Slashdot Mirror
The High-Tech Warfare Behind the Israel - Hamas Conflict
Taco Cowboy writes The Israel — Hamas conflict in Gaza is not only about bombs, missiles, bullets, but also about cyberwarfare, battles of the mind over social media, smart underground tunnels and cloud-based missile launching systems. The tunnels that Hamas has dug deep beneath Gaza are embedded with high tech gadgets, courtesy of Qatar, which has funded Hamas with billions to equipped their tunnels with intelligent sensors which are networked to control centers enabling the command and control staff to quickly notify operatives nearby that IDF units are advancing inside a certain tunnel, allowing for rapid deployment of attack units and the setting up of bobby traps inside the tunnel.
In addition, Hamas has automated its rocket firing system using networked, cloud-based launching software provided by Qatar which can set off a rocket from any distance, and set them to go off at a specific time, using timers. "Anyone who thinks they have dozens of people sitting next to launchers firing rockets each time there is a barrage is mistaken," said Aviad Dadon, a senior cyber-security adviser at several Israeli government ministries. While Doha is allowing Hamas to use its technology to fight Israel, it's their own cyber-security the leaders of Qatar are worried about. For the Qataris, the war between Israel and Hamas is a proving ground to see how their investments in cyber systems have paid of — Qatar is very worried that one of its Gulf rivals — specifically Saudi Arabia — will use technology to attack it, and Qatar spends a great deal of money each year on shoring up its cyber-technology.
In addition, Hamas has automated its rocket firing system using networked, cloud-based launching software provided by Qatar which can set off a rocket from any distance, and set them to go off at a specific time, using timers. "Anyone who thinks they have dozens of people sitting next to launchers firing rockets each time there is a barrage is mistaken," said Aviad Dadon, a senior cyber-security adviser at several Israeli government ministries. While Doha is allowing Hamas to use its technology to fight Israel, it's their own cyber-security the leaders of Qatar are worried about. For the Qataris, the war between Israel and Hamas is a proving ground to see how their investments in cyber systems have paid of — Qatar is very worried that one of its Gulf rivals — specifically Saudi Arabia — will use technology to attack it, and Qatar spends a great deal of money each year on shoring up its cyber-technology.
Just another article that makes big claims yet shockingly thin on any details. How are we on /. meant to have any discussion on this when there's nothing tech-worthy - just some questionable allegations.
Weird. I'm quite sure there was a conflict even before Hamas existed.
If Hamas were funded with billions, they would not be limited to firing 500-Euro worth DIY rockets... But then again the article is from "timesofisrael.com", which I suspect is a strong believer in the idea that the entire world is conspiring to help Hamas bring terror over Israel, and whoever thinks otherwise is obviously promoting antisemitism. /. was not about promoting a particular political agenda - even if it is thrown a thin "tech" veil...
I thought
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
I wasn't aware British police was active in Gaza.
Although there's a measure of efficacy that can only be achieved in real time conflict, there's a downside.
The technology is also exposed to your enemy, theoretically allowing different defense methods to be tested.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
That's not an article about the high tech warfare behind the Israel-Hamas conflict. It's an article about the alleged use of some pretty run-of-the-mill technology by one side (Hamas) with no reference to the actual sophisticated technology used by the other side (Israel). If the article in itself isn't necessarily so, the phrasing of the headline and the summary here is an attempt to portray this conflict as something other than the massively one-sided affair that it actually is. It's a whitewash pure and simple. I wish both sides would just stop killing each other but seriously, "cloud-based launching software"? So Hamas can launch unguided rockets without having to stand next to them. Sounds pretty nasty compared to sophisticated air defence, MBTs, total air superiority and massed artillery.
oh, please, just stop trying to justify what Israel is doing. They didn't even really know who actually killed those three people when they started bombing. They still don't know.
