home

Israel Expected to Continue Strikes Against Hamas

From what I gather in the news about Israel's air strikes against Hamas in the Gaza Strip:

  • There was a cease fire but it ended earlier this month.
  • Most of the 225 killed were militant Hamas policemen, since a principal target was Hamas police headquarters, although hundreds were injured and there were some civilians and children who died. Most of the strikes were on security compounds and militant bases.
  • Israel had been planning the attacks for some time due to Hamas's refusal to stop sending rockets into Israel
  • The Bush Administration blames Hamas. Condoleeza Rice blames Hamas because it kept sending rockets into Israel
    "We strongly condemn the repeated rocket and mortar attacks against Israel and hold Hamas responsible for breaking the ceasefire and for the renewal of violence there. The ceasefire must be restored immediately and fully respected."
  • This can't be good news for Obama, who will take office with Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan already on the front burners. And neither he, nor any American president, may have much control over what goes on between Israel and Hamas.

Daniel Levy at Huffpo adds his perspective. Your Thoughts?

< Late Night: R.I.P. Delaney Bramlett | Sunday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    As with the economic crisis (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 12:48:20 AM EST
    this is a bad time to have the American Presidency in transition mode. What is needed is leadership.

    Israel is a huge economic burden on the US (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 02:45:47 AM EST
    Andgarden, and with all due respect to Jeralyn, the US has primary influence over "what happens between Israel and Hamas". Try this on for size, US Aid: The Lifeblood of Occupation
    Israel is a military stronghold, a client state, and a proxy army, protecting U.S. interests in the Middle East and throughout the world...[To that end] Israel has maintained an illegal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip (Palestinian territories) for 35 years, entrenching an apartheid regime that looks remarkably like the former South African regime...

    The Israeli military (IDF)--the third or forth most powerful army in the world--routinely uses tanks, Apache helicopter gunships, and F-16 fighter jets (all subsidized by the U.S.) against a population that has no military and none of the protective institutions of a modern state.

    Israel, a country of approximately 6 million people, is currently receiving more U.S. aid than all of Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean combined when you take out Egypt and Colombia.

    The total amount of direct U.S. aid to Israel has been constant, at around $3 billion (usually 60% military and 40% economic) per year for the last quarter century. In addition to nearly $3 billion in direct aid, Israel usually gets another $3 billion or so in indirect aid: military support from the defense budget, forgiven loans, and special grants...Total US aid to Israel amounts to at least five billion dollars annually.



    Parent
    Israel cannot disengage unilaterally (none / 0) (#8)
    by andgarden on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 02:59:31 AM EST
    and the final borders need to be negotiated with. . .someone.

    But your suggestion that we threaten the Israelis into withdrawal (to where exactly, you don't say, but the details here are essential) is untenable. That's not least of which because almost no one at the policy level in the U.S. agrees with you.  

    Parent

    Jimmy Carter, Noam Chomsky (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 04:31:55 AM EST
    and numerous others hold the foregoing opinions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

    As you may know, Jimmy Carter wrote a book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid" as reported by WaPo. I fully expect he offered a "policy level" solution, although I've not yet read the book.

    But you're right, no such viewpoints will ever issue from the mouth of a sitting POTUS - not as long as there's an ounce of oil in the Middle East. It's tragic.

    Parent

    Read It!! (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by CDN Ctzn on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 02:43:49 PM EST
    It's controversial for a reason, and that not a bad thing. It upsets the narrative that's spoon fed to us.

    Parent
    Obama will demonstrate (none / 0) (#23)
    by Salo on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 08:21:58 AM EST
    To the Arabs that the us will go along with Israel in all things. Abandon all hope yee Arab scallywags.

    Parent
    Hope (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by mmc9431 on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 08:44:54 AM EST
    My only glimmer of hope,(and it's slight at best) is that Hilary will be as committed to the Mid East as Bill was.

    Parent
    rubbish! (none / 0) (#11)
    by cpinva on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 04:16:00 AM EST
    this is the standard arab propaganda, from the same arab countries that have conveniently ignored the actual problems of the palestinian people since 1948.

    the land presently occupied by israel was occupied by the jews over 2,000 years ago, laying waste to any latter-day claims of the arab states; the arabs and palestinians are the trespassers here, not the israeli's.

    if the arabs wanted to, they could easily put the brakes on hamas, and all the other groups making  joe palestinian's life a pain. who do you think provides the funds that keep hamas supplied with arms? try saudi arabia, iran, syria, the list goes on. if that funding dries up, so does hamas.

    to even suggest that israel, which has actually been attacked by someone (as opposed to the US, which hasn't), should not respond, in kind, is stupid at best, idiotic at worst.

    israel isn't perfect, but i'll take their imperfect over any of the arab states any day.

    Parent

    you must be joking (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by uncledad on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 08:27:16 AM EST
    "land presently occupied by israel was occupied by the jews over 2,000 years ago" Well then lets just go back and make everything like it was in the bible! Our media can't get anything right that just happened last week and you want to justify the murder of millions of innocent civilians on what was reported to have happened 2000 years ago. Hellooooooooooooooooooo.

    Parent
    talk about rubbish!! (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 09:44:21 AM EST
    Beginning by discussing 2000 year old land claims is ridiculous.

    Parent
    For these purposes (none / 0) (#54)
    by andgarden on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 11:29:52 AM EST
    talking about 1948 land claims is not much better.

    Parent
    1948 is a tad more relevant than 2000 years ago (none / 0) (#115)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 06:37:30 PM EST
    If you don't want to talk about 1948, you don't want to talk about WW11 - let alone the consequent installation of an Israeli State on land that had been inhabited by Palestinians for...well, you know, a long time.

    Parent
    OK, let's evacuate Manhattan and give it back (none / 0) (#15)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 04:54:45 AM EST
    to the Weckquaesgeeks native people, who inhabited the island of Manhattan but were not contacted or consulted when the Delaware Indians sold it to European settlers in 1626. The native people's right to that land may go back thousands of years.

    (Reply to comment #11 about Jewish people having a 2000 year old claim to the land Israel appropriated from the Arab states in 1948.)

    Parent

    As long (none / 0) (#22)
    by uncledad on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 08:09:07 AM EST
    as Israel is a state it will be bad news for any new American president, Israel has no intention of having real peace, they cannot stop the illegal land grab, they never will until we stop supporting them like the spoiled child of America.

    Parent
    Uncle Dad (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 10:42:08 AM EST
    Please take your inflammatory views on this elsewhere. Calling for the end of Israel is not acceptable here. I'm deleting the second of your comments calling for the termination of Israel.

