hamas has openly executed people without trial on the streets as warning for example.

So has Israel.

It was a political opinion ... but it turns out that it's easy to find reports to support it.

As Dissent Grows in Gaza, Hamas Tightens Its Grip

What Hamas is really afraid of

One of these is in the immediate aftermath of a civil war, the other is after operation cast lead, where the police force was largely wiped out by missile strikes.

Hamas's "police" has nothing to do with law and order, and everything to do with crushing dissent.

Well it does now, sure. Israel reserves the option shoot on sight anyone known to be a policeman, so yeah, their functions have largely been taken over by the armed brigades, who wear masks.

There is no comparison to Israel... if Israel detains someone,

But in Gaza Israel doesn't detain people. It just shoots them. That's precisely why we're here on a thread discussing the shelling of children on the beach. Because Israel decided it was a military beach. There's no due process, no detention, they just get killed. It's exactly the same process as the one you condemn Hamas for.

The only difference being, people aren't arguing that Hamas are a good thing, but you do seem to be arguing that shelling children on a beach is somehow excusable.

 

[untermensche]

It is partly Israels fault and that is a crime, to interfere in the democratic process of another people.

What does Hamas get for participating? What is it's incentive?

Israel has said it will not allow Hamas to rule even if that is what the Palestinians want.

Hamas *IS* ruling. They just know they wouldn't win another election so they aren't having another election.

Remember, also, that they only won a majority of seats--they actually took power in a coup after that.

They took power because as you say they rightfully won power in the election.

A majority of seats means you are in control. It is only a coup when the elected government takes over to blind supporters of Israeli policy.

And they were denied control of the West Bank because of Israeli interference in the process.

Israel spat on the democratic process of the Palestinians, this phoney believer in democracy.

 

[laughing dog]

Elections in Gaza as well as the West Bank are a joke. The only place in the middle East that has democratic elections are in Israel where Israeli Arabs are free to vote.

Sent from my HP 10 Plus using Tapatalk

So what does that say about the Israeli electorate who consistently vote in representatives who let the IDF shell children?

 

[angelo]

Elections in Gaza as well as the West Bank are a joke. The only place in the middle East that has democratic elections are in Israel where Israeli Arabs are free to vote.

Sent from my HP 10 Plus using Tapatalk

So what does that say about the Israeli electorate who consistently vote in representatives who let the IDF shell children?

Bad hombre's. How dare the Israelis defend themselves!!

 

[Togo]

So what does that say about the Israeli electorate who consistently vote in representatives who let the IDF shell children?

Bad hombre's. How dare the Israelis defend themselves!!

You're saying Israel shelled those children in self-defence? What kind of threat were they?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Hamas *IS* ruling. They just know they wouldn't win another election so they aren't having another election.

Remember, also, that they only won a majority of seats--they actually took power in a coup after that.

They took power because as you say they rightfully won power in the election.

A majority of seats means you are in control. It is only a coup when the elected government takes over to blind supporters of Israeli policy.

And they were denied control of the West Bank because of Israeli interference in the process.

Israel spat on the democratic process of the Palestinians, this phoney believer in democracy.

It's a coup when you throw out the opposition party at gunpoint.

 

[Jayjay]

It's ironic that at the same time you have no qualms forgetting said many and convoluted reasons and blame it all on Israel.

Sure, Hamas's intransigence is not the only reason why there haven't been elections, but it's definitely one of the main reasons. During the reconciliation efforts between Fatah and Hamas, Abbas proposed many times organizing new elections and Hamas categorically refused the idea. These calls have been silenced, presumably because Abbas's own term as president has long since expired.

It is partly Israels fault and that is a crime, to interfere in the democratic process of another people.

What does Hamas get for participating? What is it's incentive?

Israel has said it will not allow Hamas to rule even if that is what the Palestinians want.

Yet Hamas has ruled Gaza for almost ten years now. Just like Palestinians don't have to do everything Israel says, they shouldn't expect that Israel would always just play along. You are speaking as if Palestinians should somehow forget the situation they are in or that Israel even exists when they elect their leaders, which is ridiculous.

