• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

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

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail is what I believe is a (roughly) fair and balanced, Western (as in Western culture), opinion about the Israel/Palestine mess:
--------------------
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090108.wcogee09/BNStory/specialComment/home

A setback for Israel, a calamity for the Palestinians

MARCUS GEE

From Friday's Globe and Mail
January 9, 2009 at 12:00 AM EST

It is often said of the Palestinians that they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. The events in Gaza are a tragic vindication of that aphorism.

In 2005, after much agonizing, Israel withdrew unilaterally from the Gaza Strip, dismantling its military bases, pulling out its soldiers and evicting all Israeli settlers after 38 years of occupation. It was a historic moment in more ways than one.

Israel was surrendering land captured in the 1967 Six-Day War, and it was doing so without any prior peace accord such as the land-for-peace deal with Egypt over the surrender of the Sinai Peninsula.

The pullout signalled a sea change in Israeli attitudes. After decades of conflict with their immediate neighbours, the Palestinians, Israelis were eager for an end to it all. Even the hardest of hard-liners, Ariel Sharon, had come around to the view that it was time to extricate Israel from the quagmire in the occupied territories, pull back to defensible borders and leave the Palestinians to fend for themselves, even if that meant the emergence of a Palestinian state that the Israeli right had resisted for so long.

The opportunity for the Palestinians was clear. If their leaders could maintain a minimum of order in Gaza and prevent it from becoming a base for attacks on the Jewish state, Israel would gain the confidence to take the next step: withdrawal from the West Bank, home to the majority of Palestinians. As Mr. Sharon said at the time, "it is the Palestinians' turn." Gaza was to be the proving ground for the future Palestinian state. The withdrawal was a trial of their willingness and ability to become responsible neighbours.

They have failed with flying colours. Rockets from Gaza have been raining on Israel from the start. Almost as soon as the Israelis pulled out, Palestinian clans and political factions fell to fighting among themselves. A civil war broke out pitting Fatah, the traditional leadership group, against the more militant Hamas. After winning Palestinian legislative elections in 2006, Hamas seized control of Gaza in June of 2007.

This was what Israeli rightists and settlers had warned would happen: Handed over to the Palestinians, a pistol-shaped Gaza would become a deadly weapon pointed straight at the heart of Israel. Benjamin Netanyahu stalked out of the cabinet over the Gaza pullout, predicting that it would become a "huge base for terror." And so it has become. In 2005, not even the most wild-eyed zealot could have penned a scenario for Gaza as grim as what has actually taken place.

As much as that is a setback for Israel, it is a calamity for the Palestinians. If their leaders had behaved with more wisdom, they could have had their state by now, in both the West Bank and Gaza. When Israel pulled out three years ago, international donors and Palestinian exiles were queuing up to finance new roads, ports and factories. There was talk of railway lines, a rebuilt international airport and a thriving agriculture industry. Instead, Gaza remains what it's been for years: a miserable ghetto, producing nothing but extremism and hopelessness.

Much as Israelis (still) want the conflict to be over, they have lost whatever small confidence they had that the Palestinians might be tolerable neighbours. The idea of pulling out of the West Bank, only to see it become another, bigger base for terror, now seems unthinkable. Mr. Netanyahu, head of the Likud party, could return to office in next month's election on a tough program.

Israel began its current operation against militants in Gaza not with any relish, but out of despair at Palestinian failure. It knew full well that such an assault would cause angry protests in the Arab world, harsh words at the United Nations and civilian casualties that would make it look brutish in the eyes of the world. What's worse, it knew it might take all this abuse without, in the end, achieving its main goal of stopping rocket attacks against Israeli civilians. But the transformation of Gaza into a militant launching pad left it no choice but to react firmly, or face losing power to deter attacks against the Israeli homeland.

With separate Palestinian factions in charge in the West Bank and Gaza, one weak, the other shot through with hate, what is the alternative? The idea of talks leading to a Palestinian state living in peace beside Israel now seems as far fetched as at any time in years.

There is one remaining hope: that Palestinians see the disaster their leaders have wrought in Gaza and choose another course. That seems unlikely now that they are under attack, and the natural reaction is to rally around the green flag of Hamas. But maybe, just maybe, after the current violence is over, they will think again. The only way for Palestinians to get a state is to build one. The place to start is Gaza.

--------------------

It appears to me that Arabs in general and Palestinians in particular have painted themselves into a corner. They have branded the establishment of Israel as a disaster for the Arabs and the Muslims. It, and the results of the subsequent 1948 war, was, certainly, a disaster for Palestinians – many, many millions of whom still exist (live would be too strong a word) in poverty and despair and in filthy hovels in dilapidated refugee camps in rich, prosperous Arab countries – hostages to a giant but cruel public relations exercise. These Palestinians are ‘educated’ with a deep and abiding hatred for Israel (and Jews) because they ‘stole’ their homes and drove them from their gardens into these dark, dirty hell-holes.

(No one ever suggests that these hell-holes could be, at very modest costs, made into safe, clean, modern communities with good schools, hospitals, shops and gardens. To do so would be to deny the ‘catastrophe’ and to do so would lessen the ‘price’ that Palestinians, generation after generation, must pay for Zionist aggression.)

The plight of the Palestinians serves to harden the resolve of all Arabs, indeed of all Muslims and of good people everywhere. We all say: “The Palestinians need and deserve a safe home of their own.” That’s what we all said, circa 1945/48, about the displaced Jews of Europe.

There are imaginative proposals to expand Gaza and create Egyptian controlled corridors to connect the West Bank and Gaza and, thereby, create (a) coherent Palestinian state(s). But I’m afraid a short ‘corridor’ connecting Gaza to Hebron in the West Bank through populated Israel North of Beersheba is a non-starter for another couple of generations. These can come to nothing so long as the Arabs put revenge ahead of development – as it must appear to most reasonable people that they do.

The fate of the Palestinians has, over the decades, taken second place to a bigger struggle to cleanse the ummah and, more, the ‘holy places’ of the ‘stain’ of the Zionists. Thus, driving the Jews into the sea has replaced any desire to seek accommodation of the Palestinians’ legitimate grievances as the cause célèbre for most Arabs.

The Israelis, understandably, don’t want to be driven into the sea – even though, as a culturally Western ‘people’ they remain strangers in a strange land.