If this discussion is going to descend in to 'Hamas as terrorists' then we should recognise the use of the word 'terrorism' as an adjective used to vilify one side and make an opposing side seem legitimate. The American revolutionaries were also considered terrorists as was Ghandi and Nelson Mandela. However, I don’t support Hamas’ use of violence to further their desire for a sovereign state. In fact, the state of Israel itself was founded a ‘terrorist organisation’ - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J... "The moment Hamas stops shooting, IDF stops shooting, period." - well that's great. But you realise Hamas are firing because they live in an occupation and under siege? They'll stop fighting when Israel pursues a 2-state strategy with sincerity. Israel has ignored its commitment to a 2-state solution in 2009. In 2012 it made agreements for a ceasefire but began laying siege to Gaza and throughout 2013 largely ignored any attempts of establishing peace (note: during this period Hamas had not killed or kidnapped a single Israeli civilian). In April this year, the talks collapsed as Abbas sought Palestinian membership in 15 UN conventions and reconciled with Hamas, and Israel made a surprise announcement of plans for 700 new settlements and refused to free a last batch of Palestinian prisoners which included Israeli-Arab citizens. That was April this year, before any of this conflict. Israel made clear it doesn't want Palestinians to pursue a non-violent route to statehood either. There you have it, if Israel wants peace it must offer the Palestinians what they have a right to - a fully functioning state with control over its own future. Don't call them Hamas terrorists for pursuing what they're entitled to and have been brutally denied even when seeking it peacefully.
"Anyone who thinks they have dozens of people sitting next to launchers firing rockets each time there is a barrage is mistaken,"
So let me see if I understand what you're saying: A bunch of guys who are at war set up a rocket launcher with a timer, then go away leaving it unguarded so that anyone can walk up to it and, oh, I don't know, shut it off, blow it up, steal it, etc.?
Gimme a break.
Exactly. Once they stop defending their homeland and surrender to the occupying forces the conflict will stop.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
Since when is Slashdot a pro Israel propaganda outlet? This "story" about Hamas' high tech weapons is supposed to make Israel's genocidal orgy look justified?
Fuck. That.
The summary says Qatar is worried of being attacked and overtaken in a technological arms race, by Saudi Arabia. Really? Since when?
From TFA:
I'd like something a little more substantive to back this up. The paragraph concludes:
Sorry, I gotta take any news value coming from TFA with a chunk of salt.
You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
The sole source of information for the article is "Aviad Dadon of Israeli cyber-security firm AdoreGroup." Is that an independent source?
What do most Americans know about the background to the Israel Palestinian conflict, which has been going for 67 years?
Sure, I'm willing to believe that Hamas has some technology behind what they're doing, but it surely can't be anywhere near as advanced as what the IDF has. The Israel / Hamas conflict is about as mismatched as it would be if the US went to war with Bolivia. I'm sure if that happened, some people in the American press would point out that the Bolivians have rifles, while forgetting to mention that we have nuclear subs and airfraft carriers.
Facts have a liberal bias.
The first wide spread use of the word "terrorist" in mass-media afaik is in German second world war propaganda to describe the Soviet partisans on the Eastern front.
Every European with an inkling of historical knowledge is going to look at any state calling any group "terrorists" with at least a modicum of suspicion.
As an aside, does anyone else see some similarities in the current situation in the West-bank/Gaza and the Jewish uprising in the ghetto of Warsaw?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
"A plague on both your houses" = "I've no idea what your problems are and I can't be bothered to find out". Or very often anyway.
How the hell did this piece of unsubstantiated propagandic crap make it into the Slashdot feed?
Straight from a "reliable" Israeli source, no less.
How about this one?
Israeli military announce they will bomb al-Shifa hospital in Gaza
The difference between those two stories? The second one is probably true, and it shows the true face of this conflict.
Also, please remember who set up Hamas in the first place. (Hint: It wasn't Palestine.)
Gaza started as only a city. It's history is long and colorful, and smattered with conquests by many other civilizations, including Egypt, the Byzantines, the Ottomans, the Asyrians, Great Britain, and many others, the list goes on, spanning about 4000 years. It wasn't until the 20th century that Gaza was officially given to the Palestinians as anything more than a mere conquered (many times over), city, and it wasn't until 1948, that a Palestinian government, was officially recognized by the world at large as anything but a band of nomadic tribes, wandering around the Middle East.