 

[Jayjay]

The issue is not Hamas's promises, but whether it delivered. Reports near election and its aftermath is not relevant, it's reporting following Hamas taking power.

Which is exactly the period I'm talking about. After they started to deliver on campaign promises, but before the civil war.

I seriously doubt that Gazans themselves are feeling safer, better eduated, or otherwise better off at any point after 2006 than they were before.

At any point? Why? You have a conflicting source?

I have none, but the overall impression I get from Gaza is that it's a hellhole.

But that's not what you're saying. Gaza has never been a great place to live, but what you're saying is that things can only have been worse, at every point, since the election of 2006. That isn't anything about Gaza being a hellhole, that's about a partisan view of Hamas versus Fatah in terms of local service provision in Gaza. I guess it's not a hugely critical point, but I thought it was worth emphasising just how far your preconceptions are leading you away from anything that might actually be supported by evidence.

Is there any reason why Hamas, whatever else you might think of them, can't have a sensible views on government workers, sanitation and healthcare, pensions liabilities and a good tax plan? Relations with Israel is an important issue, but it's not the only that people care about. Similarly, in Israel, the political groups aren't just about settlement expansion versus settlement retraction, even if the PM has to lean increasingly on the religious right and pro-settler groups to keep himself in power.

No doubt Hamas does have some ideas about good administration and reducing corruption, and that was largely the platform they ran on. But its ability to carry out these reforms is severely hampered by its ideological desire to focus on purging political opponents so that they can rule Gaza alone, and periodically starting pointless wars with Israel because they want to show off their military prowess. The civil war and the constant shooting matches with Israel are not some force of nature that just randomly happen, they are perfectly avoidable incidents that are in large part result of Hamas's policies.

I don't know very well if people in Gaza would consider themselves better off in 2005 than they are now, but I seriously doubt it.

The massive police force is to keep the people in line and suppress dissent, not law and order.

Source? Or is this just a political opinion you are taking as true?

Hamas has openly executed people without trial on the streets as warning for example.

So has Israel.

It was a political opinion ... but it turns out that it's easy to find reports to support it.

As Dissent Grows in Gaza, Hamas Tightens Its Grip

What Hamas is really afraid of

One of these is in the immediate aftermath of a civil war, the other is after operation cast lead, where the police force was largely wiped out by missile strikes.

Hamas's "police" has nothing to do with law and order, and everything to do with crushing dissent.

Well it does now, sure. Israel reserves the option shoot on sight anyone known to be a policeman, so yeah, their functions have largely been taken over by the armed brigades, who wear masks.

Maybe the reason is that the "policemen" were the same people wearing the masks. Hamas largely replaced the police force with its own loyalists, rather than keeping it separate from their political party.

Imagine if Jeb Bush became president, and his first executive order was to fire all policemen in America who are not members of the Tea Party or something, and hire his own private militias to fill the gap. Because that's pretty much what happened in Gaza.

There is no comparison to Israel... if Israel detains someone,

But in Gaza Israel doesn't detain people. It just shoots them.

It detains way more than shoots, and the shooting incidents are usually something that happens in a heat of a moment during riots. Not like lynch mobs (though Israel does have those as evidenced by last summer's events), which is what Hamas's police force is. Of course actual wars are different issue, here were are talking about how Hamas treats Palestinians.

That's precisely why we're here on a thread discussing the shelling of children on the beach. Because Israel decided it was a military beach. There's no due process, no detention, they just get killed. It's exactly the same process as the one you condemn Hamas for.

The only difference being, people aren't arguing that Hamas are a good thing, but you do seem to be arguing that shelling children on a beach is somehow excusable.

War is hell, but that incident is hardly relevant to Hamas's policing its own people.

 

[angelo]

Bad hombre's. How dare the Israelis defend themselves!!

You're saying Israel shelled those children in self-defence? What kind of threat were they?