Despite its great military strength, I have no doubt that eventually the Arabs must win; but I am 99% certain it will, truly, be a pyrrhic victory. The Arabs will be decimated, the region will be a wasteland for centuries, Islam will be shattered, despised around the world as a religion of murder and calamity. In places like peaceful Canada mosques will be shuttered and people will abandon any thoughts of Palestinian rights; Canadian Muslims will abandon their faith, become apostates, shocked and appalled at the actions and outcomes in the Middle East – but it will all be worth it, I guess.

The Jews will disperse again – to Australia, Brazil and Canada and, and, and … and all those countries will be the richer for it.

 
As you said ER, Israel may go, but it will not go quietly.....
 
tourza said:
Would I encourage my son or daughter to explode themselves for $10 000...I'd be no better than an animal if I did. Did Palestinian parents encourage their children to explode themselves for $10 000? I don't know. But I'm pretty certain that the Palestinians (and Israelis) love their children as much as I love mine (or you love yours).

:-[

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2071561.stm

Google "Umm Nidal"  :o

▪ "I'm prepared to sacrifice my six children," said Mahmoud Sumara's mother, Halima. "I'm serious. I don't mind if I lose them if that brings back al-Aqsa..." (NBC News)

▪ "I pray that G-d will choose them (to be martyrs)," says the father of a 13-year-old. (New York Times)

▪ "I am happy that he [my 13-year-old son] has been martyred. I will sacrifice all my sons and daughters (12 in all) to Al-Aqsa and Jerusalem." (London Times)

▪ "If I had 20 children I would send them all down (to fight), I wouldn't spare any of them. We're not scared of death." (Associated Press)

Mother on PA TV, November 2004

"We encourage them to Shahada [martyrdom] for the homeland, for Allah... We don't say to the mothers of the Shahids, 'We have come to comfort you', but 'We have come to bless you on the wedding of your son, on the Shahada of your son. Congratulations to you on the Shahada...' For us, the mourning is joyous. We give out drinks, we give out sweets. Praise to God ― the mourning is joyous occasion."

Mother on PA TV, December 2002

"Before I made my pilgrimage [to Mecca], Naji [my son] put his hand on my head and said: 'Pray for me that I will be a Shahid, or it will be your sin, and I will not forgive you until the Judgment Day…' I said: "Praise Allah, my children asked for Shahada," and it is better than the way we will die."

Mother on PA TV, January 2003

"We encourage them to Shahada [martyrdom] for the homeland, for Allah... We don't say to the mothers of the Shahids, 'We have come to comfort you', but 'We have come to bless you on the wedding of your son, on the Shahada of your son. Congratulations to you on the Shahada...' For us, the mourning is joyous. We give out drinks, we give out sweets. Praise to God ― the mourning is joyous occasion."

Mother on PA TV, December 2002

"He would always dream of Shahada [martyrdom]. It was his first and last goal in life. I told him: 'Dear, we all want to be Shahids.' He said: 'In this entire world, I can't think of anyone to marry. I don't think of any girls of this world to marry. I want to marry the Dark Eyed (Virgins of Paradise).' I said: 'If these are his thoughts, I wish him Shahada.' "Praise to Allah, I hold my head high. The honor is mine, I have a son who is a Shahid [martyr]. And not only is my son a Shahid, but all the Shahids are my children, Praise Allah. The honor is mine; the pride is mine."

Mother on PA TV, November 2003

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAHHjfUxERY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEcaI7zQG3E

Want more??  :-\

Yes indeed "love" has some truley complex spins to it doesn't it?


 
tourza said:
Shec,

...I'm afraid that the mods are going to censure us for hijacking this thread...What do you think the long term implications of this attack on Gaza by the IDF will be for the Israeli people, the Palestinian people, and Hamas?

Regards.

The former is at least one thing we can agree upon.  

Now to the latter.  Sadly, the long term implication is the continuation of the on-going war that Hamas & Hezbollah's Mukawama Doctine, whether real or perceived, perpetuates with it's principles that include:

1.  peace agreements are not an option because they require the recognition of Israel's right to exist; and,
2.  cease-fires are but temporary respites to replenish.

Does that reflect the Realpolitik from my side?  I think so.  What do you think?
 
ArmyVern said:
:-[

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2071561.stm

Google "Umm Nidal"  :o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAHHjfUxERY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEcaI7zQG3E

Want more??  :-\

Yes indeed "love" has some truley complex spins to it doesn't it?

ArmyVern,

You can always find crazies in ones and twos on either side of the fence. Any parent who would wish martyrdom on their children is a parent in name only.

Is Umm Nidal a typical Palestinian parent? Most definitely not.
Was Baruch Goldstein, Rabbi Meir Kahane, or the JDL representative of the majority of the Israeli populace? Most definitely not.

Thankfully, crazies like that are the minority on both sides. We do both the Israelis and the Palestinians a disservice when we look at individuals such as Baruch Goldstein or Umm Nidal as typical of both peoples.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/25/newsid_4167000/4167929.stm

Regards.
 
tourza said:
ArmyVern,

You can always find crazies in ones and twos on either side of the fence. Any parent who would wish martyrdom on their children is a parent in name only.

Is Umm Nidal a typical Palestinian parent? Most definitely not.
Was Baruch Goldstein, Rabbi Meir Kahane, or the JDL representative of the majority of the Israeli populace? Most definitely not.

Thankfully, crazies like that are the minority on both sides. We do both the Israelis and the Palestinians a disservice when we look at individuals such as Baruch Goldstein or Umm Nidal as typical of both peoples.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/25/newsid_4167000/4167929.stm

Regards.

Curiously enough, I see none of those you've listed above (aside from the mention of Umm Nidal  ;)) santioning or encouraging children (especially their own) to carry out targetted bombings of women and children. Eerliy enough, when was the last time some leader from Hamas (who do encourage these "targetted" - that being an operative word here - murders of women and kids) blew himself up vice the poor kids & young adults they recruit only for such suicide missions?

They certainly don't put their money (ie their own bodies) on the line for this; they simply encourage others to do so; and it's quite sad that this is taken as gospel by Palestinian children as the "right" (Allah willing) thing to do with their lives. When acts like this are praised, encouraged, and glamorized and deemed "moral" as being the way to a rich afterlife with virgins waiting for you - so much so that's it's akin to a "lifestyle" ... any other society would call it brainwashing.
 
tourza said:
Rifleman62,

Did Palestinian parents encourage their children to explode themselves for $10 000? I don't know. But I'm pretty certain that the Palestinians (and Israelis) love their children as much as I love mine (or you love yours).

