Skip to main content

As the Israeli military flex its muscle moving into Gaza on the ground, the carnage continues to mount. Claiming the right to self defense, the Israeli government with the full backing of the Bush administration, as well as nearly 100% of both the US House of Representatives and the US Senate has waged war against what appears to be a ragtag band of resistance refusing to stop firing their lame, unstable, inaccurate rockets into southern Israel.

We began to ask ourselves why would a people so outgunned, poorly positioned and barely able to even feed itself not find a way to seek a peaceful solution with their lords. The answers we got from our cursory investigation to date have revealed some rather disturbing facts. This information we have come across is not being reported in the mainstream media as per usual. On the very sensitive issue of Israeli security, the old media and the invited guest they rely on for opinions and commentary appear to be reading talking points verbatim from some prepared script.

When we ventured to investigate who actually broke the six month Egyptian brokered ceasefire between Hamas and the Israelis first, we found the following to be reported by the Guardian of the UK, the New Times, the International Herald, the Irish Times and others Nov. 5TH 08:

A four-month ceasefire between Israel and Palestinian militants in Gaza was in jeopardy today after Israeli troops killed six Hamas gunmen in a raid into the territory.
Hamas responded by firing a wave of rockets into southern Israel, although no one was injured. The violence represented the most serious break in a ceasefire agreed in mid-June, yet both sides suggested they wanted to return to atmosphere of calm.

Israeli troops crossed into the Gaza Strip late last night near the town of Deir al-Balah. The Israeli military said the target of the raid was a tunnel that they said Hamas was planning to use to capture Israeli soldiers positioned on the border fence 250m away. Four Israeli soldiers were injured in the operation, two moderately and two lightly, the military said.
One Hamas gunman was killed and Palestinians launched a volley of mortars at the Israeli military. An Israeli air strike then killed five more Hamas fighters. In response, Hamas launched 35 rockets into southern Israel, one reaching the city of Ashkelon.

"This was a pinpoint operation intended to prevent an immediate threat," the Israeli military said in a statement. "There is no intention to disrupt the ceasefire; rather the purpose of the operation was to remove an immediate and dangerous threat posted by the Hamas terror organization."

One has to wonder why Israel would have not invited independent military observers to be present along with reputable news agencies in order to maintain complete transparency so there can be no doubt as to who was complying with the truce/ceasefire agreements and who is in clear violation. With Israel clearly the more formidable of the two foes militarily, they are going to have the most to prove to the world that they are truly seeking a cessation of violent confrontations until a lasting peaceful solution can be accepted by both parties.

With the Palestinians trapped like fish in a barrel, trying to defend themselves with sub par weapons, while lacking food, water, electrical power, shelter, medical supplies and whatever else it takes to survive, it is getting harder and harder to fathom the Israeli narrative that they are simply trying to provide security for its citizenry. There is another side to this madness that is just being ignored, or not being reported accurately, with any depth or degree of fairness.

This situation is beginning to look as though the Israelis may be the ones that are not negotiating in good faith. What the Israelis do have going for them to support their obvious military superiority is a mainstream American media that has bought into the too simplistic view of; Hamas is a terrorist organization that wants nothing but death and destruction for all Jews and Israelis. But, again that narrative is difficult to verify. From all of our sources around the globe including contacts in Tel Aviv, there is growing evidence that perhaps Israel really don’t want a true two state solution. The facts that we are uncovering so far, is leaning closer to a narrative that supports the long term goal of the complete removal of Palestinians from the region.

If one cares to remember the plight of the American Indian, the conditions were pretty much the same. The settlers would come first seeking a place to start a community for their formally oppressed people. They would slowly grow and begin to spread out pushing further and further into territories of their neighbors. Eventually boundaries are disputed, leading to local conflicts, leading to military action, leading to new claims of ownership of more land.

The final outcome is generally the same, whether you talking about the plains of America, the plains of Africa or as far down as Australia; the original inhabitants of the land will be given a small parcel of what they originally occupied as a benevolent gesture on behalf of the more powerful newcomer.