    Parent
    Calling for the support of the Israeli state (none / 0) (#60)
    by uncledad on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 12:38:36 PM EST
    IS THE SAME AS CALLING FOR AN END TO PALESTINE THE TWO WILL NEVER COEXIST, NIETHER PARTY WANTS THAT. I FIND THAT INFLAMMATORY. IT'S YOUR BLOG YOU CAN DELETE WHAT YOU WANT, I WAS ONLY OFFERING WHAT WILL BE THE INEVITABLE SOLUTION.

    Parent
    The fundamental problem here (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Steve M on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 02:00:50 AM EST
    The Palestinian Authority simply does not have enough sovereign power to control its entire territory.  You could have the most fair-minded Israeli and Palestinian leadership imaginable, and there still cannot be any kind of real peace as long as the Palestinian government is unable to control wrongdoers within its own territory.

    If wrongdoers persistently fired rockets into US cities from Canada, we'd expect the Canadian government to bring them to justice.  If it turned out they lacked the wherewithal to do so, I dunno what exactly we would do, but I doubt we'd stand idly by and let the rockets continue to kill Americans.

    I don't know the way out of this situation but I'm not sure there's very much the USA can do.

    Israel and the US won't allow (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 03:59:41 AM EST
    the Palestinian people to govern themselves. I don't claim to have a monopoly on the facts or the truth, this is just my admittedly imperfect understanding of events:

    In January, 2006, the Palestinian Territories held democratic elections and Hamas became the majority political party; winning 76 of 132 seats while the former ruling party Fatah won 43.

    However, Hamas had been officially declared a terrorist organization by the US. Israel and the US subsequently attempted to undermine the democratically elected Hamas, while strengthening President Mahmoud Abbas's (Fatah) position and forcing Hamas from power. The U.S., Egypt, and Israel also armed and trained Fatah for a possible 'War' with Hamas. See: NY Times; Christian Science Monitor; SF Chronicle; Times Online; Haaretz.com.

    The ensuing Battle of Gaza occurred between Hamas and Fatah in June 2007. Hamas then remained in control of the Gaza Strip while the US/Israeli backed President Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah took control of the West Bank.

    Israel is currently pounding the Gaza strip into a bloody pulp; with weapons and funding from the US.

    This is how it shakes down, imo. Pray for peace there and here.

    Parent

    The problem is (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 11:03:48 AM EST
    that Hamas thought that winning the election gave them the right to attack Israel without Israel hitting back.

    They are now discovering the error of that belief.

    In the meantime the PLO is playing fox in the hen house, waiting for Israel to destroy their opposition.

    Parent

    Oh No (none / 0) (#53)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 11:09:00 AM EST
    The divine wisdom of PPJ.......who has never been to Gaza or Palestine and probably not Israel either.

    Parent
    Impart someof your (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 12:39:33 PM EST
    divine wisdom here.  Tell us about your trips to gaza.

    Parent
    Guess what (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 12:26:47 PM EST
    If having a husband serving in Iraq has taught me anything, it is that what a lot of Americans and Wile and ppj think they know and understand about other cultures and racial/ethinic/religious/political/government hostilities and wars has little to do with fact and most to do with their egos and what they want to believe.

    Parent
    MT, appreciate the reality check! (none / 0) (#116)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 06:39:45 PM EST
    hehe (2.00 / 0) (#79)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 04:47:31 PM EST
    Maybe SE AL??????

    Parent
    Hamas IS the Palestinian Authority (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by daryl herbert on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 04:16:18 AM EST
    The Palestinian government in Gaza was launching the rockets at Israel.

    The problem is that Palestinians are brainwashed from birth to hate Jews, and believe they must wage endless war against Israel until it is destroyed.  They are taught that there can be no compromise--anyone who compromises a little bit is a 100% traitor.  There are no peaceniks in Palestine.

    Their indoctrination is subsidized by the United Nations, liberal NGOs, and Muslim states.  Those are the real criminals.  They turned the Palestinian population into a weapon against Israel, which was their plan from the very beginning.  The UN, which ran the refugee camps and provided material support, did nothing to interfere with the indoctrination.  It goes on today.  That's the real problem.

    Killing Hamas leaders and fighters is not a long-term solution to this problem.  Israel can't kill its way out of this.  The only way the indoctrination stops is if Israel reoccupies Gaza.  The Palestinians are not going to stop on their own, and the UN, liberal NGOs, and Muslim states aren't going to lift a finger to get the indoctrination to stop.

    Parent

    Hamas is not the Palestinian Authority (3.00 / 2) (#16)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 05:48:26 AM EST
    After the Battle of Gaza in June 2007, the Palestinian Authority government was dismissed by its Chairman Mahmoud Abbas. He  appointed Salam Fayad Prime Minister to form a new Palestinian Authority government. However, this new PA government only manages to control certain areas of the West Bank, although it is supported by Israel, the US and other nations

    Hamas is the political party that was democratically elected by a majority of Palestinians in 2006. Hamas still governs the Gaza Strip, despite international diplomatic and economic isolation.

    *If we learned anything from non-existent WMD, let's not be 100% sure about all the "rockets" that are reportedly being launched into Israel from the Gaza Strip. There are real rockets, to be sure. But bogus rocket claims are even easier to manufacture than bogus WMD. The bottom line is that Israel and the US want to smash Hamas and Gaza and, as we saw in Iraq, where there's a will there's a way.

    Parent

    Quotes around rockets? (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by ricosuave on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 09:33:55 AM EST
    If you have to resort to making up the fact that Israel is being attacked by rockets, you are way out on a limb.  There is ZERO evidence that rocket attacks are fake.  Asserting that the rocket attacks fake with zero evidence IS THE EQUIVALENT to asserting that the WMD's are real with no evidence.  Maybe worse.

    No matter what you think of Israel's existence or its response to these continued rocket attacks, you can't deny that Israel has been under attack.  Making things up might make the situation simpler for you, but it is not OK.

    I'm sorry this situation does not fit your George-Bush-style, black-and-white world where one side is innocent and the other is evil, but pretending will not make it so.

    Parent

    How many ISRAELI CASUALTIES (none / 0) (#98)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 01:20:15 AM EST
    have these rockets caused, since December 19th when the ceasefire ended?

    Parent
    Killed (none / 0) (#103)
    by ricosuave on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 08:46:23 AM EST
    I don't know the total number, but there was a new Israeli death today along with 15 injured.  These rocket attacks have been deadly to Israelis for decades, and it is offensive for you to pretend that they might not even be real.

    And you understand that Hamas broke the cease-fire over two years ago, don't you, not just a few days ago?  They started firing rockets into Israel in the summer of 2006.  No Israelis were hurt in that first attack, and Israel responded by firing artillery at the rocket launch sites.  Here is what Hamas had to say back then (according to the BBC):

    Hamas's armed wing has been distributing leaflets declaring the end of the February 2005 truce and appearing to promise a resumption of bomb attacks on Israeli towns.

    "The earthquake in the Zionist towns will start again and the aggressors will have no choice but to prepare their coffins or their luggage," the leaflets read.