Tourza,

So all those video interviews with 'proud' Palestinian mothers with their kids dressed up in toy bomb vests and toy AKs, wishing/wanting their kids (hopefully when they are older) to blow up Jews is not real, and just Israeli propanda then? 

I beleive the use of children as weapons is wider than Palestine, its cultural. The carnage we had in Iraq was simply sickening, but became routine. The use of kids as bombs, mentally handicaped people as bombs, and even families as bombs, and thats to kill each other (sunni-shiite) muslims.  Life as we know it does not exist there, for theirs is an entirely different world. Look what the Taliban are doing also. I beleive that many do not have the same core values as us. Violence is a way of life in that neck of the woods, just as the sport of hockey is to us is routine in the winter. That violence was present long before 9-11, and will be there centuries from now, that is if they have not killed each other by then.  If they can't fight with a neighbouring nation, they'll fight amoung themselves. All IMHO anyways.

We all have opinions on here, but the way you think scares me, and I would not want you (or anyone with such thoughts living next to me). If you value the Hamas way of life, perhaps you are living in the wrong country.

You appear brainwashed. To say that 80% of those killed are civilians is just BS. If a combatant is in civilian clothes, with  chest  webbing filled with AK mags and a few frags, and his trusty Kalashnikov in his hands, once he is killed, his kit is passed on to another, and he now becomes a cilivian murdered by the Israelis.  The 'Hamas' use of UN ambulances as battlefield taxis etc, and the use of schools and other community buildings is cowardly, gutless, and a crime, but they will continue to commit such crimes, all for propaganda to feed more hatred to arab/muslim world.

I will not deny that innocents are caught up in this, and thats unfortunate, but thats war. Look at what happened to Caen, and that was us (Allies) that did that to the French!   That city was flattened.

Regards,

Wes

EDITed for spelling and clarity
 
Overwatch Downunder said:
Tourza,

So all those video interviews with 'proud' Palestinian mothers with their kids dressed up in toy bomb vests and toy AKs, wishing/wanting their kids (hopefully when they are older) to blow up Jews is not real, and just Israeli propanda then? 

I beleive the use of children as weapons is wider than Palestine, its cultural. The carnage we had in Iraq was simply sickening, but became routine. The use of kids as bombs, mentally handicaped people as bombs, and even families as bombs, and thats to kill each other (sunni-shiite) muslims.  Life as we know it does not exist there, for theirs is an entirely different world. Look what the Taliban are doing also. I beleive that many do not have the same core values as us. Violence is a way of life in that neck of the woods, just as the sport of hockey is to us is routine in the winter. That violence was present long before 9-11, and will be there centuries from now, that is if they have not killed each other by then.  If they can't fight with a neighbouring nation, they'll fight amoung themselves. All IMHO anyways.

We all have opinions on here, but the way you think scares me, and I would not want you (or anyone with such thoughts living next to me). If you value the Hamas way of life, perhaps you are living in the wrong country.

You appear brainwashed. To say that 80% of those killed are civilians is just BS. If a combatant is in civilian clothes, with  chest  webbing filled with AK mags and a few frags, and his trusty Kalashnikov in his hands, once he is killed, his kit is passed on to another, and he now becomes a cilivian murdered by the Israelis.  The 'Hamas' use of UN ambulances as battlefield taxis etc, and the use of schools and other community buildings is cowardly, gutless, and a crime, but they will continue to commit such crimes, all for propaganda to feed more hatred to arab/muslim world.

I will not deny that innocents are caught up in this, and thats unfortunate, but thats war. Look at what happened to Caen, and that was us (Allies) that did that to the French!   That city was flattened.

Regards,

Wes

EDITed for spelling and clarity

Wes,

I won't dignify much of what you have written in your post with a response. However, I have never said that I 'value the Hamas way of life'.

My apologies if my posts have scared you, and your sensibilities have been offended. Please rest assured that I entertain no thoughts whatsoever of relocating to Australia.

Regards.
 
Some historical background: back in the day when the real Evil Empiretm stirred up trouble all over the world

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_01_04-2009_01_10.shtml#1231474494

[David Bernstein, January 8, 2009 at 11:14pm] Trackbacks
The USSR's Role in the Middle East Goes Down the Memory Hole:

One thing I find interesting in reading various authors who discuss the history of the Arab-Israeli or Israeli-Palestinian conflict is how the role of the USSR in exacerbating the conflict, and the role of its demise in providing an opportunity for a potential settlement of the conflict, is generally completely, or almost completely, ignored. [A few sentences only tangentially on point deleted, perhaps a subject for a separate post.]

Consider, first, that Israel could have bought itself quite a bit of security if the U.S. had allowed it, France, and the UK to triumph in the Sinai War in 1956. But Eisenhower and Dulles were afraid this would drive Arab public opinion into the pro-Soviet camp.

Then consider that the East bloc secret services recruited, trained, and financed Yasser Arafat to create the violent Palestinian nationalist movement that became the PLO, starting around 1964.

After Israel emerged victorious beyond its wildest dreams in 1967, the influence of the USSR was apparent in several ways. First, the Soviet bloc led an international campaign of boycott and defamation, larded with anti-Semitism, against Israel, creating a siege mentality that has stayed with Israel ever since, and made it that much more difficult to persuade Israel, already traumatized by the Holocaust and the expulsion of Jews from Arab lands, that the "international community" is to be trusted.

Second, Israel's performance against Soviet-supplied enemies Syria and Egypt persuaded the U.S. that Israel was a regional superpower that needed to be engaged, both to further U.S. interests, and to try to keep the (nuclear-armed) country stable and secure so that it didn't inadvertantly start WWIII.

And finally, while religious fanatics were among the most zealous settlers of the West Bank, a certain level of settlment was supported virtually across Zionist party lines, due to the perceived threat of a renewed Soviet-backed war of destruction against Israel. (In part, this was due to Lyndon Johnson reneging in 1967 on American security guarantees provided by Eisenhower in 1956--Israel saw that the U.S. could not be trusted to guarantee its security.) Israeli military and political leaders believed that holding at least some parts of the West Bank gave Israel the strategic depth to ward off, or even entirely discourage, an attack from the West, which proved prescient when Jordan declined to involve itself in the Yom Kippur War.