Until 1948, Palestine was a part of Israel, within it's borders, even though modern times didn't recognize Israel as it's own political entity, history shows Israel something larger than a mere city for more than 5000 years. Yes, it has also changed hands over the centuries, but by and far, it's been governed by the same people far longer than Gaza was by the Palestinians.
It was 20th century politics and the UN that finally enacted a Palestine, and it was the UN that gave more than just a city to the Palestinians. The Palestinians have been fighting a war to take over more than what's theirs for far longer than any can remember, and they've been in another country's/state's land wandering around homeless until the 20th century.
This is not about religion, or religious ideologies, it's about politics, and empire building. The Israeli's have had control of that land for far longer than any one civilization, it's part of their territory, they were forced to give it up by the UN, who really have no true authority to give an other's real estate away. The Palestinian government, and by that governance, the people, have been aggressors against the government and people who, historically, have controlled that territory longer than anyone else in history.
Who's right? Who's wrong? I don't know, but history is quite an eye opener.
Seriously? Two state solution? Refresh my memory - who is it who has *rejected* a 2-state solution repeatedly? Because I'm pretty sure it wasn't Israel.
Palestinians rejected 2-state proposals in 1937 and 1947 which were *accepted* by the Jewish leadership. Why? Because the Arabs were too busy shouting that Israel had no right to exist. Then the Arab-Israeli war (1948) and the Six day war (1967), as well as a constant stream of attacks and sabotage by Palestinian militants convinced Israel that the Arabs had no real interest in negotiations or peace - in fact, Hamas' charter specifically names their objective:
In more recent years, Israel has stated its willingness to give up nearly the entirety of the lands they gained in 1967 in exchange for peaceful coexistence, but even that isn't good enough - the rockets keep falling, and the bombs keep exploding.
But yeah, given Israel's history - of both being willing to accept a 2-state solution, and defending themselves against attacks by organizations hell-bent on their destruction, I can see how you'd conclude that Israel is the one who is dead-set on not accepting a 2-state solution.
But please, bring up settlements now. Let's talk about the settlements that Israel evacuated in the Sinai and Gaza when it withdrew from those territories. Do you really think if they actually felt the Palestinian leaders were *serious* about recognizing Israel and living peacefully alongside them, that the Israeli government would - for a single second - hesitate to evacuate the other settlements as well?
What kinds of utter BS propaganda is this?
Did you know
>>The military announced early Sunday that 23-year-old Hadar Goldin of the Givati infantry brigade had been killed in battle on Friday.
So they bombed away and killed 35+ Palestinians on a lie. Buddy wasn't kidanpped he was killed in battle.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Why is it our media (even this post) always seems to portray Hamas in a positive light?
Wait a minute. Where is this summary even remotely pro-anything but technology? It's simply outlining the high tech that's being employed in this conflict, it by no means draws any conclusions of that conflict.
I personally feel the post is in just the right context for a /. article, its about technology, not about who's using it (though there's talk of who's supplied whom, but still fails to cast a good or bad tilt on it.)
Not even a week ago: Gaza's Only Power Plant Knocked Offline
Hamas can't even power their social media campaign (i.e. their lifeblood) continuously, but we're supposed to believe they can coordinate rocket fire over the same internet while also deploying Aperture science into their tunnels?
And this from an unnamed IDF contractor talking to a media outlet that has quite literally called for the genocide of Palestinians?
Good job, guys.
History suggests this would not be the case. After the 2012 ceasefire no rockets were fired at Israel for 3 months, not one, yet Israel continued to attacked Gaza with 287 documented vioations.
There are no settlers in Gaza.
This conflict didn't start in Gaza. It started in the West Bank, with the murder of three teenage settlers. Then Israel accused Hamas of the murder (based on no evidence whatsoever) and proceeded to arrest hundreds of people. Only then did the conflict spread to Gaza.
