From the AP via the Times-Picayune:
Anti-U.S. cleric Muqtada al-Sadr called on the Iraqi resistance Wednesday to stage "revenge operations" against American forces to protest Israel's Gaza offensive.
The statement issued by his office in the Shiite holy city of Najaf came as criticism is mounting over civilian deaths in Gaza.
The State Department dismissed al-Sadr's calls, describing them as "outrageous."
"Any call for attacks against Americans is outrageous and, frankly, not worthy of much more comment," deputy State Department spokesman Robert Wood told reporters. "Outside calls to attack Americans for what's going on in the region are outrageous."
The calls for attacks against Americans in Iraq, here in the US, and elsewhere may be outrageous, but that does not mean they won't happen. Our blind support of Israel may, indeed, increase the odds of an attack within the US, for terrorists will want to avenge the killings of Palestinians, and they will plot, not only against Israel, but against the US, too, for being their chief supporter.
Read Juan Cole at Informed Comment on the results of Muqtada's call for attacks in Iraq.
And Cole again on why it may not have been in our own self-interest to be the chief supporter of the bombing and invasion of Gaza. I'm not saying that all our decisions should be based on self-interest, but the Bush maladministration failed repeatedly to foresee the possible ill consequences to Americans of their policies and actions. Remember, "Bring it on!"
In fact, you know that the Israeli leaders know that likely their atrocities against civilians in Gaza will produce further terrorism, both against the United States and Israel. They are obviously entirely willing to take that risk. Why? The Israeli far right thrives on ethnic conflict. It may be worried that Obama will try to curb it. What is the worst that could happen, from their point of view? That Obama's presidency would be destroyed by an alleged failure to prevent such an attack, and that the US public would be shifted to the Right and rededicate itself to its flagging crusade against Islam-- oops, I mean "war on terror"?
Once again, I have no love for Hamas. They are terrorists and do not have the welfare of the Palestinian people in mind as they plot their course. Their actions serve to bring more violence and misery to people who are already beaten down and without hope.
BillyD, I am certainly a supporter of Israel's right to exist. I do not support Hamas' firing rockets into Israel. However, Israel's response is disproportionate.
ReplyDeleteAre you aware that dissidents within Israel also think that the response is disproportionate?
I'm not sure that disproportionate is a bad thing when it comes to self defense. If someone were attacking me with a knife, and I had both a gun and a knife at my disposal, I can't guarantee that I would pick up the knife instead of the gun in order to level the playing field. But for the sake of argument, let's say that proportionality is in order. What exactly would that look like in this case?
ReplyDeleteBillyD, what Israel is doing now in Gaza is not even in their own self interest. They are losing support throughout the world, and, in their precarious position, they need outside support. They will not have peace with people living in abject misery, hemmed in, with no hope, right at their border. Violence only breeds more violence. Israel is breeding terrorists with this operation. I don't have all the answers, but what they do in Gaza now is not the right answer.
ReplyDeleteI agree, Mimi. Even if Israel wins on the ground, it is losing the PR war horribly.
ReplyDeleteThe whole issue of "He started it!" is one without resolution or positive value.
ReplyDeleteI've heard claims from both sides about who started this last round of violence. Supporters of Israel protest Israel's innocence, and put all blame on Hamas. Supporters of Hamas (or just defenders of Palestinians) allege Israel provoked the attacks, which finally gave them an excuse to invade.
It is clear Israel has made Gaza the "world's largest prison," as one BBC reporter called it, ever since Hamas democratically took power, and Israel and the US decided it wasn't democracy if we didn't like the outcome.
At any rate, the question is: what solution does violence offer? It hasn't gained Hamas a thing, so I'm no fan of Hamas in this fight. But Israel has killed over 600 people. The only number I've heard for Israeli deaths is 5, all soldiers, all involved in this attack. Disproportionate? It is hard to argue otherwise.
And the result? The defeat of Hamas? Yeah, right. Destruction of their ability to fire rockets? Only if Israel nukes Gaza into glass, so that nothing and no one can live there. I don't even assume Israel can win this on the ground, unless they simply eliminate all Palestinians from Gaza.
And what a PR coup that would be, huh?
" The only number I've heard for Israeli deaths is 5, all soldiers, all involved in this attack."
ReplyDeleteThe Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs site says the following were killed during this most recent wave of Kassam and mortar attacks from Gaza (more have been killed previously, but these are the ones that happened since the ceasefire ended):
"Dec 27, 2008 - Beber Vaknin, 58, of Netivot was killed when a rocket fired from Gaza hit an apartment building in Netivot.