In 1973, by the end of the Yom Kippur War, Israel had crossed the Suez canal, had a huge segment of the Egyptian military surrounded, and was prepared, if necessary, to march on Cairo (Juan Cole, displaying his usual penchant for accuracy, calls this a "draw-to-slight victory" for Egypt). Damascus was also within range. The U.S. insisted on a cease-fire, because the Soviets threatened to intervene on behalf of Egypt and Syria.

In 1977, Anwar Sadat had tired of the Soviets and had thrown them out of Egypt. When Jimmy Carter naively sought to invite the Soviets to a regional "peace conference," Sadat hastily decided to make his famous visit to Jerusalem. While Sadat and Menachem Begin had little in common, they did by this point share a loathing of the USSR--Begin had been deported from Poland and imprisoned in the Gulag by the Soviets during WWII.

Throughout the 70s and 80s, the Soviets funded every rejectionist and terrorist movement willing to take money from it. Dovish arguments in Israel were met with skepticism because of the continued role of one of the two superpowers in financing those who called for, and acted for, Israel's destruction. Meanwhile, U.S.-Israeli ties grew closer as the old socialist ethos in Israel gave way to strong anti-Soviet sentiment under Likud rule, and a generation of Israelis came of age--including a few hundred thousand Soviet Jewish refugees--with a Soviet Union sworn to their country's annihilation.

By contrast, the fall of the USSR was one of the major factors that allowed the Oslo negotiations and agreements to move forward. Without the backing of a superpower, Yasser Arafat seemed less like a potential destroyer of Israel and a lot more like a has-been terorist who would be willing to settle for what he could plausibly get. Strategic depth became less important when the Soviet's last major ally bordering on Israel, Syria, virtually collapsed militarily in the absence of Soviet aid.

This story, indeed, would likely have a happy ending, but for the rise of new ideological movement, replacing Communism, even more implacably hostile to Israel--Islamic fundamentalism. But that's another story.


In any event, ignoring the role of the USSR in the Arab-Israeli conflict vastly impoverishes our understanding of Israel's motivations over the decades. To emphasize one point above, while commenters today often assert that Israel's settlement activity on the West Bank, beyond perhaps a few locations right near Jerusalem, was either obviously foolish or a reflection of an inherently colonialist ideology, a major rationale for it at the time was to provide strategic depth against a threat ultimately emanating from the Soviets. Similarly, while many question why Israel was unwilling to try to negotiate earlier with the PLO, this becomes more understandable when one considers that the PLO was a creation of, and financed by, the Soviet Bloc, which was overtly hostile to the very existence of Israel. Similarly, Israel was reluctant to give back all or much of the West Bank to Jordan when it had the chance for fear that a Soviet-backed Palestinian coup could topple King Hussein--as almost occured in September 1970. One could surely not imagine the ideological evolution of many right-wing Israelis into the implicit acceptance of a Palestinian state if the USSR was still around to be the primary sponsor of the Palestinian cause.
 
And "non partisanship" has a strange way of showing itself:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/01/09/john-turley-ewart-on-gaza-the-canadian-arab-federation-treats-canadians-are-fools.aspx

John Turley-Ewart: Gaza exposes the Canadian Arab Federation for what it now is
Posted: January 09, 2009, 10:48 AM by John Turley-Ewart
John Turley-Ewart

For those interested in not only geo-politics but Canadian politics as well — especially how Canadian leaders respond to crises around the world — the conflict between Israel and Hamas has been instructive. It has revealed, for instance, that there is now a consensus between the Conservative government and the Liberal opposition on Gaza. Both agree that the culprit in this war is Hamas and that the end of the war depends not on Israel, but on Hamas, a terrorist group that refuses to recognize Israel and has pledged to continue firing rockets into Israeli civilian areas regardless of how many Palestinian innocents die as a result of Israel trying to stop them.

Curiously, it has also revealed that the once moderate Canadian Arab Federation is now an organization not only out of step with Canadian values, but also a body unable to come to terms with Canadian civil society and live up to its non-partisan mandate.

Consider this: the CAF is calling on the Conservative government to dismiss Peter Kent, the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, because Mr. Kent stated Hamas is to blame for the conflict and that the terrorist group uses the civilian population in Gaza as human shields. A CAF representative has said this is ``beyond ridiculous.'' Yet the CAF is not protesting in any way the position staked out by the leader of the Liberal party, Michael Ignatieff.

Mr. Ignatieff has been refreshingly blunt in stating his and his party's position on Israel. Speaking to reporters recently, the Liberal leader stated his support for Israel and that "Canada has to support the right of a democratic country to defend itself." But he did not stop there. "Israel has been attacked from Gaza, not just last year, but for almost 10 years," said Mr. Ignatieff. Moreover, he cast aside as utter nonsense Hamas's justification for it's war against Israel (and the CAF's) with a clarity that has not been evident in a Liberal leader for years: Israel "evacuated from Gaza so there is no occupation in Gaza."

Is Mr. Ignatieff's position any different from Mr. Kent's? Consider these final comments Mr. Ignatieff left with reporters when asked about the Gaza conflict:

"Hamas is a terrorist organization and Canada can't touch Hamas with a 10-foot pole."

"Hamas is to blame for organizing and instigating these rocket attacks and then for sheltering among civilian populations."

The answer is clearly no, yet the CAF's condemnation of Mr. Kent and indeed the Conservative government would lead Canadians to believe it is only Conservatives who support Israel's right of self-defence.

Could the CAF's reluctance to criticize the Liberals in fact be a partisan decision, one that stems from the fact that a former president of the CAF is now a sitting Liberal MP? Who knows? Maybe the CAF thinks it can persuade Liberals to sympathize with Hamas?

But on its Web site the CAF claims that it is "a national, non-partisan, non profit and membership-based organization which represents Canadian Arabs on issues relating to public policy. Through education, public awareness, media relations and non-partisan government relations, CAF raises awareness of domestic issues that affect our community."