    How many dead or injured Israelis does it take, and how many YEARS of rocket attacks are permissible before you will allow Israel to respond?

    Parent

    You've got me confused with somebody else (none / 0) (#113)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 06:11:13 PM EST
    Let me be clear: I know that Hamas has fired rockets into Israel. I know that there are deaths and injuries. I have cited the actual numbers of deaths and injuries, insofar as they were available to me at the time.

    If you believe I have said otherwise, you have misread my statements. So, please DON'T continue to play dumb.

    Let me be even more clear: this conflict impacts the entire world. Ergo, all the people of the world have a right to know the EXACT number of deaths and injuries, and the full extent of property damage, incurred on BOTH SIDES of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

    *Remember, Israel's military actions are funded by our tax dollars: we need to know exactly what it is we're buying.

    Parent

    Clarification... (none / 0) (#17)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 06:42:06 AM EST
    Hamas had been members of the PNA government, however:
    Following the Battle for Gaza in June 2007, elected Hamas officials were ousted from their positions in the Palestinian National Authority government in the West Bank, replaced by rival Fatah members and independents in an action that many Palestinians and other experts considered illegal. [16] [17] On 18 June 2007, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (Fatah) issued a decree outlawing the Hamas militia and executive force. [18]



    Parent
    Careful Foxhole (3.50 / 2) (#70)
    by CDN Ctzn on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 02:23:23 PM EST
    Let's not start introducing facts to the dialogue and upsetting the comortable narrative we've embraced. The prescribed formula is a simple one:
    Israel = Good Guys
    Palestine = Bad Guys

    Parent
    Can you believe this dialogue? (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 03:18:10 AM EST
    What is it with the abundant Israelophilia? Let's wager how long it'll take before that term boomerangs back all wrapped up in faux-rage.

    Honestly, I didn't know that self-described progressive, reasonably well-informed people still regarded Israel with such unquestioning allegiance.

    Have you noticed that criticism of Israel's use of excessive force (or whatever) is frequently interpreted as a denial of Israel's right to exist? I mean, it's like not being able to criticize the Bush Administration in the early days of the Iraq War. There's the same "with us or against us" mentality that's meant to shut down dissent.

    *I don't know about you, but when the GOP and the Dems and the corporate press are all on the same side (i.e. Israel vs. Palestine), I get the feeling that we the people are on the receiving end of some major bulls*it.

    Parent

    Just as young Palestinians... (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by kdog on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 02:41:29 PM EST
    are taught that Israel has no right to exist, young Israelis and Americans are taught that Israel are the "good guys", and the Palestinians are the "terrorists".  

    The truth?  As always, somewhere in the middle.  

    Peace may not be possible for centuries, thats what happens when you take land one from and give to another...but our one-sided blind support of Israel sure as hell ain't helping matters.  We need to be an honest broker, which means cutting Israel off from all the free weapons used to bomb Palstininians.

    BTW, I couldn't agree more, when D's and R's are in lockstep, you know its no good.  See War on Drugs.  

    Parent

    It's not enough just to cut back on the free weapons ride; take away the entire grotesquely bloated piggy-bank. Give the first annual $5 billion in savings to the city of New Orleans.

    Of course, the problem isn't just about the money we're doling out to Israel rather than our own citizens. * The whole US-Israeli alliance is not good for the people of America. * In the eyes of the world, particularly the Arab world, Israeli aggression is seen as an act of aggression that is condoned by all Americans.

    When Israel looks bad, the US looks all the worse for being the real power behind the proxy. This is a sure-fire recruiting tool for jihad on America. And that's no way for our government to win a "global war on terror" and keep us safe.


    Parent

    Value All Human Life (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by liberalone on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 07:16:15 AM EST
    While I recognize our support for Israel, I strongly oppose any form of collective punishment.  Sadly we feel that supporting Israel must translate to unconditional acceptance of any and all actions that their government takes.  I don't support US actions 100%, why would I support Israel's.  

    Any military action should attempt to keep the lost of innocent life as low as possible.  The reporting on Israel is never sufficient to make an accurate determination one way or the other.  Given the usual heavy handed response Israel has to anything, I doubt very seriously that collateral damage is their concern.

    Blame game (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by mmc9431 on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 07:30:25 AM EST
    There's more than enough blame and tragedy over there to be spread around to both sides.

    Israel and the US have spent years ensuring the Palastinians would continue to have a weak government. Hammas gained a foot hold when we marginalized the PLO. Year after year of expanding the settlements hasn't helped the situation either.

    The Palastinian's will never be able to govern responsibly until they have a country to govern.

    There has to be a two state solution and soon. It continues to fuel Muslum terrorists throughout the world. I hope Obama and Hilary make this one of their highest prioirties.

    The cycle has to be broken (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by mmc9431 on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 08:37:43 AM EST
    Aother point to consider, is that we're now well into the second generation of occupation. To expect the Palastinian's to act differently would be contrary to human nature. They've lived with the ravages of war and occupation their entire life. The impact of this on the young has to be devastating. We've established an ideal breeding ground for militants.

    In an effort to prove to the world that he wasn't Bill Clinton, Bush chose to close his eyes and mind of the whole situation. We can't allow this to continue. Hopefully. Obama's foreign policy will be far more visionary.

    He won't (none / 0) (#27)
    by Salo on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 08:40:52 AM EST
    Too many other problems in Iraq


    Parent
    Foreign Policy (none / 0) (#33)
    by mmc9431 on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 09:10:11 AM EST
    The problems are all interconnected. I don't see how you can deal with one and ignore the other. We need to show the Arab and Muslum communities that we intend to ba an honest broker throughout the world.

    Under the pathetic leadership of Bush, we've managed to become the most hated country on the planet! Instead of starting wars and arming everyone to the hilt, it would be refreshing to actually want and work towards a peaceful solution.

    Parent

    He's likely (none / 0) (#35)
    by Salo on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 09:15:09 AM EST
    To be Very pro Israeli. The will be seen as it is under Obama.  A hegemonic power dictating terms to the Arabs and backing most Israeli decisions.

    Parent
    Jockeying for position (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by abdiel on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 11:37:08 AM EST
    Most of you are just rehashing old problems.  Look, Israel pulled all of its settlers and citizens out of Gaza and they have no interest in caring for the welfare of its 1.5 million Palestinians.  

    Hamas responded to the end of the ceasefire by pounding Israel with rockets.  Israel is now responding with unequal force.  Quite simply, both sides know there's going to be another ceasefire, but they want more concessions from the other side.  Hamas wants Israel to end a trade embargo and stop trying to destabilize its government.  Israel wants the rocket attacks to stop and probably wouldn't mind if Fatah took this opportunity to overthrow Hamas.  