Dec 29, 2008 - Hani al-Mahdi, 27, of Aroar, a Beduin settlement in the Negev was killed when a Grad-type missile fired from Gaza exploded at a construction site in Ashkelon. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.
Dec 29, 2008 - Irit Sheetrit, 39, of Ashdod was killed and several wounded when a Grad rocket exploded in the center of Ashdod. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack."
What should Israel have done? Waited until more than three civilians had been killed by Hamas rockets to take action? How many - what's the threshold? Should Israel just brace itself and let itself be the target of Hamas rockets, taking comfort in the fact that the rockets usually miss their targets?
BillyD
ReplyDeleteWould you use a gun if you knew by so doing you would hit bystanders including children?
Erp, if someone is attacking children (in this case, the children of the Negev) using a child as a human shield (in this case, the children of Gaza), what should I do? What's the moral course of action?
ReplyDeleteI just opened the Pack Press - Jan. 2009 and saw the article about your blog. I graduated with a DDS degree from Loyola University New Orleans, but then we called it Loyola of the South School of Dentistry. Yep I'm a blogger and will be your age in a few weeks. My blog is about my city Coral Gables and it is with the CDP (City Daily Photo). I have a site that is about my garden. As my mind tries to slow up I keep active on the Internet. I am retired due to my osteo-arthritis but the joints have to keep working in the garden. Please check out my site: www.togofcoralgables.com
ReplyDeleteI was going to come back to correct my statement, based on an NPR report I just heard.
ReplyDeleteThe death toll for Israelis now stands at 12, 9 of them soldiers. None, apparently, children, though I understand 23 Palestinian children have died in the Israeli assault.
What would I have Israel do? Not blockade Gaza, to begin with. Not rely on violence to solve problems, either.
The deaths of the 12 Israelis are on the heads of the leaders of Israel and Hamas. The deaths of the 600+ Palestinians are on the heads of the leaders of Israel and Hamas.
What would you have them do? Kill until the killing stops? Or stop the killing?
Sorry, BillyD, I'm not buying.
ReplyDeleteIsrael bombed a school that was a known UN refuge, a place mapped and identified to Israel as a place of shelter for civilians.
Israel is attacking the most densely populated area of the planet, one they have made a prison by their blockade.
They don't get a pass by claiming Hamas is hiding behind children. It's a lame way of saying: "It's not my fault there was collateral damage!"
It's not an excuse I accept, at all. I would not that doesn't excuse Hamas' use of violence, or their actions that have put those civilians at risk. But one could say the same for Israel's actions.
This problem is not solved by saying one side is blameless, and the other alone is to blame.
Mimi, you are quite correct about the disproportionate Israeli response. There is an enormous disparity between Hamas and Israel.
ReplyDeleteHamas wants to kill as many Israelis as possible--preferably all of them. Israel wants to kill as few Palestinians as possible.
That's an enormous disparity, I think you would agree.
It's all nice to say there should be a better way to deal with Hamas, but there isn't, because Hamas makes sure of it. It purposely installs itself amid civilians and in places that ought to be outside the sphere of violence--hospitals, schools, mosques--and hopes that civilians get killed because it knows that too many people in the media don't look far enough to ask why Hamas was in those places.
This may sound a tad incredible to you, but up to this point there are no verified facts to support the assertion that any civilians have died in Gaza because of the IDF. The only evidence is that supplied by sources on the Palestinian side, and those who are allied to them (like UNRWA). All the media reports, remember, are coming from Palestinian journalists who live in Gaza; and they have every incentive to distort and lie--to claim that fighters were civilians, that weapons were not in places where htey were, to inflate casualty figures, etc. etc. How many of them have reported on the fact that Hamas has several dozen Palestinians it had imprisoned as Israeli collaborators (meaning mostly in this case members of Fatah)? That the closing of the crossing was initially done by Hamas, and that Hamas has diverted much of the medical aid and food to help its own fighters and not the civilians in Gaza? That prior to the Israeli counterattacks, Hamas had shelled a checkpoint filled with Christian Palestinians who hoped to attend Christmas services in Bethlehem? That when a child is killed in the shelling, it moves the body to a convenient pile of rubble, and forces the family to wait to retrieve the body until photographers show up to make the inevitable propaganda shot? That Hezbollah, at least, is known to have moved bodies from location to location for propaganda purposes, so it could make the body count look higher? (It happened in Lebanon in 2006, and while I don't know if Hamas has actually done the same thing, I have no reason to think it wouldn't do it if opportunity offered.)