The CAF's criticism of the Conservative government's position on Israel and its silence on the Liberals very same stand puts the lie to the CAF's claim to be non-partisan. It also, perhaps, reflects the CAF's inability to come to terms with the fact that civil society in Canada puts the blame for the conflict in Gaza squarely on the shoulders of Hamas, a terrorist organization that the CAF has referred to as a "legitimate" political party "resisting Israeli occupation."

What is certain in the wake of the Gaza conflict is that the CAF of old — the non-partisan organization that focussed on domestic issues rather than international ones —  is now being led by people who sympathize with a terrorist organization bent on the destruction of Israel more than the civilian victims that Hamas uses as political fodder.

Perhaps a more apt name for this group today would be the Canadian Hamas Federation.

John Turley-Ewart is the Associate Editor of the Financial Post
jturley-ewart@nationalpost.com
 
It is far more important for Palestine (and Lebanon in the south) to keep doing idiotic things like firing mindless rockets into Israel in order to keep the cycle of hatred going.  If they actually sat down and tried to work things out (which Israel seems to try over and over with no success) then their people might look around and say "hey, these idiots couldn't organize a good f$ck in a whorehouse!" and kick them out.  Better to keep people miserable, scared and looking at the mud than give them some hope and looking around.  Hamas could have the world clamoring around to pump millions of dollars into that country if they would just act like normal politicians.  But they are thugs, murderers, hypocrites and degenerates.  I really don't believe that even at the top of the food chain they even care about the existence of Israel.  It is just a rallying point to keep people looking outwards, instead of in.
Bottom line, IMO?  Let them fight it out.  All these half measures are useless.  Hey, Joe Palestinian!  I see you have a rocket launcher in your garden.  Think you might want to go on a bit of a vacation?  Take the wife and kids out for a wee stroll?  Not rocket science.  
And what is also pretty apparent is that once Israel retakes the Gaza strip completely and they get past all of the petty time wasting terrorism that will of course ensue, the life of all of the Palestinians will be better.  Sorry dudes.  They tried it your way. Didn't work so great.  And whether anyone agrees with that or not, Israel is strong enough to do it and seems to not be too concerned with world opinion.  Of course, there is no world opinion when the rockets land in Israel.  Hell, that doesn't even make the news.  
With any luck this post won't be worthy of reply and won't be dignified with a response  ::)
 
1885.tnias said:
As politically incorrect as it may be to have such musings here the fact remains that about 14 Israeli civilians have been killed by Hamas firecrackers, and something on the order of 600+ Palestinians by highly sophisticated US weaponry. Doesn't seem fair does it?

It may come as a surprise, but wars don't tend to be fought along the lines of "fair".  And your "Hamas firecrackers" didn't make they Israeli's any less dead.  Here is a crazy thought?  Don't shoot your "firecrackers" at any one and be dazzled at how many people don't die.  And it would be a rectal/cranial inversion of the highest magnitude to think that if Hamas could get some Gucci missiles that they wouldn't be using them.  Please. 

1885.tnias said:
Did anyone notice there is a UN investigation into the bombing of a school that had zero Hamas gunmen?

So how does an investigation start?  With an allegation?  And where would such an allegation stem from?  Hamas perhaps?  And zero gunmen does not mean that there was zero equipment or zero involvement.  And at such time as locations like schools get used for military bases, they become free game.  If the kids are made to stay there (and I don't even know if that wsa the case) then whose fault is the deaths?  "When HAMAS sets up a missile battery near the swing set, you and your chums must duck and cover.  See little Ahmad?  That's the way son". 

1885.tnias said:
I think an important aspect being left out, the elephant in the room as it were, is that Israel is just the middle man. They don't take action without first getting approval from the US Government. Why not just skip the middle man here and admit that it is the US that is comitting these atrocities through its proxy, Israel.

Oh!  So it is the United States that is sneaking into Palestine and Lebanon, planting missiles and firing them at Israel?  Darn that war monger George Bush!!  I bet he is the one that has been shooting the rockets into KAF as well.  Sneaky bugger.  <shakes fist at the sky> BUUUUUUUUSH!!!!

::)
 
Yesterday I posted a Globe and Mail column that I described as a ”fair and balanced, Western (as in Western culture), opinion” on the Gaza mess. Here reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail is a less fair, less balanced but much more popular in the ‘liberal’ West opinion:
--------------------
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090109.wcosimp10/BNStory/specialComment/home

A touch of wisdom from a washed-up Israeli PM

JEFFREY SIMPSON

From Saturday's Globe and Mail
January 9, 2009 at 10:19 PM EST

Ehud Olmert is a lame political duck in every sense of the phrase.

He's a caretaker prime minister of Israel until next month's election because, although he had tendered his resignation, no one else could form a government. So he had to stay on for a while. A growing corruption scandal and very low public opinion ratings forced that resignation.

Perhaps because Mr. Olmert is a spent force in Israeli politics, he can speak a truth those still in politics cannot or will not.

With Israeli warplanes, tanks and soldiers conducting a campaign of variously defined and often contradictory objectives in Gaza, it seems an odd moment to recall Mr. Olmert's words about peace.

But late last year, Mr. Olmert gave an interview to an Israeli newspaper in which he wanted to do some "soul-searching on behalf of the nation of Israel."

Throughout his entire career, Mr. Olmert admitted, he had been wrong. He and his fellow citizens, he argued, had "spent 40 years refusing to look with our eyes open."

Peace with the Palestinians is the only hope for Israel's long-term security. And that can only come through a negotiated agreement with the Palestinian Authority to create a viable state for Palestinians, at least on the West Bank territory occupied by Israel since the 1967 war.

That would mean dismantling most of the settlements that Israeli governments have sanctioned on occupied land — and many of the roads that connect the settlements to metropolitan Israel, creating ribbons of asphalt that make the West Bank into a series of Bantustans for the Palestinians. It also would mean abandoning the dream of never yielding any part of Jerusalem to Palestinian control.

Israel sent its forces into Gaza (from which it had unilaterally withdrawn in 2005) to stop rocket attacks on its citizens that had restarted after a fragile ceasefire had ended. Very quickly, military objectives changed - from curtailing Hamas's ability to launch rockets to inflicting the maximum damage possible on Hamas and its infrastructure.

As before, the death and destruction wrought by the Israelis far exceeds that which Israel itself had suffered. The result, inevitably, is even more militancy than before among those who suffer from that disproportionate destruction, and among those who watch developments outside Gaza, where Hamas won an election and then won a military victory against the somewhat more moderate forces of Fatah that now control the West Bank Palestinian areas.