    The question is how far this will escalate.  So far Israel seems to be repeating its ill-planned war with Hizbullah in 2006, unsuccessfully trying to bomb militants into submission from the air before being forced to try a costly ground invasion.  

    HIstory (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by bernardab on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 12:01:22 PM EST
    If anything, the Palestinians have been slow to respond to Israeli attacks. The PLO was formed in 1964, 16 years after Israel occupied 80% of Palestine. Hamas was formed in 1987, 20 years after Israel occupied the rest of Palestine.

    Israel has had a lot of time to make peace with Palestinians and has refused to do so.

    It is hard to see the Palestinians as aggressors. For Israelis to complain about terrorism is hypocritical. Israel was founded by terrorists. Modern terrorism could be said to have begun with the zionist bombing of the King David Hotel, which was the worst terrorist attack for decades.

    They also assassinated UN envoy Count Bernadotte, among others. When that happens today there is a major outcry.

    There are two possibilities. I favor the one state solution(which you can easily find details of)with the return of the Palestinians refugees and the abolition of Israel's racist theological laws like the "Law of Return" for Jews from around the world.

    Most speak about the two-state solution. That is one of the simplest ones to institute. Israel simply has retreat beyond the Green Line. That means removing all police and military and all the illegal Jewish settlers. But with this, I fear the creation of two theological states.

    For up-to-date information and history on Palestine, try Sabbah's Blog and Palestine Remembered.

    heh (none / 0) (#57)
    by andgarden on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 12:12:21 PM EST
    I love posts like this. Complexity? 1967 war? Nah!

    Parent
    Complexity? (none / 0) (#65)
    by bernardab on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 01:44:15 PM EST
    What complexity? It is as clear as spring water.

    As to the 1967 war, Israel attacked Egypt. It wasn't the first time either.

    Parent

    Uh huh (none / 0) (#66)
    by andgarden on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 01:51:31 PM EST
    I love it when people lie about history.

    Parent
    That one was pretty bad. (none / 0) (#67)
    by oculus on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 01:53:36 PM EST
    LIe? (none / 0) (#68)
    by bernardab on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 02:12:15 PM EST
    What did I say that was wrong?

    Parent
    The same as above (none / 0) (#69)
    by andgarden on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 02:15:51 PM EST
    saying that "Israel attacked Egypt" leaves out a good bit of relevant information (that doesn't support your worldview).

    But you are an ideological liar, so this is my last response to you.

    Parent

    OH? (none / 0) (#72)
    by bernardab on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 02:29:59 PM EST
    I guess you think that Israel did not attack Egypt. What "relevant" information do you mean? You should read some Israeli sources.

    And I am the ideologue? Not you?

    Parent

    Right . . . so Tel Aviv is Palestinian land (none / 0) (#83)
    by A DC Wonk on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 06:44:52 PM EST
    If Israel, pre-1967, was occupying Palestinian land, then, obviously, full retreat behind the green line isn't going to solve anything.

    And that, my friends, is why there is no peace in the middle east.  The "provocative act" by Israel is merely its existence.

    Parent

    Reading some of the comments here (none / 0) (#93)
    by andgarden on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 10:11:41 PM EST
    over the last few days, it's hard not to think exactly that. I had no idea how much opposition there was to the two state solution on the left.

    Parent
    What TL commentors have clearly (none / 0) (#117)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 08:48:25 PM EST
    expressed their "opposition to the two state solution"?

    In scanning the comments, I see only 2 or 3, although there may be others.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#118)
    by squeaky on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 08:55:54 PM EST
    A rhetorical trick to define the center.

    Parent
    Hamas Policemen (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by left is right on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 12:40:39 PM EST
    There is no such thing as "Hamas policemen" or a "Hamas Police Headquarters". The police force was in place before Hamas gained power.  The members, including current members and those who were graduating, are (were) men and women who belong to a wide array of political parties.

    This is really a huge part of the problem.  Throw the word Hamas in front of anyone Israel targets and people somehow think it is justified.  

    MyThoughts? (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by SOS on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 01:15:21 PM EST
    When will human beings learn to behave as civilized citizens of the world.

    The Military Action Will Not Create Peace (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by msaroff on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 01:33:38 PM EST
    But it will create quiet for 6-18 months.

    The Hamas leadership will go to ground, and their chain of command doubtless will need to reconstructed.

    Unfortunately, as I note in my blog:

    As to final status negotiations, I do not believe that Israel can achieve its goals purely through military force, and I do not believe that the Palestinians, either Hamas or the PA are currently able to negotiate in good faith, as any serious good faith negotiations would result in compromises that would delegitimatize whoever made them.

    I would also note the lesson of the American Civil War, where ambiguities that were "left for later", became the basis for conflict. Incrementalism is the enemy of a solution, not a friend.

    I do not believe that there currently exists a Palestinian leader who could survive a successful a negotiation.

    One question: I found a story from a Swiss newspaper (translation here) that says that Israel sent warning SMS text messages to civilians surrounding the target areas...At least I think so, Google translate is not 100% clear.

    Anyone know of any source for this in English?

    J Street's statement on the airstrikes (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 02:27:54 PM EST
    via Greenwald (who points out why such rationality will be completely ignored by the US political establishment):

    While this morning's air strikes by Israeli Defense Forces in Gaza can be understood and even justified in the wake of recent rocket attacks, we believe that real friends of Israel recognize that escalating the conflict will prove counterproductive, igniting further anger in the region and damaging long-term prospects for peace and stability.

    Respecting Israel's right to defend itself, we urge leaders there to recognize that there is no military solution to what is fundamentally a political conflict between the Israeli and Palestinian peoples...

    We call for immediate, strong diplomatic intervention by the United States, the Quartet and allies in the region to negotiate a resumption of the ceasefire which dramatically reduced violence and preserved quiet for over five months.

    The United States, the Quartet, and the world community must not wait - as they did in the Israel-Lebanon crisis of 2006 - for weeks to pass and hundreds or thousands more to die before intervening.  There needs to be an urgent end to the new hostilities that brings a complete cessation to the rocket fire out of Gaza and that allows food, fuel and other civilian necessities into Gaza.

    The need for diplomatic engagement goes beyond a short-term ceasefire.  Eight years of American neglect and ineffective diplomacy have led us directly to a moment when the prospects of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict hang in the balance and with them the prospects for Israel's long-term survival as a Jewish, democratic state.

    We urge the incoming Obama administration to lead an early and serious effort to achieve a comprehensive diplomatic resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian and Arab-Israeli conflicts.

    This is a fundamental American interest as we too stand to suffer as the situation spirals, rage in the region is directed at the United States, and our regional allies are further undermined.  Our goals must be a Middle East that moves beyond bloody conflicts, an Israel that is secure and accepted in the region, and an America secured by reducing extremism and enhancing stability.  None of these goals are achieved by further escalation...