This unfortunate tale will continue for quite some time to come, so we are going to devote the rest of this week to analyzing the coverage of events as they break. In our opinion, this operation may be nothing more than a crime of opportunity.

In other news:

A. Bill Richardson is out of the running for Commerce Secretary
B. Barack Obama arrives in Washington preparing himself and family for life in the White House
C. The Economy still sucks, but we offer a solution

Click here to download the podcast http://retrovisionmedia.com/...

Originally posted to lbines on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 09:27 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  according to some reports (9+ / 0-)

    Israelis are using cluster bombs and WP. The IDF does not deny the use of cluster bombs but insists that they are only used in unpopulated or thinly populated areas in Gaza.

  •  I blame it on hamas terrorist (4+ / 0-)

    Hamas terrorist are using civilians as shield and using mosques and schools as military base.

    Palestinians voted for bunches of thugs who are very unrealistics when they demand that jews move out of the land entirely.

    Not only that , but those terrorist have decided to declare an holy war against a nation who has a more powerful military.

    Hamas should stop throwing rockets , ackowledge israel rights to exist and negotiate for peace.

    •  Evidence? (11+ / 0-)

      Hamas terrorist are using civilians as shield and using mosques and schools as military base.

      Do you have evidence for this, or is it just the kind of thing that is repeated until true?

      •  I have heard several radio interviews. . . (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        weasel, boatsie, BlueStateLiberal

        with Gazans who have had to leave their (relatively safe) apartment buildings because Hamas fighters have arrived with munitions and taken up positions in upper story apartments.

        John McCain, you are _not_ my friend.

        by LarryInNYC on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 09:47:30 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Interesting (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MadRuth, cybrestrike, egyinny, qi motuoche

          Where did you here this, and was it before or after the Israeli ground invasion?  Since Israeli troops are occupying the open spaces around Gaza City, the Hamas fighters may be forced into the city.  

          •  NPR. (0+ / 0-)

            One interview was this morning, although I don't know if they said when it was recorded -- presumably overnight (our time).  I heard the same thing recounted at least once before, but I don't remember if it was before or after the ground invasion.

            I also heard another interview last week some time in which a Gazan was complaining that they don't actually know who the Hamas military commanders are -- this information is kept secret (from the Gazans -- the Israelis seem to know).  So when Israel was using air strikes last week to attack the Hamas military command structure in some cases it was coming as a complete surprise to people to learn that they were living next to a military target.

            I've also heard reports (although not first-hand reports by actual Gazans) about Hamas using schools and hospitals as military sites -- and, tellingly, no denials that this is the case.

            John McCain, you are _not_ my friend.

            by LarryInNYC on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 09:59:25 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Hmm (6+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Jagger, bigchin, RubyGal, BYw, cybrestrike, egyinny

              Thanks.  The only report I heard on NPR was an Israeli army spokesman.  I'll look it up.

              As for Gazans not knowing "were living next to a military target," by "military target," you appear to mean "home."  The fact that Israel has declared the homes and families of Hamas members to be legitimate targets does not make them so, nor does it mean that Hamas was, as the earlier commenter claimed, "using civilians as shields."

              I've also heard reports (although not first-hand reports by actual Gazans) about Hamas using schools and hospitals as military sites -- and, tellingly, no denials that this is the case.

              Hamas basically never issues direct denials to Israeli accusations.  They are very tight-lipped about their operations (at least until they are concluded), obviously for fear of giving Israel additional information.  So saying they are tight-lipped in this case, as in all cases, is pretty meaningless.    

              •  In theory, anywhere a Hamas member may show up (6+ / 0-)

                becomes a potential target.  IDF has already basically painted a bull's eye on Gaza.

              •  By military target. . . (0+ / 0-)

                I mean Hamas commander.  Since there is no military structure in Gaza, I think it's reasonable to believe that military activity, including storage of munitions, is being coordinated from the homes of the commanders.  Otherwise, where is it happening?

                Such actions (use of civilian facilities for military purposes, or even locating military facilities among civilian facilities) are, of course, violations of the laws of war.