As the Gaza campaign unfolded, Mr. Olmert's words from that interview took on additional meaning: "I read the reports of our generals, and I say, 'How have they not learned a single thing?' " He continued: "With them, it is all about tanks, about controlling territories or controlled territories, holding this or that hill. But these things are worthless."

Mr. Olmert, it will be said, is a discredited, washed-up figure, but the essential wisdom of his departing remarks remains. "In the absence of peace, the probability of war is always much greater."

Peace, and therefore a diminished probability of war (to say nothing of somewhat eased tensions throughout the broader Middle East), can only come through acceptance of a viable Palestinian state. Without that state, there will be no peace and, therefore, no fundamental improvement in the endemic tensions that beset the region.

The auspices for such a development are not promising. The Palestinians, as usual, are divided, fiercely and violently this time between Hamas and Fatah. Hamas's defiance and suffering, however, might well dilute Fatah's appeal in the West Bank as a weak-kneed political organization favoured by the United States and Israel.

The mood in Israel is one of understandable reluctance to trust any Palestinian leader, and to cheer any military pounding of Hamas. The next Israeli prime minister probably will be Benjamin Netanyahu, who has never shown much enthusiasm for negotiating with the Palestinians.

Fatah looks too weak to make a deal; Israel, post-Gaza, will feel too strong to need one. And Hamas, of course, remains wedded to the eventual destruction of Israel.

President-elect Barack Obama will be encouraged to invest political capital in the search for a settlement. It's easy to understand why. It's not easy to remember that past agreements only happened when the protagonists, not the Americans, wanted them.

--------------------

Ehud Olmert, as selectively quoted by Jeffrey Simpson, was partially right:

• “Peace with the Palestinians is the only hope for Israel's long-term security. And that can only come through a negotiated agreement with the Palestinian Authority to create a viable state for Palestinians, at least on the West Bank territory occupied by Israel since the 1967 war.” That’s pretty much correct; but

• “Hamas, of course, remains wedded to the eventual destruction of Israel.” And so, according to its published manifestos, etc, does Fatah – see Ch. 1/Art. 12 of the Fatah Constitution so ‘peace,’ on any reasonable, civilized terms is impossible because it always takes two to make peace and there is NO desire for peace amongst the Palestinians – just revenge.

But, let’s suppose, as so many commentators do, that Fatah is not serious about the “eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence” and the Constitution is just a sop for a few militants. In That case Simpson says, peace can come only through “dismantling most of the settlements that Israeli governments have sanctioned on occupied land — and many of the roads that connect the settlements to metropolitan Israel, creating ribbons of asphalt that make the West Bank into a series of Bantustans for the Palestinians. It also would mean abandoning the dream of never yielding any part of Jerusalem to Palestinian control.” I agree with most of that but, as always, the devil is in the details:

1. Israel would be morally and strategically wrong not to dismantle those settlements that are not contiguous to Israel. There must be one wall – ‘containing’ all of Israel. The cost of securing and maintaining remote enclaves in ‘enemy’ territory is too high;

2. Looking at this (three year old) map you can see that Israel can absorb a long ‘teat’ stretching all the way down the  Jordan River from Brisan to Ein Gedi (half way down the Dead Sea). The same map shows that some settlements e.g. those around Nablus, Ramallah and Hebron are unsustainable and, sooner rather than later must be abandoned; and

3. For Israel, anything less than the current/planned wall route than encloses all of Jerusalem is, probably, out of the question – politically impossible.

These three “facts on the ground” are the only sane starting point, assuming that the Palestinians can bring themselves to accept that Israel has a right to exist, pretty much where it is now:

Fact 1: Palestinians must have a contiguous territory – devoid of Israeli enclaves, even those ‘connected by tunnels – with a ‘corridor’ (probably controlled by Egypt) connecting the two parts (West Bank and Gaza);

Fact 2: Palestinians lose even more land than was lost to Israel in 1948; and

Fact 3: Jerusalem is Israeli – and that includes the Dome of the Rock.

But, I believe that it’s all a pipe dream. There is NO “partner for peace” anywhere in the Arab world and one is very, very unlikely to emerge anything within the lifetime of my grandchildren. The ‘final solution,’ therefore is war, actually a series of wars that, inevitably the Arabs must manage to win. But, I repeat, it will be a pyrrhic victory that will reduce the Arabs to bands of savages and render Islam as a sad, bitter footnote to history.

 
And, further to my last, here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Ottawa Citizen is a historian’s analysis that makes perfect sense to me and explains why ‘peace’ is impossible so long as Israel exists:
--------------------
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/terrible+shame/1161957/story.html

A terrible shame

BY LEONARD STERN, THE OTTAWA CITIZEN

JANUARY 10, 2009 4:02 AM
 
The reason for the latest fighting in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is, so we're told, easy enough to understand: Palestinians in the Gaza strip have been firing rockets across the border into Israel, and Israel has gone in to stop them.

But what really is this about? Israel evacuated Gaza three years ago, so that Gaza could eventually become part of a new Palestinian state. Israel didn't want anything to do with Gaza; couldn't wait to leave the place. Why would Palestinian Arabs engage in a national suicide project and start raining crude rockets on Israel, bringing grief to themselves and delaying the emergence of their independent state?

Richard Landes could have the answer. A professor at Boston University, Mr. Landes last year published a provocative take on the Israeli-Arab conflict. He argues that Palestinian behaviour toward Israel makes little sense until we understand the role of "honour and shame in Arabic culture."

Mr. Landes notes that to westerners, Arab rejectionism -- the refusal to acknowledge or accept Israel's existence -- seems both irrational and self-destructive. But that's because we in the West believe that conflict between Israelis and Palestinians derives "from a calculus of rights and wrongs" that can be negotiated -- for example, swapping land for peace.

What if the conflict is something else entirely from the Palestinian point of view? What if it derives "from a calculus of honour and shame" and thus is not amenable to negotiation but instead can be resolved only "in victory over the humiliating enemy"?

A historian, Mr. Landes argues that outsiders do not appreciate just what a profound symbol of humiliation Israel is to its Arab-Muslim neighbours. For 13 centuries, "Islam had only known the Jews as a subject people ... living in exile, forced to live by the laws and at the whim of foreign rulers and kings." To be confronted in the 20th century with an independent Jewish state in the Muslim Middle East was unbearable.