    J Street link

    Important to read the whole Greenwald article (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 03:49:22 PM EST
    Greenwald's article is far more critical of Israel than the above quote from J Street suggests. Greenwald's post, Marty Peretz and the American political consensus on Israel begins as follows:

    Opinions about the Israeli-Palestinian dispute are so entrenched that any single outbreak of violence is automatically evaluated through a pre-existing lens, shaped by one's typically immovable beliefs about which side bears most of the blame for the conflict generally or "who started it."  Still, any minimally decent human being -- even those who view the world through the most blindingly pro-Israeli lens possible, the ones who justify anything and everything Israel does, and who discuss these events with a bottomless emphasis on the primitive (though dangerous) rockets lobbed by Hamas into Southern Israel but without even mentioning the ongoing four-decades brutal occupation or the recent, grotesquely inhumane blockade of Gaza -- would find the slaughter of scores of innocent Palestinians to be a horrible and deeply lamentable event.


    Parent
    Hillary will have her hands full (4.80 / 5) (#31)
    by oldpro on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 09:02:17 AM EST
    before she even takes office.

    Imagine the conversations between Hil and Bill this week...

    Heavy is the head (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Salo on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 09:12:13 AM EST
    That wears the crown.

    Parent
    No doubt. (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by oldpro on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 09:16:37 AM EST
    We can be sure of one thing.  If there is no peace in the middle east it will be the Clinton's fault, by default if nothing else.

    Parent
    Finally someone competent (none / 0) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 10:54:43 AM EST
    to blame the impossible on.  It'll be a refreshing switch from watching all of lifes honest precious possibilities take a giant Good Job Brownie flush :)

    Parent
    Watch Russia (4.50 / 2) (#3)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 01:13:01 AM EST
    In all this, Russia has begun to make strong international statements, trying to re-establish itself as a dominant force on the international stage. Watch for things that they do themselves, as well as through the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

    The Middle East is regionalizing fairly quickly. Israel has got a couple of very hawkish people leading their military policy (Netanyahu... ugh), so peace in that area is not likely to occur in the near future--and we should frankly just stay out of it. Hamas is popular in Gaza because of their humanitarian service there, Israel is digging itself a hole, and we don't need to get muddied in it any more than we already are.

    India and Pakistan are playing brinksmanship, and of course all that we pay attention to is "How will it affect our War on Terror?" We pay no attention to what it means geopolitically for the region, and we're still making the same mistakes in regards to warfare that we have for the last 20 years. We've blinded ourselves to everything other than what we perceive as the greatest threat, and it always comes back to bite us in the rear end.

    The best thing we can probably do is be a bit isolationist, be diplomatic if necessary, and pay close attention to all aspects of the situations. Our being in there stirring the pot around is not going to help matters at all, especially with Russia being there to garner all that international support if we wind up showing our butts too much.

    Worry about. . .Russia? (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 01:16:55 AM EST
    Talk about fighting last years battle! No, I think we need to show leadership to the degree possible. We will, after all, be blamed for the results whether we get involved or not.

    Parent
    Leadership? (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Anne on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 08:56:24 AM EST
    From Obama, that usually comes in the form of remarks that remind us all what he has always said - "repeatedly" - and characterize his efforts as no one having done more than he has, and usually follows on something that is in direct conflict with these things he has "always" said.

    The Washington Post reports:

    Yesterday, Obama's transition team was more cautious, adhering to its policy of not commenting on foreign developments because there should be "one president at a time." Brooke Anderson, Obama's national security spokeswoman, said only that Obama "is closely monitoring global events, including the situation in Gaza."

    Not even a direct quote from the president-elect, but then he is on vacation.

    I'm sorry, but "leadership" is not a word I have ever associated with Obama, and there has been nothing since his election that shows me I can expect anything different once he officially takes office.

    Parent

    Obama needs time (none / 0) (#32)
    by Salo on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 09:09:50 AM EST
    To unhook his bandwagon from the Israel-critical donkeys. Once the democrats pledge themselves again to defending every move Israel makes he'll say something substantive.

    Parent
    To use a pun its overkill (4.25 / 4) (#37)
    by Saul on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 09:20:05 AM EST
    Every time Israel wants to retaliate against an attack by a few militants, Israel goes totally overboard in their responses.  When was it about two years ago when Hammas or the other Palestinian group captured a soldier in Lebanon.  Israel's response for that one guy was to practically destroy Lebanon. The majority of people they kill were innocent bystanders.   I see no difference in this current response.  Israel philosophy is if there is a rat in the apartment complex bomb and burned the whole complex.  Yeah they got the rat but they also kill more innocent people than guilty people.

    I also totally against the Palestinians for killing innocent people. The damage they do though is minimal as compared to Israel,  since all they got are rockets that for the most part are outdated and not very accurate .  Israel has an jet fighters, an army, tanks, missiles , satellite technology, etc etc.

     You can bet that Bush administration is giving the green light to Israel to bomb on this one also.

    The treatment of the Palestinian by the U.S has always been one sided.  We gave and allowed every type of militarily weapons to Israel to include nuclear.  We give billion of dollars to Israel every year.  Yet the U.S does nothing equal for the Palestinians.  I do not think the US  think of the Palestinians as even human beings.

    If you would just treat both sides with the same amount of equality, in all aspects there would be peace.  This whole conflict has been about the unjust taking of the Palestinians land sine 1948 or 1945 and the totally one sided treatment by the U.S in favor of Israel.  It was more in the manner in which Isarel took the land. They did not have a polite discussion with the Palestinians on sharing this land.  They just said, Ok the UN said we can take it and God's says its our land and that's all we need to justify what we do.

    I would be pissed off too and would continue to fight for equality in money, in military aid, and more importantly respect.  When the Palestinians  are treated equally and neither side has more money or power than the opposite side,  then and only then will the fighting stop.


    Oh, I dunno.... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by oldpro on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 09:26:43 AM EST
    we haven't had any Indian raids in years...except at the casinos.

    Parent
    No since most were eradicated (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Saul on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 09:44:34 AM EST
    All they have are rockets? (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by ricosuave on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 09:43:58 AM EST
    Gee, I guess it's OK then, because they are just rockets causing indiscriminate damage to civilians targets.  It's not like they have the capacity to kill more than a few people at a time, and they are probably trying to target neighborhoods where wife-beaters live or something.

    You and I would probably agree about everything that the US ought to do to help the Palestinians/Gazans.  But the question here is: how long is Israel supposed to sit and suffer "minimal damage" without taking some kind of action?  Please spell out how many rockets or Israeli deaths/injuries are acceptable before retaliating (if there is an upper limit), and what kind of retaliation (if any) would be acceptable to you.  I think if you are really against palestinians killing innocent civilians, you must have an opinion on that.

    Parent

    Its all about equality (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Saul on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 09:45:39 AM EST
    When you concentrate on that the fighting will stop.