                In the event that such facilities are hit during a war the responsibility for civilian casualties is, at least, shared between the two warring parties.

                John McCain, you are _not_ my friend.

                by LarryInNYC on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 10:14:42 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Hmm (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  bigchin, Boreal Ecologist

                  Since there is no military structure in Gaza, I think it's reasonable to believe that military activity, including storage of munitions, is being coordinated from the homes of the commanders.

                  I've heard this supposition before, but never heard evidence for it.  Hamas does indeed have government buildings, training camps, etc.  It also clearly has secret facilities.  But even when Israel attacks the homes of Hamas members, I've never heard them claim that the homes are being used to coordinate military activities.  In the Israeli statements, the fact that Hamas officers live there is reason enough to justify the attacks.

                  •  Not. . . (0+ / 0-)

                    Hamas does indeed have government buildings, training camps, etc.

                    anymore.

                    It also clearly has secret facilities.  But even when Israel attacks the homes of Hamas members, I've never heard them claim that the homes are being used to coordinate military activities.   In the Israeli statements, the fact that Hamas officers live there is reason enough to justify the attacks.

                    I believe that, in general, when a civilian target is hit that the Israeli statement does, in fact, give a military reason for the attack.  As an example, try this link, the first that came up on a google search.  It is from Haaretz and describes a number of attacks on Hamas commanders' homes, as well as one on a mosque.  In each case, the existence of stored weapons and / or smuggling tunnels is given as justification for the attack.  This includes one case which Haaretz describes as an "assassination" (although, to give balance, it quotes Palestinian media as specifically reporting it wasn't an assassination, but rather a military strike -- you have to love the Middle East).

                    John McCain, you are _not_ my friend.

                    by LarryInNYC on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 11:00:59 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Well (0+ / 0-)

                      "Not anymore" is true.  Any you are correct about the Israeli claims in the recent attack.  However, while Israel also always makes this claim when attacking mosques, it rarely does so when attacking homes, and simply claims killing Hamas officers is reason enough.  Note that the same article mentioned Israel bombing 15 homes of Hamas members without any pretense that military planning was taken care of.

                      The picture seems to be that Hamas does generally not operate from civilian areas.  Most of their rocket fire comes from the outskirts, and they have attempted to set up separate military facilities.  But with the Israeli invasion sweeping over Gaza, they are forced back into the dense cities.

                      •  I think. . . (0+ / 0-)

                        you're confounding what's reported in the press with what's in the Israeli statements.

                        The statements generally seem to contain military justification for the attacks.  Those justifications are rarely (I can't remember ever hearing them) reported in the media here.  None of the statements mentioned in the Haaretz article were reported in any media I heard or saw.

                        I did notice the mention of other Hamas officers being targeted — no mention was made in the article of what the IDF said about those attacks, so there isn't any way to know what was in the statement, or even if there was a statement.  I did notice that apparently they gave warning of the attack by telephone to the neighbors which seems to me to be an indication that they were seeking to avoid civilian casualties.

                        The picture seems to be that Hamas does generally not operate from civilian areas.

                        I simply do not know where that picture is coming from.  The article cited, all the news media, and the reports of actual Gazans seems to indicate otherwise.  The fact that the missiles are moved as close as possible to the target before being fired is hardly surprising since they're trying to penetrate the maximum distance inside Israel and to achieve better accuracy.  The missiles are, apparently, still stored in houses and mosques.

                        John McCain, you are _not_ my friend.

                        by LarryInNYC on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 11:23:23 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Article? (0+ / 0-)

                          The article cited, all the news media, and the reports of actual Gazans seems to indicate otherwise.

                          Which article, the one I cited?  (I never heard the one you referenced)  The one I cited reported one missile launched from inside Gaza City, and the person stated that this was unusual and a break from Hamas's previous pattern.

                          As for the missiles-stored-in-mosques, that is the standard Israeli claim, but I don't know that I've seen evidence of it outside of the repeated claims.

                          •  The Haaretz article. . . (0+ / 0-)

                            I cited above.