It was bad enough that over the generations Islam had already lost ground at the frontiers of its dominion, in Spain, the Balkans and India. But the Middle East, too? As Mr. Landes puts it, what could be more humiliating than "to lose territory at the heart of Islam, not to a great and worthy foe (the Christian West, hundreds of millions of Hindus), but to a tiny people without honour" -- the dispossessed Jews.

It doesn't matter that the modern state of Israel occupies barely a sliver of the Middle East or that its Jewish inhabitants claim ancestral, indeed indigenous rights. In 1948 the Arab armies attacked anyway, but were repulsed. Same thing in 1967. The repeated Arab defeats compounded the humiliation.

This humiliation expresses itself in the dysfunctional behaviours of Arab leaders, such as denial (refusing to recognize or even speak the name "Israel") and the emergence of ingrained conspiracy theories to explain Israel's military victories.

"Not recognizing Israel is a fundamental, one might even say dogmatic form of denial, denial that the Arabs were defeated by a tiny subject people, denial of a catastrophic loss of face," writes Mr. Landes.

"As long as the Arab world does not recognize Israel ... honour can still be salvaged. The war continues, the defeat goes unregistered, and the hope of restoring face by wiping out the humiliation can still dominate public discussion."

If Mr. Landes is right about the Arabic culture of honour and shame, it's hard to see how the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will resolve. As a western society, Israel has always expected that peace will be achieved through negotiation and compromise. But shame cultures operate on a zero-sum principle. "Any victory for Israel is a defeat for the Arab and Muslim nation," writes Mr. Landes.

A compromise that accepts Israel will make permanent the humiliation of its Arab neighbours.

The Palestinian decision to fire rockets into Israel, while insane from our western perspective, takes on a certain logic. Every homemade Qassam rocket is a symbol of Arab honour. As long as one single rocket launcher remains operational, the Palestinians get to pretend that Israel is but a temporary blight on the Muslim Middle East.

Mr. Landes essay was written before the current troubles in Gaza but it couldn't be more timely. Interested readers can find it in the valuable new book Postcolonial Theory and the Arab-Israel Conflict, one of whose editors is McGill University anthropologist Philip Carl Salzman.

A final point: Analyzing the Middle East through an anthropological lens is a sensitive business. Mr. Landes warns that in some academic quarters it is taboo to discuss the role of Arab honour and shame, and doing so invites accusations of "cultural racism."

That's unfortunate. For six decades Israel has been under siege. If this conflict were an ordinary geo-political one it would have been fixed a long time ago -- but it isn't and it hasn't, and it's important to ask why.

LEONARD STERN is the Citizen's editorial pages editor.

E-mail: lstern@thecitizen.canwest.com

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

--------------------

I think Prof Landes has nailed it. “Peace,” by any sane, sensible “Western’ definition of the words, is not just impossible, it is undesirable because it would mean enduring humiliation in a ‘culture’ that highly values pride. Arab pride demands the absolute and utter destruction of Israel. There has to be another ‘final solution to the Jewish question.’

 
Intersting article Edward.....  though this is, to a certain train of thought.... another nail in Israel's coffin.
 
Many thanks Edward for your last 2 posts.  Your assessment of the Simpson editorial is further supported by the following which make the case that  the real reason for holding territory in the West Bank which is the militarily strategic one of holding the high ground rather than the economic  "land grab" that is a popular view in many circles:

http://www.defensibleborders.org/apx1.htm

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/jt.html

This is further reinforced by the sociological reality of the Stern editorial which draws upon Prof. Landes work.  And such a theory, while as pointed out may be considered "taboo",  it nevertheless has an undeniable basis in history over the centuries.

 
Dildo...
The UN to a certain extent contributed to the mess when they "created" the state of Israel.
This "problem" has been with us ever since...
However, the use of the term "refuge camp" is a misnomer.  Although people have been living in buildings (VS tents) for an awful long time, the perpetual use & recognition of these "refugee camps" entitles the Palestinian authorities to food aid... not saying they aren't entitled to it.... not saying they are.
 
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s National Post, is an editorial that, I’m afraid, will not find universal acceptance here on Army.ca:
--------------------
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/01/10/national-post-editorial-board-moral-clarity-on-the-middle-east.aspx

National Post editorial board:
Moral clarity on the Middle East


Posted: January 10, 2009, 8:02 AM

This week, Sid Ryan, president of the Ontario section of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), compared Israel’s actions in Gaza to Nazi crimes during the Second World War, and called for a boycott of Israeli academics who do not renounce their government’s actions. (Mr. Ryan has since apologized for the Nazi comparison, but the boycott effort persists.)

The remarks caused an uproar, and Mr. Ryan rightly has been excoriated. Unfortunately, the resultant furore overshadowed more sensible remarks from two men who actually seem to know a thing or two about the Middle East.

One of those men is Michael Ignatieff. We must confess that we worried about the former Harvard professor on this file: In 2006, during Israel’s campaign against Hezbollah, he spuriously declared to a Quebec audience that Israel had perpetrated a “war crime” in the Lebanese town of Qana. He subsequently recanted — sort of — but the impression lingered that the man was willing to smear Israel if that’s what it took to ingratiate himself to Quebec leftists.

But this time, Mr. Ignatieff is supporting Israel four-square. On Thursday, he told reporters that Israel is justified in its campaign to defend itself from Hamas rocket attacks. “Canada has to support the right of a democratic country to defend itself,” he said. “Hamas is to blame for organizing and instigating these rocket attacks and then for sheltering among civilian populations.”

On the government side, Peter Kent, the minister of state for foreign affairs, echoes these sentiments. “The position of the government of Canada is that Hamas bears the burden of responsibility for the deepening humanitarian tragedy,” he said. “Until they commit to a permanent cease-fire … the fighting will go on.”

The war in Gaza is not a morally complicated event. On one side is a terrorist group that provoked the conflict with rocket fire, uses civilians as human shields and has gone on record with its desire to exterminate its enemy wholesale. On the other side is a democratic Canadian ally that is seeking to minimize civilian casualties as it fights back against ruthless killers. We’re gratified to see that these facts have not escaped the notice of our country’s leaders.