    Parent
    That is beautiful (none / 0) (#44)
    by ricosuave on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 09:58:47 AM EST
    But it is just plain silly to say that Israel should sit back and take it until the international community ponies up the aid to the Palestinans that is needed (including the Arab world).

    And it dodges the question of what level of Palestinian attack should trigger a response.  Unless you think that Israel should NEVER respond to rocket attacks, and should just ignore them indefinitely.  That is probably not going to happen in an elected government, and definitely not going to happen in any Israeli elected government.

    In the real world, Israel faces a decision of responding or not responding, and if they respond they must decide what kind of response is appropriate.  You can dodge the question of what you think those decision should be, but Israel cannot.  You can disagree with the Israelis for the decisions they have made, but I have yet to hear you tell me what decisions they should have made that would have been better.

    Parent

    You can reply in a defensive posture (none / 0) (#45)
    by Saul on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 10:20:43 AM EST
    but my complaint is that they over do it and then they do not look worse than the attackers.  Keep the response more equal to what happen to you.  Our invasion in Iraq who had nothing to do with 9 11 is good example. The Bush adminstration said

    If we destroy Iraq although they had nothing to do with 9 11 but could pose a future threat so let just destroy Iraq and that way we don't have to worry about Iraq ever attacking us.

    Boy what a rationale.

    Parent

    So, again, you have no answer (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by ricosuave on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 10:35:11 AM EST
    You can't answer the two basic questions that Israel had to deal with.  You think they look bad and that the response should be more "equal."  But won't say what your standards are for Israel responding.

    Is your rationale that Israel should have fired rockets indiscriminately into Gaza to respond?  Would that have been acceptable?  Is that better than attacking a specific military target, which is what they did?

    Unless you have an actual suggestion for what Israel should have done and what level of attacks should have triggered it, you are simply a monday morning quarterback saying that "they should have played better."  In the real world, people have to make real decisions.  You can agree or disagree with them, but if you think you could have made a better decision then say what it was or stop complaining.

    Or are you under the George-Bush-and-Hollywood-inspired myth that there is some sort of "surgical strike" that can be done with high technology and fancy weapons which will blow up only the bad guys and the movie will end?

    Parent

    Israel leaders if they are any (none / 0) (#50)
    by Saul on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 10:51:17 AM EST
    should just walk up to the Hamms leaders and say let have a real talk on why you are so angry at us and lets see if we can solve this century old problem without me responding back to you. If I respond back to you in anger then I have become you.    Hamms does these attacks to get Israel's  attention. It their way of saying when will we get equality.  If they continue tit for tat you get no where fast.
    So your answer is to knock on their doors, invite them in and have a serious discussion.  So far in my life time that has not really happen in Palestine .  Carter is the only one that got Israel and Egypt to stop fighting and they haven't broken that agreement to date.  But this has never happen with Palestine.

     

    Parent

    I Think We Need To Realize (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by CDN Ctzn on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 02:41:43 PM EST
    that the narrative is ALWAYS altered to reinforce what is believed to be in the USA's best interests. In other words, "Don't trust everything you read!" This was and continues to be true in Iraq, and it's true in Israel / Palestine. If the facts don't support our worldview, simply alter them.

    In his controversial book "Palestine: Peace not Apartheid", President Carter points out how the Palestinians are ALWAYS portrayed as the agressors, and the Israeli's are ALWAYS portrayed as victims responding to Palestinian agression. Not to mention that the retaliation is so far out of proportion that it's ridiculous. So much for "Eye for an Eye, Tooth for a Tooth" which was the O.T. call for a measured response.

    We need to learn the facts, and unfortunately, the US media won't provide us with them.

    Parent

    Carter is obviously not a reader of blogs, (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Radiowalla on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 03:43:00 PM EST
    especially leftie blogs, where the portrayed aggressors are Israeli and the victims are Palestinians.  Or so it seems.

    Parent
    Hmm (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by CDN Ctzn on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 05:12:02 PM EST
    Seems more often than not that even the "Left" blogs portray Israel as the victims and not the other way around. At least that's the way it appears to me.

    Parent
    I haven't seen that at all (none / 0) (#88)
    by Radiowalla on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 07:00:25 PM EST
    but maybe I hang out with the wrong crowd.

    Parent
    Radiowalla, what "left blogs" (none / 0) (#114)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 06:25:58 PM EST
    are characterizing Israel as the "aggressors" and the "Palestinians as victims", aside from the Socialist Worker blog? Are you talking about editorial writing or comments?

    Can you tell us the names of these mainstream anti-Israel "leftie blogs", it would be informative to know what's being written elsewhere.

    BTW, I often find myself in agreement with your perspective. Now, let me have a look to see if I agree with your take on those other blogs ;-)

    Parent

    Hamas is angry at them... (none / 0) (#84)
    by A DC Wonk on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 06:47:04 PM EST
    ... because all of Israel is "occupied territory".  See comment #56 above.

    If the PLO was founded before 1967, then we should ask ourselves: just what land was it that the Palestinian Liberation Organization was trying to liberate?

    Go ahead, try to answer that one.

    Parent

    Never happened? (none / 0) (#101)
    by ricosuave on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 07:50:44 AM EST
    What about the various peace deals and talks between Arafat and Israel, under several Israeli prime ministers, that resulted in the recognition of the government that Arafat headed and that Hamas subsequently took over?

    There has not been a single "Palestinian" entity to negotiate with like there was with Egypt--Hamas rejected those peace deals, then took over that government (democratically) and now fails to stop attacks.

    I am one of the biggest Jewish critics of the Israeli government that you will find, but even I am not going to recommend that Israel sit and suffer rocket attacks while continuations of a decade of talks are arranged.

    If India or Pakistan were launching missiles into each other's territory, there would be retaliation.  If Chile or Bolivia started lobbing missiles there would be retaliation.  If Libya or Chad started lobbing missiles we would expect retaliation.  But somehow Israel is supposed to show a level of restraint that we would expect from no other countries.

    If missiles are raining down on your house, you are not going to support any government that does not stop it immediately, no matter what happened 40 years ago, in the founding of your country, or 110 years ago in a conference in Europe.  No democratically elected government that fails to act in the face of an attack (especially from a neighbor that has agreed to be unarmed) will have the support of their people, and it is ludicrous to expect the Israeli government to do anything other than counterattack to stop the violence.  You can argue all you want about "who started it" but it is unreasonable to the point of divorcing yourself from reality to expect that the israelis (or any country) would not (and should not) take some action.

    Parent

    It still has not happened (none / 0) (#105)
    by Saul on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 10:16:09 AM EST
    Most of the prior negotiations were because a third party had to bring both sides to the table.  IMO Israel since it is more powerful should take the initiative to make the peace.  Instead of responding go talk to them, believe me that will carry more weight than any military strike. Most countries that initiate an attack have a deep rooted reason why they are acting like they do.  Most countries do not hate another country just for nothing.  There is usually a deep rooted reason for the hate.  Unless you get to the core of why they hate us you will never find the solution to the problem.