[Just to be clear, I am sure plenty of civilians have been killed and wounded in Gaza these last two weeks. It's just that at this moment the only information is coming from sources who routinely distort the facts in favor of Hamas and against Israel. As someone said on another blog I read, if Hamas said the sky was blue, I wouldn't accept the statement.]
Hamas shields itself behind civilians, and it has no interest in living peacefully with Israel. The only way to deal with Hamas is, to be blunt, to kill it off like you would a cancer or a termite colony. To let food and other things flow into Gaza like normal, to not respond to the rockets, is to give Hamas full permission to keep on with its methods and ultimate aid. There is no good to be gained by that method when you're dealing with Hamas. And because Hamas hides behind civilians, it is necessary to kill some civilians. If you don't kill them, then you let Hamas flourish. In the name of being kind, you're being cruel--not only to the Israelis but to the Palestinians who live under the burden of Hamas.
At the very least, you should not criticize the Israelis for valuing the lives of Israelis more than Palestinians (especially when a very large portion of those Israelis would be very glad if lots of Israelis were killed).
It's all nice to say there should be a better way to deal with Hamas, but there isn't, because Hamas makes sure of it. It purposely installs itself amid civilians and in places that ought to be outside the sphere of violence--hospitals, schools, mosques--and hopes that civilians get killed because it knows that too many people in the media don't look far enough to ask why Hamas was in those places.
ReplyDeleteDemocratically elected governments are funny that way.
I guess we'd say the same thing about our government, huh? I know of at least five military bases inside the city limits of San Antonio, Texas. But that's okay, because....?
Gaza is about the size of Detroit, in terms of land mass. It is the most densely populated place on the planet. Where would you have Hamas place their military installations?
I'd prefer Hamas had no military, of course; as I'd prefer Israel didn't resort to violence to solve a problem violence won't solve. But I am sick to death of having to refute the argument that one side in this conflict is blameless, and the other side is evil.
I am quite familiar enough with the history of Israel and it's establishment to call the argument that Israel is innocent, complete BS. Better to label it karma: what Israel started, it is now facing.
Payback is a bitch.
Sorry to dominate your comments, Mimi. Feel free to delete me. I'm growing far too passionate about this subject on a blog that isn't mine.
My apologies.
RMJ--what you are saying boils down to "well, we just have to let Hamas do what it wants".
ReplyDeleteWhat Hamas wants is to kill other people. Hamas's whole strategy is based on collateral damage--because to them, dead Israelis are a goal and dead Palestinians are a propaganda bonus.
The question is not really, who's to blame for the civilian deaths?
The questin is, how do we stop civilians from being killed?
In the long term, the only way to do that is to deal with Hamas and its bedfellows in the only way it understands--by killing its members. Unfortunately, that means in the short term considerable civilian deaths. But by saying No civilians killed now you are saying Yes civilians killed later.
Sorry to dominate your comments, Mimi. Feel free to delete me. I'm growing far too passionate about this subject on a blog that isn't mine.
ReplyDeleteMy apologies.
Which probably I should also be saying.
and sorry for the double comment,although perhaps an extra helping of apology is worth it :)
ReplyDeleteKishnevi, incredible? Absolutely. You'll have to do better than this.
ReplyDeleteAt times, I try to make arguments on the side of what I think is right. Other times, I try to make a pragmatic argument like, "This is not in your self interest," which this one happens to be.
What Israel is doing in Gaza is not in its own self interest for reasons that I have mentioned. It is not in the interest of the US to support this action for reasons that I have mentioned. The Palestinian people suffer the worst of the consequences. The only beneficiaries of this violence will be Hamas, in the long run.
I don't believe that violence is ever the solution. There may appear to be an immediate advantage, but a long term solution? No.
Kishnevi, I'm not going to delete you, except for the double comment. I'm going to disagree with you.
ReplyDelete"I don't believe that violence is ever the solution. There may appear to be an immediate advantage, but a long term solution? No."
ReplyDeleteSo the answer, when face by violent attack, is for a nation to -- do what? Turn its collective cheek?
Does anyone know how many Israelis were killed by rockets over a period of 8 years? One life is too many to lose, but can anyone tell me the answer as we speak of proportionality?
