This information is inaccurate. Al-Jazeera claims to broadcast to the Arab prespective, but it does also claim to present both sides. In fact the regularly upset both Arab and Israeli governments, and have continually given time to Israeli spokes people as well as members of the Bush administration. You need to link your articles, and also accept that the information contained in them like much of the logic is flawed, or just dishonest.
There's an anti-war demonstration very near my house, in Jaffa, tomorrow. And when I say close, I mean that's where I do most of my shopping. Many of my friends live there. Jaffa is predominantly Arab, but the area has had a long history of peaceful coexistence. It also tends toward the liberal side...no shortage of bars there. Not exactly a hotbed of Islamic extremism. Most of the protesters are members of Hadash which is more or less Israel's communist party. It has 3 members in the Knesset, one of which is Jewish and lost a bid as mayor of Tel Aviv (Dov Khenin ). He's kind of Israel's Dennis Kucinich. Very committed to his job, and uncorrupt, and very much considered irrelevant to mainstream politics. Anyway Hadash is small but well organized, and the people are well trained in passive resistance. You won't see them getting arrested when they demonstrate. That might be why they never make the news as much... I may go to this one and shoot video. If I do I'll be sure to edit and post it somewhere -- especially if anything interesting happens. I suspect it will be pretty low key, but who knows. If I can talk to someone important, like any MK's, I'll be happy to ask any (serious and relevant) questions anyone might have. There may also be counter-demonstrators as well, and they'll likely answer questions. Just send them to me through the bbs. I can't promise anything, but I'll see what I can do. Just don't get me beat up
Sorry for the tangent but I'm just curious. My understanding of Israeli history is that many of the early Zionist were socialist, many of the Kibutzes were established under a Marxist model and that early on the USSR supported Israel as they saw it as another Socialist state. It sounds like the Communist party doesn't wield much influence these days though has this been the case since for a long while and did this have to do with the Israeli Communists stances regarding the Arab Israeli conflict?
I think Israel declaring a unilateral ceasefire is a demonstration of strength. In any case, I know many people here feel that this was not a Hamas provacation, but I just can't buy that when Egypt is saying Hamas messed up and has been very critical of Hamas for starting this. That doesn't jibe with Israel being the aggressor. Nonetheless, I think israel was justified in it's actions - Hamas is a terrorist organization and is still behaving like one. I don't consider them a legitimate gov't like the Abbas led gov't. The Palestinians have legitimate greviances - but firing rockets into Israel will never help their cause.
why wouldn't you expect egypt to be very critical of hamas always? even though hamas led gov't was democratically elected? (regardless of being terroristic or not)
Egypt doesn't like Hamas, and it wants to keep up good relations with Israel and, of course, the US. You make it sound like Egypt and Hamas are natural allies. They aren't. And Israel chose to practically level Gaza for its "demonstration of strength." as it could have agreed to a bilateral ceasefire a month ago. By any meaningful definition, this was an act of state terrorism against the Gazan population.
If that is why you think Israel invaded, then you have proven that you don't care about understanding the other side's point of view.
I said nothing about Israel's primary motivations, though demonstrating strength was obviously one of them. They made a decision that had predictable, well-understood consequences. In this case, devastating the Gazan population. Whatever rationalizations they may have for it doesn't change what they knew would happen.
Sure it was. It had nothing to do with destroying the tunnels and the smuggling of weapons by Hamas. Don't bother mentioning that part of it.
Israel could have destroyed tunnels without killing hundreds of civilians. The level of destruction was unnecessary from a tactical standpoint (as argued by Anthony Cordesman of CSIS here). And if you honestly think that after pummeling them Palestinians aren't going to try to increase their efforts to arm themselves, you're nuts. Any expert on weapons proliferation will tell you -- the more you threaten a country, the more likely they are to seek deterrence or retaliation by acquiring and developing weapons.
How? Are they going to hire Rambo or Bourne to do it? You agree with this part of Mr. Cordesman's writing as well? "No one should discount these continuing tactical gains, or ignore the fact that Hamas’ rocket and mortar attacks continue to pose a threat. Nearly 600 rounds hit Israeli territory between December 7th and January 9th. It is also clear that there are no good ways to fight an enemy like Hamas that conducts attrition warfare while hiding behind its own women and children. A purely diplomatic response that does not improve Israel’s security position or offer Palestinians hope for the future is equivalent to no response at all."
Because Egypt is an Islamic nation. And I don't think hamas is a legitimate gov't even though it was democratically elected. They are still a terrorist group. Until they renounce terrorism, they aren't a legitimate gov't. And in any case, if you consider Hamas to be legit...that what you are really saying is that Gaza effectively declared a state of war by launching missles into Israel. What if Mexico launched missle attacks against Houston? Wouldn't you expect the U.S. gov't to take serious action? No one would say it's excessive if we invade Mexico and demolished it's gov't agencies.
The problem is though that Hamas rockets still continue to be a threat. Israel has accomplished little to improve their security in the long term. If anything its made things more dangerous.
What ever people call it - "act of war" "demonstration of strength" "negoiation", or "terrorist attack" - you can spin it any of those ways....regardless, Israel did the smart thing. Crush your enemies who are a threat. Makes perfect sense. Nearly unanimous support from the Israel population for the military action. Frankly, I don't see it as state terrorism at all. It's an act of self-defense.
Israel didn't crush their enemies. Even the Israeli military concedes that Hamas still has the capability to launch attacks.
Don't you think they've done the following? 1. Inflicted enough damage into the Hamas appartus that Hamas will want to take time to rebuild and thus not provoke Israel 2. Set an example that any Hamas attack into Israel will end with this result. I think that's a pretty effective 1-2 punch.
It embitters Palestinians and other foes of Israel even more. Has shown that Israel can be easily provoked making it easier for radicals to scuttle for future peace agreements. Has increased support among Palestinians for Hamas. Tells Hezbollah, Hamas, Iranian hardliners and etc that if domestic support wains they can provoke a conflict with Israel. Has reduced Israel's diplomatic standing.
If in order to blow up tunnels they need to wipe out civilians in the way, then they should not do it. They should focus on targets that can be hit that do not put civilians in harm way. Unless there is an imminent threat of attack, you do not kill civilians. Sure. All of that is common sense. Israel made certain tactical gains, but at a tremendous cost which he continues to explain. As for his last sentence, I agree. We could also add, trivially, that a purely military response that doesn't improve Isreal's security position and destroys Palestinians' hope for the future is no response at all as well.
Did either invasion of Lebanon make things safer for Israel? Did the seige of Ramallah make things safer? People knew already that Israel will respond heavy handedly, they might not have known how short Israel's fuse is. You act as though this current assault on Gaza was unprecedented when Israel has done things like this several times. They've been even more destructive before having occupied Southern Lebanon for years and litterally flattening refugee camps. None of that has made Israel any safer.