    As you can see we tried it your way for many years  Tit for tat.  You hit me I hit you and what has that accomplish, nothing.  You got to think out of the box.   So why not try something different.  

    Shalom aleichem my friend.  If you must reply please reply back with the correct response to my greeting.

    Parent

    It is odd reading this conversation here (none / 0) (#107)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 12:59:29 PM EST
    This is the conversation from my own home with my husband as Saul and I'm of course more Sauve :)

    Parent
    correction (none / 0) (#46)
    by Saul on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 10:25:07 AM EST
    I meant to say they look worse than the attackers

    Parent
    Israel has appropriated water rights (none / 0) (#58)
    by tokin librul on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 12:20:14 PM EST
    from ALL OVER Palestine.

    Just stole 'em.

    Then set about to destroy all the previous stakes-holders...

    Parent

    Israeli Rightards Want To "Ethnically (3.50 / 2) (#21)
    by tokin librul on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 08:06:08 AM EST
    Cleanse" Palestine. They want the Arabs GONE!

    duh!

    Nothing less, nothing else, will satisfy them.

    So they encourage the 'settlers,' so-called 'civilians,' to expand their expansions into Arab lands. The IDF and the bulldozers soon follow, to 'punish' the Arabs who resist.

    Been like that going in 40 years...Nothing's gonna change it, unless the US uses threats to suspend the massive (mainly military) aid, which it won't, cuz Israel is the US forward outpost and landing zone in the region...

    So it's not gonna stop til the last Arab is dead, displaced, or in prison.

    Yep (none / 0) (#26)
    by Salo on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 08:37:53 AM EST
    That's right

    Parent
    Yes, there Is a Repugnant Minority is Israel (none / 0) (#75)
    by msaroff on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 03:22:03 PM EST
    who argue for ethnic cleansing.

    One might theoretically apply this to Netanyahu, but it would be inaccurate to apply this to Olmert, Livni, or Barack.

    Parent

    Who needs to be accurate when talking (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by andgarden on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 03:43:01 PM EST
    about Israel? It's EVIL, remember?

    Parent
    Israel's Existence is an Indictment of the West (none / 0) (#96)
    by msaroff on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 11:45:05 PM EST
    Because the ideology of its founding is that Jews are not safe, even among the western nations, which is what Theodore Herzl deduced from the Dreyfuss Affair.

    Zionism implies that the west is far less evolved than people would like to think.

    Parent

    I think it's more about (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by andgarden on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 11:50:19 PM EST
    lingering cold war politics and, to a lesser degree, plain old anti-semitism.

    Parent
    Racism and Cleansing (none / 0) (#100)
    by bernardab on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 04:53:49 AM EST
    In 2007, the Israeli site Ynet News reported on a poll which showed that 80% of Israeli Jews supported the Jewish National Fund's rule that land it administers could only be ceded to Jews.

    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3458945,00.html

    In another poll in the spring of 2008, 75% of them would support of policy of expulsion of the remaining non-Jews from Israel proper(I lost the reference). So it seems that cleansing is not just the idea of a few radicals like Netanyahu.

    Parent

    Obviously (none / 0) (#109)
    by squeaky on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 01:36:22 PM EST
    The Israelis have to do something for it to continue being a 'jewish state'. Non jewish population is at 20-25% and growing faster than Jewish population.

    It is a demographic issue. Natural forces are against purity so there either has to be some major weeding or a change of Ideals.

    Parent

    If Israel wants to cleanse... (none / 0) (#85)
    by A DC Wonk on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 06:48:59 PM EST
    then why is it that Palestinians can be citizens of Israel, and even win seats in the legislature.

    Can a Jew do that in Gaza?

    In fact, why is it that all Jews had to be removed from Gaza?  Is it because (stating the obvious) that the Arabs would have killed them without Israeli military protection?

    So, which area is it that's cleansed?

    Parent

    Savage Injuns.. (1.00 / 2) (#87)
    by squeaky on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 06:54:16 PM EST
    Why can't they just become civil?

    Parent
    My father (none / 0) (#2)
    by phat on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 01:01:09 AM EST
    When my father is in one of his more cynical moods (which is quite rare) he claims we should just put a giant geodesic dome over the whole Middle East and just let them all fight it out. We'd go in in a few hundred years or something to see what they ended up doing.

    Of course he never really meant it. His frustration would just come through at specific times when the various crises would erupt.

    I know exactly how he feels.

    The US is part of the problem (none / 0) (#7)
    by Andreas on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 02:58:58 AM EST
    It is well known that the repression of the Palestinian people is sponsored by the USA. US imperialism has supported the Zionist regime for many decades.

    Run of the mill (none / 0) (#9)
    by koshembos on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 03:50:44 AM EST
    Not surprising, once a flare up between Israel and Hamas occurs one hears again all the clinches one has heard many times. This includes Daniel Levy who repeats the mantra that the withdrawal in 2005 wasn't done right.

    We are in 2008, complaining about 2005 is complaining about milk spilled two weeks ago. Israel didn't split the PLO and let Hamas control Gaza. Now you have an extremist violent group controlling Gaza and you have to deal with them. The Egyptians were smart enough and tried to extend the truce that just ended. They failed for reasons that are not clear to me. Israel has a clear interest in having a truce, Hamas less so but they also knew that without a truce a deterioration is unavoidable and don't need it. So personally I am stymied.

    Daniel Levy's repetition that this and that should be done is amazingly shallow. Peace on earth would have helped too, but we are not there yet. The only question now is one of cease fire and not of the mindless and endless talked about recruiting terrorists, which by the way are typically recruited in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Indonesia due to internal problems in these countries.

    Lastly, Israel and Egypt get $2-$3 billion a year to support their peace agreement from 1083; it's money well spent.

    i had no idea that peace (none / 0) (#13)
    by cpinva on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 04:23:16 AM EST
    agreement had been in existence that long! lol

    Lastly, Israel and Egypt get $2-$3 billion a year to support their peace agreement from 1083; it's money well spent.

    the bottom line, as i noted above, is eliminating the financial support enabling the hamas militants to continue operating. sealing the borders from weapons deliveries would be helpful as well.

    without either of those, the militants cease to be even much of an irritant to anyone.

    follow the money!

    Parent

    I know things look bad (none / 0) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 10:49:59 AM EST
    I still cannot easily discount the difference that an Obama presidency can make.  Never in my lifetime have I had a president with the foreign relations philosophy of kill them all and let God sort them out until now. I remember the shock I first felt when I read between his lines and had to acknowledge that this was it........this is my current heads of state's foreign policy until I can get rid of them.  Now I'm getting rid of them.  The only direction left to go is evolution.