In all probability the terrorist shelled Israeli civilians first. Israel has to retaliate otherwise they become sitting ducks for these despicable terrorist that no nation on earth would put up with. Hamas loves to see children killed or injured.
The propaganda is invaluable to them.

 

[Togo]

I don't know very well if people in Gaza would consider themselves better off in 2005 than they are now, but I seriously doubt it.

Do you have any reasoning behind your opinion other than a personal dislike of the ruling party?

Hamas's "police" has nothing to do with law and order, and everything to do with crushing dissent.

Well it does now, sure. Israel reserves the option shoot on sight anyone known to be a policeman, so yeah, their functions have largely been taken over by the armed brigades, who wear masks.

Maybe the reason is that the "policemen" were the same people wearing the masks.

Um.. What you wrote is a non-sequiter. It's sort of a verbal bridge from what I was saying, but doesn't actually follow on from it in any reasoned way.

You're criticising Hamas for not having a proper police force. But you're supporting the actions of an occupying power shooting all the policeman and blowing up all the police stations. That doesn't really make sense.

Hamas largely replaced the police force with its own loyalists, rather than keeping it separate from their political party.

No, Hamas set up the police force in the first place. They were presumably loyal to the government that paid their wages. They had to be replaced with masked brigades members because Israel used the public nature of policeman to track and kill them.

Imagine if Jeb Bush became president, and his first executive order was to fire all policemen in America who are not members of the Tea Party or something,

Hamas didn't fire any policemen, unless you have an alternate source?

You don't seem to be tracking this well. You've claimed both that policeman were just Hamas brigade members in uniform, and that they were all purged for insufficient loyalty to Hamas.

There is no comparison to Israel... if Israel detains someone,

But in Gaza Israel doesn't detain people. It just shoots them.

It detains way more than shoots,

If you have a source showing that Palestinian casualties are in fact lower than arrest rates, then I'd love to see it. I suspect you made that figure up though.

and the shooting incidents are usually something that happens in a heat of a moment during riots.

As opposed to during a civil war, the criteria you were using to judge Hamas.

And since we're discussing your defence of shelling children on the beach, perhaps you can explain how that was 'heat of the moment'? It looks more like a shooting at a target of opportunity. That's consistent with IDF reports of their own activity, but inconsistent with your fond idea that the IDF only shoot people 'during riots'.

That's precisely why we're here on a thread discussing the shelling of children on the beach. Because Israel decided it was a military beach. There's no due process, no detention, they just get killed. It's exactly the same process as the one you condemn Hamas for.

The only difference being, people aren't arguing that Hamas are a good thing, but you do seem to be arguing that shelling children on a beach is somehow excusable.

War is hell, .

That's... kinda trite, don't you think?

It seems you have two possible positions. Either randomly killing civillians with high explosives is a bad thing, in which case this incident should be condemned just as strongly as Palestinian missile attacks, for exactly the same reasons. Or, 'war is hell', the shelling of children is just another consequence, and the missile attacks on Israel are just as justified. What I can't see is how you can argue that one is ok but the other is not, without betraying some kind of ideological bias.

 

[angelo]

There's no bias at all in that post is there?..

Sent from my HP 10 Plus using Tapatalk

 

[angelo]

Had the terrorist not fired rockets indiscriminately into Israel in the first place, there wouldn't have been these kinds of incidences.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33106578

 

[Jayjay]

Do you have any reasoning behind your opinion other than a personal dislike of the ruling party?

Hamas's "police" has nothing to do with law and order, and everything to do with crushing dissent.

Well it does now, sure. Israel reserves the option shoot on sight anyone known to be a policeman, so yeah, their functions have largely been taken over by the armed brigades, who wear masks.

Maybe the reason is that the "policemen" were the same people wearing the masks.

Um.. What you wrote is a non-sequiter. It's sort of a verbal bridge from what I was saying, but doesn't actually follow on from it in any reasoned way.

What I meant was, that the "police" that hamas hired were the same thugs in masks who do all the other Hamas dirty work, instead of being an independent state institution. Israel targets Hamas installations, which may have made the police stations targets as well. But it's not as if being a policeman makes one a target in peacetime.

