I think its all a big conspiracy... when Obama gets into office, he is going to immediate get the fighting to stop just because he's allowing the violence to all happen right before his term. as soon as he gets into office, hes going to look like a peaceful mediator in the worlds view
He asked about the situation in the US. I'm glad you tacitly agree with my post though. Hopefully you're not part of the problem.
Of course that is also used as justification by Hamas and other groups in regard to attacking Israeli civillians. There have been attempts for a negotiated peace that have failed to be lived up by both sides which is one of the reasons the Palestinians turned to both Hamas.
Olmert - "Can I speak to the manager" ...Don't get why he would even mention this? http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/090112/usa/mideast_conflict_gaza_olmert_us_rice_lead Rice shame-faced by Bush over UN Gaza vote: Olmert JERUSALEM (AFP) - US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was left shame-faced after President George W. Bush ordered her to abstain in a key UN vote on the Gaza war, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said on Monday. "She was left shamed. A resolution that she prepared and arranged, and in the end she did not vote in favour," Olmert said in a speech in the southern town of Ashkelon. The UN Security Council passed a resolution last Thursday calling for an immediate ceasefire in the three-week-old conflict in the Gaza Strip and an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza where hundreds have been killed. Fourteen of the council's 15 members voted in favour of the resolution, which was later rejected by both Israel and Hamas. The United States, Israel's main ally, had initially been expected to voted in line with the other 14 but Rice later became the sole abstention. "In the night between Thursday and Friday, when the secretary of state wanted to lead the vote on a ceasefire at the Security Council, we did not want her to vote in favour," Olmert said. "I said 'get me President Bush on the phone'. They said he was in the middle of giving a speech in Philadelphia. I said I didn't care. 'I need to talk to him now'. He got off the podium and spoke to me. "I told him the United States could not vote in favour. It cannot vote in favour of such a resolution. He immediately called the secretary of state and told her not to vote in favour." Bush has consistently placed the blame for the conflict on Hamas, telling reporters on Monday that while he wanted to see a "sustainable ceasefire" in Gaza, it was up to Hamas to choose to end its rocket fire on Israel. But a US State Department official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, denied Olmert's claim. "Mr. Olmert is wrong," the official said. Even if everything had gone according to plan, "she would have abstained. That was the plan," said the official. "The government of Israel does not make US policy."
I still think Israel is acting accordingly. It faces a terrorist organization that is launching rocket attacks into it's southern cities. The ceasefire was never completely observed by Hamas - and Hamas has not recognized Israel's right to exist. It is terrible unfortunate for the Palestinian people, but they are putting Hamas in power...and it's up to them to turn against Hamas and not vote a terrorist group into power. Israel shouldn't open up the borders because Hamas has demonstrated it will simply use that to rearm. So Israel's best option is to destroy Hamas. That's what it is doing. That's what the logical thing to do it. So really, I think their response is justified and frankly I support them. Destroy everything Hamas they can find - every Hamas institution, soldier, politician - and see if that works. If another rocket gets fired, then come back and do again....repeat repeat repeat. That's the onlyway to turn the Palestinian people against Hamas.
The only way that would work would be for Isreal to kill all the people in Gaza, which they are not ready to do.
Question - if the borders were to be opened more, would it not be easier/likely for the Hamas to launch suicide bomb attacks in Israel itself? I am sincerely wondering - my knowledge on this subject is limited.
In reality the only way to completely destroy Hamas is to kill all Palestinians and Israel is not ready to do that.
Nor should they be ready to do that. Nobody should. Even if the attacks continue and Israel loses a dozen or even more citizens a year, wiping out an entire population isn't an acceptable solution.
No, it isn't. Even most Israelis don't think this will destroy Hamas (only 6% believed Israel's attack would stop Hamas from firing rockets). According to a recent TIME article on the strategic costs of Israel's invasion: [rquoter] There are other strategic downsides to Israel's launching a military offensive in Gaza at this time. Israel has acted in response to pressures to protect its citizenry from rocket attacks, but it is probable that such attacks will continue and possibly intensify as a result. That will draw Israeli ground troops into Gaza, where they, too, will suffer casualties at the hands of Palestinian gunmen. The Palestinian civilian death toll will be far higher, which will, in turn, isolate Israel on the diplomatic front — even those Arab regimes that would have been discreetly pleased to see Hamas dealt a harsh blow (because they fear the Islamist movement is becoming a model for those challenging their own governments) will be forced to distance themselves. The air strikes will also give President Abbas no choice but to break off peace talks with Israel, although neither the Israelis nor most Palestinians treated them as any kind of serious peace process. Still, the Israeli offensive is likely to boost Palestinian political support for Hamas and to further weaken Abbas. In the weeks preceding the strikes, Israeli security officials warned that there is no end game, because a limited campaign would be unlikely to eliminate Hamas in Gaza, and a full-blown ground invasion would find Israel forced to reoccupy the territory on a long-term basis.[/rquoter] But this invasion goes beyond being a strategic misstep from the perspective of security. This is a crime. Tens of thousands have been displaced from their homes. Thousands injured. Hundreds killed. All in the matter of a few weeks. If you're going to unleash that sort of wholesale violence on a population, there is a very large burden of proof that must be met to justify it. If it is not met, it is a war crime. That is exactly the standard we would use with our enemies, and it is the standard we must use for ourselves and our allies.
I'm not so sure anymore. A Palestinian leadership in disarray would be beneficial to Israel in any near term negotiations. At least thats how its supposed to work. It was probably best to do it while an ultra-sympathetic ear is still in Washington.
Hmm, on the other hand, Israeli Jews are very much united on the war: http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/13/africa/13israel.php
Israel gets more leverage in negotiations, and they put the Palestinian people in such a desperate situation that they are forced to comply with whatever terms Israel demands or be accused of being the "rejectionist" side. But does Israel demand terms that are conducive to long lasting peace? As long as one side believes it is getting totally screwed, and that's been history of this conflict, they will not be.
How the heck do you know this is a strategic misstep or that it doesnt meet the standard? Israel obviously feels very threatend by Hamas' attacks and their stated goal to wipe Israel off the map. Perhaps its easier to say what you are saying when you arent the one targetted by Rockets and a hateful ideology. If Mexico was doing that to the US, do you think we would just try to ignore them?