                            As for claims versus reality, I'm in no better position than you to evaluate them.  My comments above only apply to whether or not a military justification is given for the attacks — I don't mean to suggest I can evaluate the accuracy of the justification.

                            John McCain, you are _not_ my friend.

                            by LarryInNYC on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 11:34:29 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I see (0+ / 0-)

                            I misunderstood since you said "reports from actual Gazans", which weren't quoted in that story.  Based only on those (since I tend not to put too much faith in official statements from either side), I still stand by my statement about the apparent Hamas pattern.  The Gazans themselves could be lying, of course, but my instinct is to find them more credible than official reports.  

                          •  I'm not being clear. . . (0+ / 0-)

                            through writing too fast.

                            What I meant to say is:

                            1. The statement that missiles are generally fired from the near the border is not suggestive that Hamas is trying to avoid using civilian areas for military purposes.  It makes sense to move the missiles as close to the target as possible to achieve maximum distance into Israel and increase the accuracy of the weapons.  The weapons still must be stored and prepared somewhere, and that isn't on the border.  It's claimed by Israel that this happens at least in part in civilian neighborhoods and cultural institutions.  They report that when those institutions are destroyed, the weapons catch fire and explode giving a visible indication that they actually exist.
                            1. The "Gazan" evidence for military use of civilian structures comes from the reports of Gazans that Hamas is using apartment buildings as military structures.

                            John McCain, you are _not_ my friend.

                            by LarryInNYC on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 11:59:49 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

              •  I also heard. . . (0+ / 0-)

                the report with the spokesman and found it very interesting in terms of what he said and exactly how he phrased it.

                The phone conversation from Gaza preceded that piece, at least as broadcast in my market (New York City).

                John McCain, you are _not_ my friend.

                by LarryInNYC on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 10:19:34 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yeah (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Eiron, bigchin

                  I found his statements interesting too.  The phone conversation from Gaza was not on my station.

                  I did find this report from Gaza which states that the man had seen a qassam rocket fired from within the center of Gaza City.  Interestingly, the man stated that Hamas generally fires rockets from the frontier, but has apparently continued firing after being pushed back into the city.  

            •  NPR has become biased (6+ / 0-)

              Why NPR should have a stake in the Israeli side against the Palestinians so consistently over the years is an unknown.  But over time, the consistency of it becomes clear, unfortunately.  What people in the US need is unbiased reporting and there is very little of it anywhere.  Once you realize this, you seek other sources and try to put a picture together.  Most of the news on this situation is really propaganda.

              •  I'll disregard the extreme irony. . . (0+ / 0-)

                of your comment and point out that the reports I was referring to are actual interviews of actual Gazans.  Unless you believe they were faked, then they are real and can reasonably be taken to accurately reflect the experiences of the interviewees.

                John McCain, you are _not_ my friend.

                by LarryInNYC on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 10:18:09 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  if you have the time listen to this (0+ / 0-)

              Flashpointsshow on Friday ... gives you some live reporting from inside Gaza.

              "Imagine better than the best you know." Neville Goddard.

              by boatsie on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 10:17:37 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Where and how (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MadRuth, egyinny

          because Hamas fighters have arrived with munitions and taken up positions in upper story apartments.

          So where and how are the Hamas fighters suppose to defend their city when civilians live everywhere?  Where and how did the jews defend Warsaw?  Why didn't they just evacuate the citizens when the nazi army rolled in?

          Or should Hamas just stand out in the open and wait for an F-16 to drop a bomb on them.  If so, why didn't the jews in Warsaw do the same?

          Do you actually consider the logic of what you are writing before you type or only after you post?

    •  You are a liar and a propagandist (n/t) (6+ / 0-)
    •  so (9+ / 0-)

      Palestinians voted for bunches of thugs

      so did we for 8 years. so if during the bush years an average innocent american was killed by a foreign power he would of gotten what he deserved?  just asking.

    •  The Israelis don't recongnize a Palestinian State (10+ / 0-)

      either.  The Israelis are the ones demanding that a group moves out of the land entirely.

      Here is the Likud Platform.