Hamas largely replaced the police force with its own loyalists, rather than keeping it separate from their political party.

No, Hamas set up the police force in the first place. They were presumably loyal to the government that paid their wages. They had to be replaced with masked brigades members because Israel used the public nature of policeman to track and kill them.

The masked brigades existed long before. And if you are suggesting that Israel somehow treats masked Hamas commandos more leniently, you can't be serious. And again, Israel doesn't track and kill policemen during peacetime. What happens in war is entirely separate, and for that the best way to avoid casualties would be for Hamas to not start them in the first place.

Imagine if Jeb Bush became president, and his first executive order was to fire all policemen in America who are not members of the Tea Party or something,

Hamas didn't fire any policemen, unless you have an alternate source?

You don't seem to be tracking this well. You've claimed both that policeman were just Hamas brigade members in uniform, and that they were all purged for insufficient loyalty to Hamas.

I admit I have no source for composition of gaza's police force. my prejudice is entirely against the type of militant gang Hamas is, and how organizations like that operate.

There is no comparison to Israel... if Israel detains someone,

But in Gaza Israel doesn't detain people. It just shoots them.

It detains way more than shoots,

If you have a source showing that Palestinian casualties are in fact lower than arrest rates, then I'd love to see it. I suspect you made that figure up though.

There are tens of thousands of Palestinian prisoners in Israel. The casualties from police operations are bound to be several orders of magnitude less. Military operations like the ones in Gaza are not relevant to the point of how a civilian police force should operate.

and the shooting incidents are usually something that happens in a heat of a moment during riots.

As opposed to during a civil war, the criteria you were using to judge Hamas.

The difference is between shooting someone during a riot for example, and detaining them and then murdering them to make an example out of them.

That's precisely why we're here on a thread discussing the shelling of children on the beach. Because Israel decided it was a military beach. There's no due process, no detention, they just get killed. It's exactly the same process as the one you condemn Hamas for.

The only difference being, people aren't arguing that Hamas are a good thing, but you do seem to be arguing that shelling children on a beach is somehow excusable.

War is hell, .

That's... kinda trite, don't you think?

But it's accurate. If we are discussing Hamas police actions, Israeli military strikes are not a fair comparison. Israel's or any other country's civilian police actions are.

Otherwise, should we count randomly fired rockets by Hamas as part of their "policing" as well? Including when they accidentally kill children.

 

[angelo]

It seems there's one rule for the terrorist another for the Israeli. That's pure new hatred surfacing to the top!!

Sent from my HP 10 Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Arctish]

It seems there's one rule for the terrorist another for the Israeli. That's pure new hatred surfacing to the top!!

Sent from my HP 10 Plus using Tapatalk

What do you propose as the single standard we should use when judging the actions of Israelis and Palestinians alike?

 

[angelo]

It's about time the world stopped being hoodwinked by these terrorist who say one thing in English, like talking of peace, while talking up terrorist acts in Arabic! Make no mistake, there will never be peace in that locality until every last Jew is either killed or converted! The hamas charter is the very same muslim brotherhood one. From the river to the sea.

 

[Togo]

Do you have any reasoning behind your opinion other than a personal dislike of the ruling party?

Hamas's "police" has nothing to do with law and order, and everything to do with crushing dissent.

Well it does now, sure. Israel reserves the option shoot on sight anyone known to be a policeman, so yeah, their functions have largely been taken over by the armed brigades, who wear masks.

Maybe the reason is that the "policemen" were the same people wearing the masks.

Um.. What you wrote is a non-sequiter. It's sort of a verbal bridge from what I was saying, but doesn't actually follow on from it in any reasoned way.

What I meant was, that the "police" that hamas hired were the same thugs in masks who do all the other Hamas dirty work, instead of being an independent state institution.

Well, no, they weren't. We can tell this because the brigade membership remained steady during this period, while the police were recruited openly and their identities a matter of public record. It's possible that some policeman were also working part-time as brigade members, and drawing two paychecks, but not as a general rule.