ReplyDeleteGrandmère, Wikipedia (I know, I know) says fifteen Israelis were killed by Kassams between 2001 and the end of 2008. Here's a list:
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Qassam_rocket_attacks
Of course, Hamas doesn't just used Kassams. The death toll from suicide attacks has been much higher. You can find a list here:
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hamas_suicide_attacks
BillyD, I knew the answer, because I had used it in another post. I wanted to make a point about proportionality and about how many Israelis will be killed in this operation.
ReplyDeleteIsrael said that the reason for the attacks is to stop the rockets. How do you stop suicide bombers?
To everyone: Don't apologize for comments. I like discussion in my comments. That's what comments are for.
ReplyDelete"...about how many Israelis will be killed in this operation."
ReplyDeleteIs this a typo, or are you concerned about IDF casualties? I don't want IDF members killed, and I'm sure that Israelis don't, but the number of IDF casualties doesn't have to balance the number of Israeli civilians killed by Hamas, does it?
"Israel said that the reason for the attacks is to stop the rockets."
Well, to be truthful, I think that Israel has been disingenuous about the reason. They've said that the campaign is to stop the rockets, but it seems that the way they are going about it is to destroy Hamas. Which, again to be truthful, would work for me.
"How do you stop suicide bombers?"
Destroying Hamas would be a good start, in the short term.
Of course, you've said that violence isn't the solution. So again (not meaning to badger you) - if state violence is not an option, what does a nation do when faced with attack by an organization bent on its destruction?
American citizens really must become at least marginally aware of the history of the "total war doctrine" of our nation. (Nacient followers of Jesus therein especially so.) Googling the subject will get you started. Brian McLaren, in "Everything Must Change", will get you motivated.
ReplyDeleteBring in a neutral third party to act as a buffer between the two sides.
ReplyDeleteDo not escalate the violence.
Undermine Hamas by making life worth living for those in Gaza. That means education, jobs, hope.
Let the newspaper reporters in (perhaps at the risk of their own lives but it would at least allow news).
Who did you have in mind to serve as a neutral third party, Erp?
ReplyDeleteErp, very good. I like especially, "Undermine Hamas by making life worth living for those in Gaza. That means education, jobs, hope," but all of what you say is reasonable.
ReplyDeleteBillyD, the the neutral third party could be the UN or an international commission. Let's have some creativity here.
Perhaps I'm wrong to do so, but I'm thinking of Israel as the more or less reasonable party in the fight, so I see them as taking the initiative to deescalate the violence.
Destroying Hamas smacks of "kill them all". How would Israel accomplish that without killing large numbers of civilians?
Mimi and all others--
ReplyDeleteI repeat the question: if violence is not the answer, how do you deal with Hamas non violently? Which means, how do you render Hamas powerless? How do you deal with a group that thinks attempts to reconcile are invitations to violence? That peace offers are confessions of weakness? A group whose whole strategy is devoted to escalating the violence.
Bring in a third party? They're trying that in Lebanon, and it's not getting rid of Hezbollah? And that there are practically no third parties whom both sides trust enough to allow the third party the power it needs to make its presence worthwhile?
Improve conditions? How do you do that without Hamas getting its share of the pie--and probably, Hamas being Hamas, getting more than its share of the pile?
And how do you get the Palestinian people to accept non violence? A people whose culture is riddled through and through with hatred of Israel and incitement of violence against Israel? A society which is ruled by a collection of corrupt thugs and which can not seem to produce any alternative except the somewhat uncorrupt thugs of Hamas?
Perhaps you remember that Israel withdrew from Gaza, and the answer was rockets--under Fatah rule, no less, not Hamas--? And that faced with that, no Israeli has any incentive to repeat the maneuver with the West Bank settlements? If they're going to get slapped in the face, they might as well keep the settlements, thereby keeping the right mollified and a bargaining chip for a future time when they might be dealing with Palestinians who actually believe in living in peace with their neighbors?
I'll be glad to hear your answers, even if I probably won't agree with it, because I do think that often enough violence needs to be defended against with violence, and in this case we have a good example. There is no peaceful way of dealing with Hamas unless you mean to surrender to it.
"BillyD, the the neutral third party could be the UN or an international commission. Let's have some creativity here."
ReplyDeleteThe idea that the UN is a neutral party would, I think, strike Israelis as laughable. Heck, it strikes me as laughable, keeping the history of the UN's attitude towards Israel.