Mod this propaganda.
Korma: Good
The amazing thing about propagandists is that one day they'll tell us how great Gaza is and how Palestinians are all liars who want to make it sound like they have it bad (http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.567496). Then the next they'll come and tell us that Gaza has been chaotic since 2005, presumable because Palestinians are too dumb for self-rule. Plus you have to define 'pulled out completely'. It seems to me that the IDF has been reentering Gaza periodically since 2005 and that Israel still maintains a large degree of control over what and who gets to enter and leave Gaza. They just realized that it was much easier to cordon off the area and do some "grass mowing" (seriously, that's how they refer to it) from time to time, rather than directly maintain occupation in the midst of a hostile population and widespread international condemnation.
I live in Israel, in an area which is inside the "green line" (i.e. - it was Israel since 1948). All around the town I live in are Arab cities, all of them also inside the green line, all of their inhabitants Israeli citizens with equal rights to me (though some missing obligations). If a two state solution is scheduled to go through (and unless "areas exchange" change that), all of those currently Israeli citizens are scheduled to remain so.
I suggest you get your facts straight when claiming separation on ethnicity. I am literally[1] holding my breath waiting for your apology for wrongly using "apartheid".
As for the area being small: I'm anxiously waiting to hear your proposed solution. I'm sure it is going to be enlightened, grounded on facts and peaceful.
Shachar
1 - Obviously, I'm not literally holding my breath. Since, however, I don't expect you to apologies either, the two parts of the sentence are equally true.
I always find the "genocide" mantra strange.
Pick any place in the world where a "genocide" accusation was levied, and you get a death count in the hundreds of thousands at least. Over the past decade, less than ten thousand Palestinian were killed by Israel (this number includes Palestinian killed while holding and using a weapon, which would not, normally, be counted in the "genocide" statistics). If Israel is committing genocide, why is the death toll so low?
Either Israel is attempting genocide, but is being completely incompetent about it, or the genocide accusation is pure bullshit.
Shachar
Two-state solution = apartheid. Would the ANC have accepted a two-state solution in South Africa, which would only have vindicated the racist ideology of white South Africans who claimed that blacks and whites had to be separate? That's something that pro-Israel people never understand. Whenever someone says 'apartheid', they'll talk to you about the Arab minority in Israel, which completely misses the point. Apartheid, in this case, refers to the fact that, in the area that is historically known as Palestine, there is apartheid in that the goal is to have a Jewish state and a Palestinian state even though both groups believe that they have claims over the entire land.
This is why it's very different from many other conflicts: in Ukraine, for instance, you could potentially partition the land since you have a rather clear line dividing east and west over language and political views. Same in (South) Sudan for instance where you could separate majority Muslim populations from majority Christian ones. Not so much in Palestine, at least if you go back to 1946 before there were large population transfers.
If you look at population statistics from that era, you find that Palestinians outnumbered Jews virtually everywhere. If you had had a free and fair referendum and assuming that people would have voted along ethnic lines (why would Jews vote against having their own state, why would Palestinians decide that they wanted to be ruled by Jews), the Jewish state would have been the Jaffa region, period. And that's a huge problem. The right to self-determination is not only for white people, even though it took Western countries close to 20 years to finally realize that. The Jewish people certainly had the right to go to Palestine, purchase land following willing-buyer-willing-seller principles and perhaps one day become a majority there. I believe in open borders, so I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is when people claim that the fact that their ancestors may or may not have been forced to leave that area 2000 years ago means that they now have a right to exclude people who are currently living there. We all have roots somewhere in modern-day Kenya, that doesn't mean it's now okay for me to go and colonize that place. There's been invasions, etc. for thousands of years everywhere on earth and we don't go back 2000 or 3000 years to see who *really* has a claim on the land.
Is it Hamas, because the 'evil Jew' refuses to make peace? And because they were there before the Jews came? Is it the 'evil Jews", because they were there before the Ottoman Empire practically kicked them out if they didn't want to convert to Islam? At least here we know that Judaism existed first.