What you may have meant is that the policeman were the same 'sort' of people who join brigades.

Israel targets Hamas installations, which may have made the police stations targets as well. But it's not as if being a policeman makes one a target in peacetime.

Why not? They're classed as enemy combatants, and you've been arguing quite happily that that's enough to justify shelling such targets in peacetime, even when they turn out to be children playing on the beach.

...And again, Israel doesn't track and kill policemen during peacetime.

It classes them as enemy combatants, and we've just established that Israel feels justifies shelling them in peacetime. That's why we have the dead children that this thread was about. Israel uses the same argument that you're using right now - that policeman are just people who work for Hamas, and thus are probably terrorists. It tracks all 'enemy combatants', and reserves the right to kill them whenever it feels like it.

Imagine if Jeb Bush became president, and his first executive order was to fire all policemen in America who are not members of the Tea Party or something,

Hamas didn't fire any policemen, unless you have an alternate source?

You don't seem to be tracking this well. You've claimed both that policeman were just Hamas brigade members in uniform, and that they were all purged for insufficient loyalty to Hamas.

I admit I have no source for composition of gaza's police force. my prejudice is entirely against the type of militant gang Hamas is, and how organizations like that operate.

Ok, so you already know that Hamas has the same kind of split that you often find in these situations. That there's a difference between active brigade members, which carry out a variety of activities from sabotage and smuggling to outright rocket attacks, some of which are affiliated or associated with Hamas, and Hamas the civilian government they set up when elected, who teach in the schools, clean the streets, keep the water and sewage working, and employ tens of thousands of people. The IRA had the same thing, with Gerry Adams and Sinn Fein on the one side, running for election and making speeches, and various militant gangs and groups on the other. The main difference being that the IRA didn't win an election outright or get to run anything, and thus didn't have to set up a full government.

What you won't be doing is confusing anyone associated with the government of a country of a little under 2million people as being a member of the armed brigades, even if they are part of the same political party.

One of the reasons why Israel's insistence on labelling civic policemen (and indeed Hamas politicians) as 'enemy combatants' is significant is because it means they can simply shoot them whenever they feel like it. The shelling of the beach was an example of this - it's classed by Israel as 'enemy combatants' so they can carry out lethal attacks without warning. And children die as a result.

Otherwise, should we count randomly fired rockets by Hamas as part of their "policing" as well? Including when they accidentally kill children.

If you insist. Policing was a point you raised, to argue that they weren't real policeman because they were er... employed by the elected government. It doesn't really help, because no one is defending rocket attacks in the same way that you're defending the beach shelling.

 

[Jayjay]

Do you have any reasoning behind your opinion other than a personal dislike of the ruling party?

Hamas's "police" has nothing to do with law and order, and everything to do with crushing dissent.

Well it does now, sure. Israel reserves the option shoot on sight anyone known to be a policeman, so yeah, their functions have largely been taken over by the armed brigades, who wear masks.

Maybe the reason is that the "policemen" were the same people wearing the masks.

Um.. What you wrote is a non-sequiter. It's sort of a verbal bridge from what I was saying, but doesn't actually follow on from it in any reasoned way.

What I meant was, that the "police" that hamas hired were the same thugs in masks who do all the other Hamas dirty work, instead of being an independent state institution.

Well, no, they weren't. We can tell this because the brigade membership remained steady during this period, while the police were recruited openly and their identities a matter of public record. It's possible that some policeman were also working part-time as brigade members, and drawing two paychecks, but not as a general rule.

What you may have meant is that the policeman were the same 'sort' of people who join brigades.

Israel targets Hamas installations, which may have made the police stations targets as well. But it's not as if being a policeman makes one a target in peacetime.

Why not? They're classed as enemy combatants, and you've been arguing quite happily that that's enough to justify shelling such targets in peacetime, even when they turn out to be children playing on the beach.

...And again, Israel doesn't track and kill policemen during peacetime.