There are, I believe, something like a million Israeli citizens in range of Gazan rockets, and their range is increasing. While a neutral third party might keep the IDF and Hamas fighting on the ground, I'm confused as to how it prevents Hamas from continuing to fire rockets.
"Destroying Hamas smacks of "kill them all". How would Israel accomplish that without killing large numbers of civilians?"
If by "kill them all" you mean all Hamas terrorists, then yes. I'm not sure how Israel would limit civilian casualties. Not taking action against Hamas, on the other hand, does nothing to limit civilian casualties on the Israeli side. I think it's only a matter of time before the terrorists find a way to use Kassams to deliver chemical and biological payloads.
Mimi, probably you're unaware of it, but the UN has very little credibility on this issue. This is, after all, the organization that allowed Arafat to speechify at its podium, gun in holster, denouncing Israel, to applause from the General Assembly--and which allows UNRWA to operate the so-called refugee camps (So called, because most of the people who live there don't fit the definition of refugee any more than the people of Soweto did during the days of apartheid) as an extension of the PLO.
ReplyDeleteAnd it's not doing a very good job of policing Southern Lebanon even as we speak.
Most international bodies in Israeli eyes are too likely to turn a blind eye to gun smuggling by Hamas or to aid them outright (more exactly, the officials of tohse bodies would aid them despite any legalities they would be supposed to follow), which is one reason why Israel isn't too keen on these arrangements.
Probably the only entity they would trust is the USA, and I think we both know how that would go down among the Arabs.
{not really an objection to your point so much as pointing out why it would be very hard to put into practice)
Mimi, probably you're unaware of it, but the UN has very little credibility on this issue.
ReplyDeleteKishnevi, I may be old, but I'm not too old to recognize condescension.
To Kishnevi and BillyD:
Erp, Rmj, and I have given you ideas, but you say we are all wrong. How about giving us YOUR solutions. Give us YOUR wisdom. YOU're in charge. What do YOU do?
Scott, I didn't mean to neglect you up there. I started to hypothesize a total war scenario, but I thought I'd give BillyD and Kishnevi a chance to suggest solutions to the problem first.
ReplyDelete's ok, grandmere; mine bordered on the gratuitous, were it not so serious. thanks.
ReplyDeleteMimi, I did not mean to be condescending, and apologize for sounding like I was. I simply had no reason to believe that you, like most Americans who are not either Jewish or politically conservative, realize to what an extent the UN seems, in Jewish and Israeli eyes, to be strongly biased against Israel. As BillyD said, the bias appears to be so strong that pointing to the UN as an honest broker is laughable.
ReplyDeleteI think that I've made my position pretty clear as to what the only practical solution is, and while I'm sorry that it involves the death of so many innocent civilians, anything else simply allows Hamas to flourish and in the end will cost even more innocent lives. And my position is tempered by the knowledge that those innocents, if adults, generally support Hamas and its methods, and live in a community where extreme violence against Israel is lauded and total rejectionism is the approved end.
What's been proposed so far is simply measures that strengthen Hamas, or that have been proved to not work in the past because of how Hamas (and Palestinian society in general) works.
Perhaps I sound too harsh and uncompassionate, but I think I'm following true compassion--for the Palestinians even more than for the Israelis.
Kishnevi, are you saying that all Jewish conservatives see the UN as biased toward the Palestinians? Even if they all do, that doesn't mean that they are right.
ReplyDeletePerhaps I sound too harsh and uncompassionate,...
That's putting it mildly.
...but I think I'm following true compassion--for the Palestinians even more than for the Israelis.
Deliver me from ever being on the receiving end of your compassion.
And once Gaza is pounded and pounded and many Palestinian innocents die and Hamas is destroyed, then all will be well with Israel and the Palestinians, and the surrounding countries, and they will all live peacefully and prosperously forever after. Is that how it goes?
You phrase your statements very politely, but the content of your words is appalling to me.
Did you read the prayer for the children of Gaza which I posted? It was written by a Jew.
Then there is no solution.
ReplyDeleteOn one side we're told that the peaceful solutions have not worked and won't work, and we've seen that violence in response won't work and hasn't worked - it just gives Hamas more recruitment power.
There is no solution.
South Africa. South Africa. South Africa. I hear it again and again.
ReplyDeleteJuan Cole makes very good sense. He always does. Everything is playing very nicely into Israel's hands. The loss of a few in terrorist retaliation against Israel's current aggression on Gaza will only gain them more American support. Bring on the crusade against Islam...