National Post

--------------------

Please note that the National Post picks its words with care. “The war in Gaza,” it says, “is not a morally complicated event.” And that, I think is true – the rest of the situation – including settlements and a whole host of other issues – is a quagmire within which there is plenty of blame for all, but the Gaza situation is pretty much cut and dried. Israel is the victim; Hamas is the aggressor and the party which, because it hides behind women and children, etc, is guilty of crimes against humanity.

There is an issue of proportionality but it is between Palestinian civilians and the Hamas terrorists who use them as human shields. If the Palestinians really want peace they need only rise up and attack the murdering thugs in Hamas and Fatah and the tyrants in Saudi Arabia and Syria – it’s really very simple. But that’s not going to happen and the consequences will be bloody and horrible – for everyone involved, especially the long suffering Arabs.

 
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail web site is an update on the situation in (and about) Gaza:
--------------------
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090110.wisrael0110/BNStory/International/home

Israel warns Gazans to brace for escalation of offensive

Reuters

January 10, 2009 at 10:41 AM EST

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip — Israeli tanks advanced on Gaza and Hamas militants fired rockets at Israel on Saturday, as both sides ignored international calls to stop the conflict and Israel warned it would escalate its assault.

An Israeli tank shell killed eight Palestinians in Jabalya, a refugee camp in the north of the Gaza Strip, and an air strike killed a woman in nearby Beit Lahiya, Palestinian medics said.

All of those killed in Jabalya were believed to be men from the same family. The Israeli army denied carrying out any attacks in the area.

The deaths, including those of several Palestinian gunmen, raised the Palestinian toll to at least 821, according to the Hamas-run Health Ministry in Gaza. Thirteen Israelis have been killed: 10 soldiers and three civilians hit in rocket fire.

The fighting continued even during a three-hour ceasefire window Israel has established in recent days to allow aid into Gaza to sustain the 1.5 million people living there.

As Israeli tanks advanced in northern Gaza and aircraft hit targets across the coastal strip, Hamas rockets hit Ashkelon, 20 kilometres north of Gaza, wounding three Israelis.

The Israeli military also dropped leaflets on southern Gaza, around the town of Rafah, warning residents to stay away from militants, weapons storage facilities and tunnels as it was about to escalate its bombing throughout the coastal territory.

“In the coming period, the Israeli army will continue to attack tunnels, weapons caches, and terrorists with escalating force all over the Gaza Strip,” the leaflets read.

Concerned about the deepening humanitarian impact of the war, with more than half Gaza's population dependent on UN food assistance, the United Nations said it hoped to resume full aid distribution after receiving Israeli assurances that its staff would not be harmed. A UN driver was killed on Thursday.

Israel has pressed on with its offensive despite a UN Security Council resolution calling for a ceasefire and Egyptian-European efforts at mediation, saying it is intent on stopping Hamas rocket fire. Hamas, too, has ignored calls for a halt to hostilities, firing eight rockets at Israel on Saturday.

A phalanx of Israeli tanks advanced from the north towards the city of Gaza, creeping in on the large refugee camp of Jabalya, home to around 100,000 people.

In an attempt to breathe life into a faltering Egyptian-led mediation effort, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, whose Fatah party is a political foe of Hamas, met Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak for talks in Cairo.

They discussed the possible deployment of international forces along the Gaza-Egypt border under any ceasefire deal, but Mr. Abbas said they should be in Gaza itself, not along the border.

Privately, diplomats believe the Egyptian initiative, also sponsored by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, is in trouble, even if Israel has said talks about the proposal will continue and Hamas has sent representatives to Cairo.

“There is a growing sense that the Egyptian-French plan is not going to work,” a senior European diplomat told Reuters.

Following talks with Mr. Abbas, Egypt said it would not accept foreign troops on its side of the 15-km border with Gaza to prevent arms smuggling.

But Germany, whose foreign minister also met with Egyptian officials, said it would send experts to help assess Egypt's police training needs to bolster anti-smuggling efforts.

Israel says the Egyptians have failed in the past to prevent Hamas building up an arsenal of Soviet-designed missiles.

As with the Egyptian initiative, the UN Security Council resolution late on Thursday calling for an immediate ceasefire appears to have little traction with Israel or Hamas.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert dismissed it as “unworkable” and Hamas officials in the Gaza Strip said they objected because they had not been consulted.

The United States, which abstained in the UN vote, offered further public support for Israel's military goals.

“This situation will not improve until Hamas stops lobbing rockets into Israel,” White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said.

He said President George W. Bush had expressed concern to Mr. Olmert about the humanitarian situation and the loss of civilian lives during the Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip.

With the Palestinian civilian death toll already in the hundreds, Israeli actions have drawn denunciations from the Red Cross, UN agencies and Arab and European governments. U.N. sources said Israel also was stepping up operations in the West Bank, detaining Palestinian suspects in rising numbers.

Hamas wants any ceasefire deal to include the ending of Israel's crippling economic blockade of the Gaza Strip and the withdrawal of all Israeli forces from the territory, from which Israel withdrew in 2005 after a 38-year occupation.

Israel's key demands are for a complete halt to Hamas rocket fire and for international guarantees to stop the group rearming via smuggling tunnels under the border with Egypt.

-------------------

In essence: “nothing to report, over.”


 
Those of you who are apologists for Hamas/Fatah/Hizbollah need to realize one reality. War is caused by their proclaimed goal of destroying Israel. Peace could come tomorrow if they recognize the right of Israel to exist just as Egypt and Jordan have done.They dont want peace and the blood of the populace is on their hands.

Israel learned from their last war that a multi-front war isnt in their strategic interest and they stopped too soon. I dont expect thias operation to end until Israel controls Gaza and Hamas has been defanged. Dont get worked up by the casualty figures because there is no independent media in Gaza. They think that by playing on the heart strings of the world, the pressure will force Israel to withdraw. Not happening this time.

The palestinians cannot be trusted to run their own affairs as long as they insist on Israel's destruction. The West Bank needs to be returned to Jordan and Gaza to Egypt. The sad truth is they dont want the hassle because the population has become so radicalized by their leaders. Also note the lack of outrage from the arab capitols. Why is that ? Hamas is an Iranian proxy and a threat to every Sunni leader. The destruction of Hamas is a defeat for Iran thus making the Saudi,Egyptian and Jordanian leaders alot more comfortable.
 
Back
Top