It classes them as enemy combatants, and we've just established that Israel feels justifies shelling them in peacetime. That's why we have the dead children that this thread was about. Israel uses the same argument that you're using right now - that policeman are just people who work for Hamas, and thus are probably terrorists. It tracks all 'enemy combatants', and reserves the right to kill them whenever it feels like it.

Imagine if Jeb Bush became president, and his first executive order was to fire all policemen in America who are not members of the Tea Party or something,

Hamas didn't fire any policemen, unless you have an alternate source?

You don't seem to be tracking this well. You've claimed both that policeman were just Hamas brigade members in uniform, and that they were all purged for insufficient loyalty to Hamas.

I admit I have no source for composition of gaza's police force. my prejudice is entirely against the type of militant gang Hamas is, and how organizations like that operate.

Ok, so you already know that Hamas has the same kind of split that you often find in these situations. That there's a difference between active brigade members, which carry out a variety of activities from sabotage and smuggling to outright rocket attacks, some of which are affiliated or associated with Hamas, and Hamas the civilian government they set up when elected, who teach in the schools, clean the streets, keep the water and sewage working, and employ tens of thousands of people. The IRA had the same thing, with Gerry Adams and Sinn Fein on the one side, running for election and making speeches, and various militant gangs and groups on the other. The main difference being that the IRA didn't win an election outright or get to run anything, and thus didn't have to set up a full government.

What you won't be doing is confusing anyone associated with the government of a country of a little under 2million people as being a member of the armed brigades, even if they are part of the same political party.

One of the reasons why Israel's insistence on labelling civic policemen (and indeed Hamas politicians) as 'enemy combatants' is significant is because it means they can simply shoot them whenever they feel like it. The shelling of the beach was an example of this - it's classed by Israel as 'enemy combatants' so they can carry out lethal attacks without warning. And children die as a result.

Otherwise, should we count randomly fired rockets by Hamas as part of their "policing" as well? Including when they accidentally kill children.

If you insist. Policing was a point you raised, to argue that they weren't real policeman because they were er... employed by the elected government. It doesn't really help, because no one is defending rocket attacks in the same way that you're defending the beach shelling.

No, the policing was a point you raised as an example of Hamas's political platform that got them elected. You brought it up, I just went along. Maybe the Hamas police force does reduce crim,e maybe it doesn't, but all in all the point remains that Gaza is probably way worse off now thanks to Hamas, than it was before. I struggle to find any indication that Gazans would be feeling better about their overall quality of life. In fact, polls seem to suggest the opposite:

Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip, who have been cut off from food, medical care, and other essentials from the West Bank since Hamas took over the region in June 2007, are most likely to say their standard of living is getting worse. Sixty-two percent of Palestinians living in Gaza say so, vs. 49% of Palestinians living in the West Bank, and 39% of Palestinians living in East Jerusalem.

The poll was conducted in summer of 2007.

And unlike you claim, the shelling on the beach that is the point of this thread did not happen during peacetime. Israel hit the wrong target, but so did Hamas. That has absolutely nothing to do with the police state Hamas is running in Gaza. The problem is not so much that Hamas is not capable of carrying out reforms, and it does have to reward its supporters somehow, but all of its "social programs" are subservient to its militant cause. In this sense it's much more like Hezbollah than IRA.

 

[laughing dog]

You're saying Israel shelled those children in self-defence? What kind of threat were they?

In all probability the terrorist shelled Israeli civilians first. Israel has to retaliate otherwise they become sitting ducks for these despicable terrorist that no nation on earth would put up with. Hamas loves to see children killed or injured.
The propaganda is invaluable to them.

Results speak louder than words. Apparently the IDF is happy to oblige Hamas in its efforts.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In all probability the terrorist shelled Israeli civilians first. Israel has to retaliate otherwise they become sitting ducks for these despicable terrorist that no nation on earth would put up with. Hamas loves to see children killed or injured.
The propaganda is invaluable to them.

Results speak louder than words. Apparently the IDF is happy to oblige Hamas in its efforts.

Because they know that not shooting back means more rockets.