ReplyDeleteYou probably haven't got time Mimi, but Robert Fisk (Dr) is a very good British foreign correspondent who publishes in the Independent and wrote this a couple of days ago. It's not very long and really worth you and your readers' time to read.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-why-do-they-hate-the-west-so-much-we-will-ask-1230046.html
All war, absolutely all war, is evil and I don't condone violence by anyone including Hamas but I can appreciate some of why they hate the west so much.
Super powers tend not like being told they ought not to do as they like. Therefore America and Israel generally ignore the UN.
ReplyDeleteMimi,
ReplyDeleteNow you know why some local public radio hosts in New York refuse to touch the Arab-Israeli conflict on their shows. Their phone banks light up like angry Christmas trees no matter what their take on the issue is. Leonard Lopate will not touch the conflict on his show, and has said so. Brian Lehrer gets death threats from both sides every time he does, and to his credit, proceeds with the conversation anyway.
Violence between Jews and Arabs there usually means violence between Jews and Arabs here; so far limited to fist fights in front of the UN. NYC's tough gun laws prevent them from shooting each other.
Erp, Rmj, and I have given you ideas, but you say we are all wrong. How about giving us YOUR solutions. Give us YOUR wisdom. YOU're in charge. What do YOU do?
ReplyDeleteI think Israel is probably doing the best it can do under the circumstances, although I haven't read the latest UNSC resolution and don't know if they are right in rejecting it.
If I were in charge, I would have announced a truce on New Year's. Hamas would certainly have violated it, and a renewal of hostilities would have been necessary, but it would have been a gesture of good will.
And with respect, Mimi, you haven't given any alternatives, except to say that violence is wrong. And again - just how would Erp's "neutral third party" being in place prevent rockets from flying overhead towards Ashkelon and Sderot?
"All are wrong," Mimi? Of course. "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." I'm Protestant and Calvinist enough to have never gotten past that lesson.
ReplyDeleteGive peace a chance, maybe? I know Hamas is a terrorist organization, but I see little difference between Hamas and Israel, except one is a military power, and one isn't. Israel reacted to the election of Hamas by shutting down all access to Gaza, and then is surprised Hamas reacts with violence. Feh. Both sides are so steeped in blood there's no washing it out now.
But is that an excuse for still more bloodshed? How many died in Israel before this invasion? 3? Actually, I think that's been since the invasion. Hey, the military solution worked!
Maybe the start is to put military "solutions" off limits. Might be difficult, I know; but the "simple" and "direct" response is not getting us anywhere.
Time to take away the shovels. This hols is plenty deep enough.
Counterlight, I hear you, and I knew the post would be controversial, but I felt I had to do it. Juan Cole comments on the subject every day. He's a brave man. I suppose he gets more than his share of death threats.
ReplyDeleteSteph, I'll look up your man.
I think Israel is probably doing the best it can do under the circumstances,...
BillyD, how long? How long?
Disclaimer: this is just my fool-ass opinion---
ReplyDeleteif there's EVER to be peace in Israel/Palestine, the last person to die will have to be Israeli.
Maybe the last 50 people. Or the last 100. Or the last 1000.
Palestinians, as a people&culture, are TOO WEAK to not avenge each and every even perceived slight (nevermind the actual wrongs).
Israel MUST "absorb" the losses, because ONLY Israel CAN.
Probably only the last 100th unavenged Kazam, or suicide bomb, or whatever, will finally provoke the MASSES of Palestinian opinion (AFTER world opinion, then Arab/Muslim opinion) to say "ENOUGH!" to Hamas (or however terroristic Palestinians are organizing themselves).
I'm sure this must sound tremendously unfeeling to Israelis.
But it's the ONLY thing that, in the long run, I believe will work. Israel warring their way to peace has ZERO chance of success.
The toll of dead is running around 60 to 1 now.
ReplyDeleteUmmm...to go back to your original posting about Muqtada al-Sadr calling for his followers "to stage "revenge operations" against American forces to protest Israel's Gaza offensive."...
ReplyDeleteI heard an interesting report on BBC's Africa Today podcast where they were holding an anti-Israeli protest in Khartoum. What was the chant? "Down, down, U.S.A." The point being that Israel is seen in many places as a client state of the U.S. I think it's just helpful to know that, gain some understanding of the perspective of other parts of the world.