      "Declaration of a State

      A unilateral Palestinian declaration of the establishment of a Palestinian state will constitute a fundamental and substantive violation of the agreements with the State of Israel and the scuttling of the Oslo and Wye accords. The government will adopt immediate stringent measures in the event of such a declaration.

      Settlements

      The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting.

      The Partition of the Negev

      Israel rejects out of hand ideas raised by Labor Party leaders concerning the relinquishment of parts of the Negev to the Palestinians. The practical meaning of this plan is that the "Green Line" should no longer be viewed as a "Red Line", which draws us closer to the partition plan of 1947 as it opens the door to the principle that the fate of the Galilee, the Triangle and additional areas within Israel is negotiable. The Likud asserts that such proposals by the Labor Party leadership may literally cause the dismemberment of the State of Israel. "

    •  why ban humanitarian aide? why ban press coverage (8+ / 0-)

      why allow the only news to filter out of Palestine be subject to MSM representing as Hamas using citizen shields and only buildings being targeted that were storing weapons?

      "Imagine better than the best you know." Neville Goddard.

      by boatsie on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 09:51:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The number of factual errors... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DFWmom, anaxiamander

    logical fallacies and just plain lies employed in an argument is in direct proportion to the degree that the argument is bullshit.

    Your's ranks pretty damn close to the 100% cow paddy level.

    The day someone actually starts quoting something even close to fact without the logical fallacies and lies about the I/P conflict is the day we may actually start making some progress on its resolution.

  •  Let's all hope for a quick Israeli victory... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sandbox, anaxiamander

    The defeat of Hamas will be good for Israel and the Palestinians.  The Palestinians will only get a state of their own through negotiations, not firing rockets. Firing rockets into Israel = misery for the people of Gaza. Hamas knows it and what is worse - they don't care.  

    And again: Hamas DOES want the end of Israel.  Hamas thinks Israel is an abomination of God.  No Jewish state in the Mid East can exist as it's a front to God.  They want the Jews out.  They don't want a military prostrate Israel; it wants Israel gone.

    Maybe that's simplistic in your view (cos it's so evil and understandable), but it's the 100% truth.

  •  This sums all it up. (10+ / 0-)

    I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent. - - Mahatma Gandhi

    Anytime you blame the poor, you are complaining about the behavior of the slaves, when you should be doing all you can to stop the slavery. - A Seattle Comedian

    by THE BIG FUNNY on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 09:35:18 AM PST

  •  Zombie media is swallowing the bait. (7+ / 0-)

    The only thing you see in the Traditional Media™ is non-stop regurgitation of "Hamas is a terrorist organization" and Israel's "defensive reaction to rockets from Gaza". In Israel by contrast there's plenty of media debate about the Israeli military's intentional provocation of this conflict.

    Here in America all we hear is the endless reiteration of the need for Hamas to end all rocket attacks before Israel is compelled to do anything, even as a rain of bombs pulverizes the cardboard shacks and mud huts of Gaza. Even Harry Reid, to his everlasting shame, is repeating this sewage.

    •  That's because Israel's media is guided... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cybrestrike

      by political loyalties, just as in any democracy.  They each want the political party they support to benefit and the party they oppose to suffer.

      I'm sure the Jerusalem Post is quite hawkish on the counterattack into Gaza.  Haartz is a liberal paper that supports Labour so it is more critical of the Right Wing parties.

      It is just like the invasion of Iraq and George Bush.  MSNBC is very critical and FoxNews extremely supportive.

      IOW - same old, same old

    •  don't read all these diaries so... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BYw, qi motuoche

      bear with me but I read years ago that Israel was behind the formation of Hamas as a counterpoint to PLO. An Alternet article Saturdy lays out the story, once again reiterating the proposition that the US continually is involved in what ends up ripping the guts out further through its involvement throughout the world (Taliban comes immediately to mind) ...  and in terms of WP being used, noticing on pics last night this 'mist' which seems to be being released from planes highabove the city ... WTF is that? Anybody?