Just like the native american indians existed first in the US before they were fucked over by the european settlers who now rule the country and own all the land? if every country had to go back to the borders it had last time the Jewish people were actually in the promised land then the world would be very different. That is never going to happen though, and most people would not want it to.
The two state solution involves pretty much drawing the borders where they are now with the exception of Jerusalem. Jerusalem is sacred ground to Christianity, Islam and Judaism so the only fair option is that it is ruled by no single religion and is shared by all as the cradle of all religions. This is simply the only fair option.
Sure, there are extremists on the arab side who would like to drive into the sea, they have to realise that simply will not happen. There are also people within Israel though who view the promised land, as handed down to the Jews by god as sacred and that includes all the land between the Nile and the Euphrates rivers, these people also have to realise that driving that many Arabs from their current homes is also out of the question. Once all parties back away from these extremes only then will there be peace.
I dont read
Why is it our media (even this post) always seems to portray Hamas in a positive light?
This conflict would end the SECOND Hamas stopped their aggression. The moment Hamas stops shooting, IDF stops shooting, period. Hamas lies and has no moral honor, they betray everything, and want nothing less than to wipe other people off the face of the earth. How is that humanitarian and moral? And yet the western media doesn't portray that side of the story!
Your naivete would be cute if it wasn't for all the dead children!
Israel will not stop when Hamas stops firing rockets. I suspect Israel will stop the slaughter the moment when the Palestinians cede ownership of their natural gas fields to Israel for free. http://www.globalresearch.ca/w...
Also, how do you know these things about Hamas if the medias doesn't cover it? Of course the media covers Hamas's acts of terror. The part that is lacking is the fact that vast majority of Hamas's terror is aimed at Palestinians who belong to rival factions or who don't pay their protection dues on time.
if every country had to go back to the borders it had last time the Jewish people were actually in the promised land then the world would be very different. That is never going to happen though, and most people would not want it to.
So, because they were successfully exterminated long enough ago, they lose all rights?
Learn to love Alaska
Two-state solution = apartheid.
So the USA and Canada are in apartheid? It's a two-state solution, by treaty, after wars and skirmishes.
Same as the US and Mexico.
The two-state solutions I've seen were more like India/Pakistan. And not ideal, it was better than the one-state solution (so say the historians).
Learn to love Alaska
Hamas seems to recruit children really early, these days.
Why is it our media (even this post) always seems to portray Hamas in a positive light?
Coverage I've seen usually consists of an interview with an Israeli followed by the same interview with a Palestinian ... both questioned, both spew the very same tired talking points day in and day out which Interviewer is mostly disinclined to follow up on even in instances where they know or should know information provided is misleading or false.
This conflict would end the SECOND Hamas stopped their aggression.
I assume Palestinians say conflict would end the second Israeli's stop making their lives miserable.
So what's the problem? Seems easy enough to give both sides what they want...
Unless true motives are couched in fundamentally indefensible geopolitical calculations....but ... but this could... never.. I mean.... how many of you really deep down in your hearts believed the US went to war with Iraq because of fears of terrorists and Mushroom clouds? This is what leaders continuously do throughout recorded history. They spout bullshit for public consumption... and sadly people regurgitate it as if rooting for a sporting event.
Hamas lies and has no moral honor, they betray everything, and want nothing less than to wipe other people off the face of the earth.
When old Ben comes on US television waving his arm asserting there is no blockade when questioned it would seem to me Hamas is not the only liar.
How is that humanitarian and moral? And yet the western media doesn't portray that side of the story!
More people are routinely killed in a single hour of Israeli strikes than over a decade and a half of rocket bombardments from Gaza. You tell me.
Both sides are a bunch of immoral inhuman assholes if you want my opinion. Why doesn't the western media portray that side of the story!
You can't expect them to collaborate with their 'enemy'
The only thing they can do is guerilla warfare or agree to the occupation.
If they didn't have the support from the palestinian public eg: if Israel was actually civil
with these people instead of raiding them en masse and 'interrogating' their children then Hamas
wouldn't exist as it is now anyway. Punishing everybody for the crimes of a few is wrong policy.