    Hamas was created by Mossad (none / 0) (#59)
    by tokin librul on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 12:21:24 PM EST
    to thwart and blunt the power of Fatah.

    Turns out, Hamas bites 'em in the ass...

    Funny thing...

    Two Links to Insightful Articles (none / 0) (#81)
    by CDN Ctzn on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 05:41:01 PM EST
    The first by Gideon Levy of Haaretz.com:
    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050459.html

    The second by Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com:
    http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/12/28/peretz/

    And don't miss this one (none / 0) (#82)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 06:03:00 PM EST
    from Greg Mitchell, Attack on Gaza: As Usual, U.S. Media (And Most Liberals) Silent -- As Israeli Newspaper Raises Doubts. He reports on some of the range of opinions on the air strikes being expressed in the Israeli media, compared to the lockstep neocon line of unquestioning and unquestionable support available through the US media.

    Parent
    Wash Post reported (none / 0) (#86)
    by A DC Wonk on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 06:54:05 PM EST
    that Hamas launched 140 rockets against Israel on Wednesday and Thursday of this week.

    What's Israel supposed to do about that?

    Parent

    Complete (3.50 / 2) (#90)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 07:26:29 PM EST
    non sequitur.

    But great example of how the defenders of the approved narrative try to distract from the fact that the media is serving us a very specific and narrow line of propaganda. Even Israel isn't doing that to itself the way the US is.

    Parent

    Wha??? (none / 0) (#91)
    by A DC Wonk on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 07:50:12 PM EST
    In fact, it's entirely the opposite of a non-sequitur.

    The cease-fire ended last week, and ever since Hamas has been raining rockets onto Israel, including 140 last Wed/Thrs.  This isn't propaganda, this is fact.  Do you dispute that?

    How can any person think that Israel would not respond?

    Parent

    You're funny (none / 0) (#92)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 08:41:40 PM EST
    There are a million different ways to talk about what's happening there beyond the standard black-and-white they hate us for our freedoms type approach, but few of those more nuanced and conflicted opinions are being aired in the corporate US media. But you go ahead. Keep pushing your GIYUS script.

    Parent
    talk about non-sequiturs! (none / 0) (#94)
    by A DC Wonk on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 10:38:24 PM EST
    I never said anything about "they hate us for our freedoms".  Further, I'm not pushing any script.

    I asked two questions, you didn't answer either of them.

    To refresh your memory, I'll ask one of them again:

    Israel was hit by 140 rockets from Gaza on Wed and Thrs.  What are they supposed to do about that?

    That's not pushing an agenda -- that's stating a fact and asking a question.  A question, it seems, you'd rather avoid.

    Parent

    The questions you ask (2.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 11:09:19 PM EST
    are not the ones I care to discuss. Feel free to take them up with someone else. What I'm interested in is the enforced media narrative in the US corporate media and how much less oppressive that kind of thing is in the media of other countries, including that of Israel itself.

    You on the other hand seem quite interested in deflecting attention away from that discussion and back to the frame that presumes one party is all in the right and the other is all in the wrong - the standard Bushian "they hate us for our freedoms" propaganda tactic that makes a conflict look simple and keeps people from asking too many inconvenient questions.

    Parent

    of course (none / 0) (#102)
    by A DC Wonk on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 07:56:56 AM EST
    because the facts, and the questions I ask, don't support your narrative.

    Your accusation that I want to "deflect[] attention away from that discussion and back to the frame that presumes one party is all in the right and the other is all in the wrong" is entirely wrong an unsupported by this thread.

    I never said Israel was right.  I asked what you thought Israel should do in response to 140 rocket attacks from last Wed or Thrs.

    But that, apparently, is too hard a question for you.

    Parent

    I support (none / 0) (#108)
    by Alien Abductee on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 01:07:03 PM EST
    J Street's approach urging aggressive international diplomacy and an immediate ceasefire. The tack you take is a dead end, endless tit for tat, eye for an eye. So what if Hamas launched 140 rockets? Before that Israel took out the supply tunnel and has been starving Gaza, and before that... on and on.

    You want to set an arbitrary time frame of events that shows your preferred side to be the wronged one. Set the time frame back a little further and the Palestinians are the wronged ones. Set it back a little further and the Israelis are the wronged ones. On and on. Completely pointless, except to get the partisans of each side fired up with indignation. I'm not interested in having that discussion. It's pointless because of that and because the facts as to what's actually happened are always in dispute and are undeterminable because of the flood of propaganda from both sides, only one side of which the US media regularly conveys.

    What I'm interested in is not a "win" for either side but an end to the conflict, because it's poisoned world affairs for too long. The US will have to be a party to bringing a negotiated end to the conflict. The fact that it's still saturating its public with the propaganda from one side only doesn't bode well for developing broad-based public support for a just solution that will make for a lasting peace.

    Parent

    Honey Trap (none / 0) (#89)
    by squeaky on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 07:15:57 PM EST
    Friday the Israelis set the trap.
    The military said approximately 90 trucks were delivering medicine, fuel, cooking gas and other vital goods into Gaza. The shipment included a large donation of goods from Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's wife as well as more than 150,000 gallons (400,000 liters) of fuel and 200 tons (180 metric tons) of natural gas, the military said.
    Israel's Defense Ministry said it agreed to open its cargo crossings into Gaza to avoid a humanitarian crisis there.

    link

    Hamas set up relief centers to distribute the food and supplies which gave Israel a well populated target to ensure maximum carnage.

    Stupid Palestinians .. or should I say stupid hungry Palestinians..

    I don't understand (none / 0) (#104)
    by ricosuave on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 08:55:53 AM EST
    Are you now criticizing Israel because they let humanitarian relief into Gaza?

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by squeaky on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 02:13:00 PM EST
    I am criticizing Israel for an obvious war crime. The supplies were delivered as part of the bombing plan in order to maximize casualties.

    Sick.

    Parent

    Delusions of victory in Gaza (none / 0) (#119)
    by squeaky on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 02:07:57 AM EST
    The public's imaginations are let loose as they chant a battle-cry. Fighter planes have already bombed dozens of targets in the heart of Gaza and tomorrow thousands of troops may storm its alleyways. On the third day the Israel Defense Forces might eliminate Hamas leaders Ismail Haniyeh, Mushir al-Masri and Mahmoud al-Zahar. It will seize the Hamas government's buildings and an army spokesman will display captured arm caches containing sophisticated missiles and thousands of guns to the press.

    [...]

    It should be remembered that Israel chanted the same slogans when the Second Lebanon War began, from which it came back badly bruised. The optimistic scenario did not materialize then and it is hard to believe it will now in Gaza. The legitimacy of the Lebanon war triumphed just as the war was lost.

    Zvi Barel Haaretz via Laura Rozen  

    Worth a read