      "Imagine better than the best you know." Neville Goddard.

      by boatsie on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 09:45:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  One sided coverage (0+ / 0-)

      The only thing you see in the Traditional Media™ is non-stop regurgitation of "Hamas is a terrorist organization" and Israel's "defensive reaction to rockets from Gaza".

      Can someone give me a rational explanation for the completely one sided, pro-Israel coverage of the traditional media?  

      Everywhere else in the world, the media provides two sides to this conflict, including in Israel.  Why is America media, alone amonst the world, the only media to present the Israeli side without question????

      Someone??  Anyone??

  •  Stop and think about what you wrote (4+ / 0-)

    When we ventured to investigate who actually broke the six month Egyptian brokered ceasefire between Hamas and the Israelis first, we found the following to be reported by the Guardian of the UK, the New Times, the International Herald, the Irish Times and others Nov. 5TH 08:

    A four-month ceasefire between Israel and Palestinian militants in Gaza was in jeopardy today after Israeli troops killed six Hamas gunmen in a raid into the territory.
    Hamas responded by firing a wave of rockets into southern Israel, although no one was injured. The violence represented the most serious break in a ceasefire agreed in mid-June, yet both sides suggested they wanted to return to atmosphere of calm.

    Israeli troops crossed into the Gaza Strip late last night near the town of Deir al-Balah. The Israeli military said the target of the raid was a tunnel that they said Hamas was planning to use to capture Israeli soldiers positioned on the border fence 250m away. Four Israeli soldiers were injured in the operation, two moderately and two lightly, the military said.
    One Hamas gunman was killed and Palestinians launched a volley of mortars at the Israeli military. An Israeli air strike then killed five more Hamas fighters. In response, Hamas launched 35 rockets into southern Israel, one reaching the city of Ashkelon.

    "This was a pinpoint operation intended to prevent an immediate threat," the Israeli military said in a statement. "There is no intention to disrupt the ceasefire; rather the purpose of the operation was to remove an immediate and dangerous threat posted by the Hamas terror organization."

    By this reasoning, digging a tunnel to kidnap Israelis is not a violation of the ceasefire.  Instead, Israel should wait until their soldiers or civilians are kidnapped.  Or, alternatively, they can ask the presiding power in Gaza, Hamas, to stop the terrorists, Hamas, from committing those kidnappings.  Or Israel can do what is the right of every other nation on earth and protect its citizens from the violent acts of neighbors.

    Israel disrupts a planned attack against it.  Hamas responds with a barrage of rockets and mortars aimed randomly at civilians, and somehow Israel is at fault?

    Bizarre.  Truly bizarre.

    Done with politics for the night? Have a nice glass of wine with Two Days per Bottle.

    by dhonig on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 09:36:50 AM PST

    •  small quibble but if the soldiers were taken (0+ / 0-)

      by Hamas, if this is a war and Hamas is a paramilitary, shouldn't the Israeli soldier be considered a POW and not kidnapped?

      Also, Israel did negotiate with Hizbullah for the return of those two soldiers held by them.

      •  No (0+ / 0-)

        No nation on earth recognizes the right of a "paramilitary" organization that is not a nation to declare war on another country, or to take POWs.  

        Yes, Israel negotiated with Hezbollah, but Hamas continues to hold an Israeli soldier, after two years.  Also, does Israel have some obligation unique to it to allow its soldiers to be kidnapped and used as trade bait?

        Done with politics for the night? Have a nice glass of wine with Two Days per Bottle.

        by dhonig on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 10:53:38 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I realize I'm a bit late, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BYw, qi motuoche

      and this just may be a stupid question, but if Israel was targetting a tunnel, why go over to Gaza to shut it down?  

      Immediate threat would mean, I think, that Hamas could snatch soldiers at any moment which suggests that the tunnel was completed. And if Israel knew the location of the tunnel's entrance wouldn't Israel know the exit of the same?

      The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

      by callmecassandra on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 10:20:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Throughout its history the state of ISRAEL (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dexter, qi motuoche

    Has been founded on Opportunity and thuggery and manipulations and Facts on the ground , terrorism , assassinations , War .. You do not need investivative reporting to know this .. you just need to travel outside the US.