Threat the people like people, work your informants
and send special ops to the actual terrorists, that's how you get them.
Some of the offices in the building I work in have "high-tech sensors" that tell them when the door opens inward by ringing a little bell. They're dangling pieces of metal that hit a momentary switch tied to a doorbell ringer. Are those the "high-tech" devices described in such detail in the article?
fencepost
just a little off
Genocide? Really? When Hamas stores and fires missiles from civilian centers, what is Israel supposed to do? Politely ask Hamas to step away from their human shields.
I don't know who said this but it sums the situation up quite clearly: "Israel uses missiles to protect its civilians. Hamas uses civilians to protect its missiles".
You would like to live in a world where "nation state" is a dead concept. Regardless of whether I think this is a good aim or not, a simple look at the facts will show you it is not a practical aim.
There are very few states in the world which are not "nation states". Most of those are binational states or multi-national states. They don't fare very well. In the best case end of the spectrum you have Canada and Finland, where it sort-of works, but is very far from the ideal you're trying to paint. On the worst end of the spectrum you have Czechoslovakia and, in particular, Lebanon (which has spent about half of the past century in civil wars).
Then there are non-national states. America is, formally, one. A simple look at a dollar bill will show you just how much it isn't. While it did start out as immigrants' land, we now have an "American nationality", with typical religion, language, and a way of thought that is an American as apple pie.
The only non-national state I can think of which is successful in being one is Australia, in fact. It only does so by celebrating and enshrining the differences. This is something most people are not easily up to.
People tend to group around people who are like them. It's a human thing. I think it is pointless to fight it.
Shachar
Canada gives you more points if you speak French. The USA requires that you speak English in order to get accepted. In fact, language is a factor for many of the countries you specify.
I will, however, concede a mistake on the immigration policy. It seems (preliminary, I'm still looking into it) that around 2005 the European union decided that's unethical, and has been forcing member states to forego those policies. Today these policies are much less evident than they were.
Which does not mean this is, necessarily, a good thing. I'll tell you what. Let's wait ten more years. If the European union is still around, the member states have not turned Muslim, and these rules are still in effect, let's talk again.
You also said this, however:
This is manifestly and provably wrong. About a decade ago the government decided to start stricter enforcement against illigal immigrant workers. That enforcement exposed a problem: many of those had children born in Israel, speaking Hebrew as their primary language, and being, for all intent and purposes, Israeli. The enforcement meant they were being extradicted to a country they have never even seen.
This resulted in a public outcry. The result is a law that was passed in 2006, that gave illegal residents citizenship under certain conditions. There are not many Indians who enjoyed this law, but you will find plenty of Chinese and African desent people who received citizenship.
There are few things of note here, all totally refuting your assertion of a racist Jew only state. The first is that they did not receive citizenship through some fluke or loophole. The law was changed in particular to allow them to receive it. The second was that this was not some lone legistlator's initiative. This was a result of a public outcry. This is what the country is about. I don't know anyone who thinks this undermines or contradict the Zionist aim.
Being Jewish isn't a racial trait. Discriminating based on it, however, is racist. I didn't think you'd be anal enough to care about this distinction, so I didn't bother making it.
Shachar
I always find the "genocide" mantra strange.
Pick any place in the world where a "genocide" accusation was levied, and you get a death count in the hundreds of thousands at least. Over the past decade, less than ten thousand Palestinian were killed by Israel (this number includes Palestinian killed while holding and using a weapon, which would not, normally, be counted in the "genocide" statistics). If Israel is committing genocide, why is the death toll so low?
Either Israel is attempting genocide, but is being completely incompetent about it, or the genocide accusation is pure bullshit.
Shachar
genocide
noun \je-n-sd\
: the deliberate killing of people who belong to a particular racial, political, or cultural group
source: http://www.merriam-webster.com...
There is no requirement for a particular quantity of people to be killed.
blindly antisocialist = antisocial