    Real News Daily http://www.antiwar.com - http://www.middleeast.org!

    by egyinny on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 09:41:33 AM PST

  •  Facts about casualties (4+ / 0-)

    This war on Gaza is a disproportionate response by Israel to the Hamas rocket attacks.

    "Since 2005, Hamas militants and their allies have launched more than 6,000 rockets at Israeli targets. Ten people have been killed." - http://www.cbsnews.com/...

    (In the last 10 days) "The Israeli assault has already killed around 540 Palestinians, while Hamas rockets have killed four Israelis." - http://uk.reuters.com/...

  •  Aren't all offensive wars opportunistic? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rich in PA

    Seems to me that is one of the defining factors behind an offensive war.

  •  Ah, the democratization of the news media! (0+ / 0-)

    I'm not sure why some diarists aren't content to be diarists, and feel the need to construct themselves as alternative new organizations when clearly they're not.

    The Israeli response is what countries often do when their only choices are (a) do nothing, (b) make substantive concessions that they have always considered unacceptable, and (c) launch a frankly disproportionate response because anything less would have zero chance of eliminating the perceived threat.  In 1917 the US invaded northern Mexico when the alternatives were to ignore Pancho Villa's raids into US territory (which were no biggie unless you lived in New Mexico), give the territory seized in 1848 and purchased in 1850 back to Mexico, or launch a massive invasion.  The third option sucked but the other two weren't very appetizing either.  I'm sure enterprising readers can think of other examples of this synamic.

    -5.38/-3.74 I've suffered for my country. Now it's your turn! --John McCain with apologies to Monty Python's "Protest Song"

    by Rich in PA on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 09:49:30 AM PST

    •  strawmen much (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bigchin, sortalikenathan

      only 3 options?  LOL  my god.  Are those really the 3 choices you use in life to settle a dispute.

      SO if you have a dispute with a neighbor,  you'll 1) do nothing, 2) bend over and just take it 3) burn down his house.

      My god. That is just sad.

      •  Just for you, let's create "(d) other" (0+ / 0-)

        There you go, a fourth schematic option!  Earlier today I asked a diarist to populate this option, and s/he suggested (as did their initial diary) an Anbar Awakening-style counterinsurgency strategy.  This ludicrous idea was gratefully received and digested by yours truly and other early risers.  Now it's your turn: what is your creative, non-sad alternative proposal?

        -5.38/-3.74 I've suffered for my country. Now it's your turn! --John McCain with apologies to Monty Python's "Protest Song"

        by Rich in PA on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 10:01:46 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  talk (0+ / 0-)

          mature people without schemes or massive agendas TALK.  Hamas exist only becomes of Israels policies.  If Isreal would kill Palenstenians with kindness, hamas would go away.

          People are people, respect them, listen to them. Its absurd to think killing them is the answer.

          Hell and if that isn't quick enough for you, what did we learn in Iraq?  You hire and buy the bad guys off.  Its only a handful of people causing the problems. Deal with the handful, don't punish the masses. All you do is add to the problem.

          •  New Thinking is the gift that keeps on giving! (0+ / 0-)

            Hamas wants to talk?  Wow, my MSM news constricter is even tighter than I imagined.  

            "You hire and buy the bad guys off."  That would be extremely cool, but I'm somewhat skeptical about the Israelis' ability to purchase the loyalties of Hamas members.  They have done a pretty good job of buying intelligence from non-Hamas Gazans about the whereabouts of Hamas leaders and weapons stashes, but I don't think it's feasible to buy off Hamas members because (a) they're devoted to a maximalist cause, and (b) their internal policing is very effective and harsh.

            -5.38/-3.74 I've suffered for my country. Now it's your turn! --John McCain with apologies to Monty Python's "Protest Song"

            by Rich in PA on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 10:19:51 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  It supposedly worked for Petraus (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              dark daze

              and the US in Iraq and has been a mainstay of US practices in its foreign policy (and domestic policies with Native Americans) through the years.

            •  oh please (0+ / 0-)

              Hamas wants to talk?  Wow, my MSM news constricter is even tighter than I imagined.  

              yes, everyone can be brought to the table, that is what good diplomacy allows for.  Maybe some in the world should try it again.

              but I don't think it's feasible

              who the fuck cares what you think, it just worked in Iraq, where they have the same type history, hatred, and foreign occupation.

              The vast majority of humans want peace, to continue to allow a handful to dictate and create war for the masses is just complete faliure of leadership and governments.

              You wanted a D0 option I gave you two, and there are many many more in the grey world of global diplomacy.

              Your 3 options are all=Epic Failure

              •  I can't go on...I'll go on. (0+ / 0-)

                The notion that everyone will negotiate and everyone has their price is not too far removed from the Bush Administration's notion, going into Iraq, that everyone wanted to be like us.  

                I feel like the insurance adjuster who had to remind Homer Simpson that his policy only covered real losses, not made-up ones.  Diplomatic solutions only work with governing groups who are interested in negotiation.

                -5.38/-3.74 I've suffered for my country. Now it's your turn! --John McCain with apologies to Monty Python's "Protest Song"

                by Rich in PA on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 10:39:02 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  Do you really think either side (0+ / 0-)

            is interested in talking right now?

  •  Great, another pro-Hamas Diary (0+ / 0-)

    And now they're American Indians LOL!

    On November 5, 2008, history was made.

    by Prince Georges for Obama on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 09:49:53 AM PST

  •  Simple answer: YES! (5+ / 0-)

    Gaza has been turned into one big concentration camp.

  •  Simply put, Israel is... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    egyinny, qi motuoche

    "Simply put, Israel is colonizing Palestine. Its Zionist founders always intended to achieve this end, and the current regime has no intention of sidelining that plan. Any other claim made by the government of Israel is pure guile. And this deception has been perpetrated with funding and encouragement from successive United States administrations since 1947. Indeed, none of Israel’s current illegal aggression would be taking place without the approval of the United States along with the massive amounts of military aid we provide. This is the history of the current conflict which we are not allowed to hear. Not because it is too complicated for us to understand, but because it is too offensive to the sensibilities of those who blindly support Israel."

    Silence is Complicity - We’re All War Criminals Now by Joe Mowrey / January 5th, 2009

  •  I just hope that Obama gets it right (0+ / 0-)

    The present tragic circumstance is due to the momentum created by Bush's father worship of Ariel Sharon, who was a military extremist.  The US should have put energy into pursuing diplomacy and should have done something to rein in Sharon.

    Arafat wasn't a great help because he was so inarticulate.  But that really is mostly a media problem.  There are plenty of people in the Arab world who can explain the Palestinian position, but they don't seem to get much attention.  This is mostly because of the way the Bush administration set the tone for the past eight years.

    It will take a while for the current hostilities to subside and for some sort of peace process to begin.  I hope the Obama administration sees the situation in terms of what opportunities might open up to get things on a track towards an honest brokerage by the US for a peace that actually can be achieved.

    Having studied the history of the US approach to dealing with various Indian tribes in the 1800s, especially figures like Custer, the resemblance is very striking.  In the nineteenth century the attitude of mainstream America was very racist and while there were attempts to negotiate treaties, it does not seem as though these were entered into in good faith.  

    I think we need to specifically reject this way of doing things and declare that we want to see negotiations in the middle east based on good faith and that words mean what they are supposed to and there are no hidden intentions.

  •  It's embarassing... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sandbox, thestructureguy

    to see so many on the Left embrace Hamas and its cause.  You are an embarassment to the Democratic Party....sickening.

  •  thanks for another piece of journalism (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    qi motuoche

    thanks for another well-written, well researched journalistic piece on the Gaza situation.  We need more diaries of this sort and less of the emotional talking points in order to form a more reasonable approach to resolution of this critical situation.

    I so hope there will be an atmosphere of change in this process following the inauguration even though we haven't been given much reason to hope so far.

    Find your own voice--the personal is political.

    by In her own Voice on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 11:05:54 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site