Israel's Blitzkrieg on Gaza Proves Politically Expedient, Disproportionate and Unstoppable

The media's emphasis on the retaliatory nature of Israel's air strikes on Gaza distracts from the more consequential, newsworthy elements -- Israel's disproportionate use of violence and its upcoming Parliamentary elections.

That Israel attacked Gaza is no surprise. Since the ceasefire between Hamas and Israel ended on December 19, it was only a matter of time before Israel responded to the increasing number of rockets fired across the border.

Under the blockade, Hamas' options were limited as the Palestinian people that elected them to power in the first place were increasingly powerless themselves. But on many levels it is foolish of Hamas to fire rockets arbitrarily at Israel since Israel's response will inevitably overwhelm them, not to mention the unwavering support from the U.S. and Britain for Israel.

For over a year, Israel has cleverly conducted a campaign in the West Bank that has caused further divisions between Hamas and Fatah, hoping that it would eventually lead to a shift in public opinion within Palestine, around the Arab world, and consequently result in the removal of Hamas from power -- regardless of the means.

Ever since the President's Fatah forces lost control of the Gaza Strip to Hamas in 2007, the two groups have drifted further apart politically and have vowed to challenge each other.

In May 2007, Israel arrested 33 senior Hamas officials in the West Bank, and in the following months Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas began closing down organizations that Hamas claimed were charitable and cracking down on Hamas' influence in the West Bank.

Saturday's storming assault -- or as Israel put it, "surgical strikes" on military targets in Gaza -- that killed over 300 Palestinians, many of whom are civilians, marks the bloodiest single day of violence since 1967.

Israel had hoped to change the situation on the ground and eliminate Hamas from the political and public sphere, but just as Gaza was surprised with the severity and strength of Israel's attack, Israel may unintentionally galvanize Palestinians to rally for Hamas and strengthen Iran's standing in the Middle East too.

Hezbollah was viewed by large swaths of the Arab world as the only Arab resistance group able to fight Israel in Lebanon. Now, Hamas has a chance to achieve the same recognition in Gaza.

What a damning start to the new year (it is also the Muslim New Year, which starts on December 29).

Israel's inability to recognize the desperation of Palestinians -- alongside Israel's destructive policies towards them -- and Hamas' inability to recognize the opportunity it creates for its enemy to successfully justify extreme violence with its largely ineffective rocket launches, suggests this war will not be brief.

The mortars fired into Israel from Gaza grant Israel the perfect opportunity to justify their attempts to eliminate Hamas -- and with elections coming up in February, they seem as committed as ever. But equally committed are the countless number of impoverished, desperate Palestinians crammed in Gaza who have seen their livelihoods lost and family members killed indiscriminately. It is the cliched "vicious circle," though hardly "an eye for an eye" -- more like "an eye for a head."

The European Union called for an "immediate ceasefire." France criticized Israel for the use of "disproportionate force." But the U.S. and Britain (the two countries that led the War in Iraq) chose not to condemn Israel, instead the Bush administration expectantly pledged its allegiance with Israel. Condoleeza Rice said in a statement, "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."

But who will hold Israel responsible for the blockade of Gaza, which under the truce, was supposed to be lifted gradually?

Since Hamas gained total control of Gaza, Israel has imposed a systematic and terrorizing 18-month blockade on the strip, starving the 1.5 million Palestinians of fuel, electricity and medical supplies, which allowed for the death toll to climb higher as life-saving medical supplies remained unavailable to treat the wounded through a second day of fighting.

While the threat of rockets launched from Gaza can seem menacing, or even "terrorizing," it is incomparable to the terror that millions of Palestinians endure on a daily basis -- starving, living under an economic blockade, essentially imprisoned, desperate and demoralized.

Despite Israel's use of the threat of rocket fire as justification for its military attacks, the reality is that only one Israeli man has died from a Palestinian rocket attack since June -- and he died after Israel's bombardment of Gaza yesterday.

Death on either side of the border is disgraceful, but compare these two figures:

-- Since 2005, nine Israelis have been killed by rockets coming from Gaza.

-- Since yesterday morning, over 300 Palestinians have been killed by bombs and missiles coming from Israel.

Today, Israel acted on its announced plans to continue its "retaliation" against Hamas, proving yesterday's historic assault was "only the beginning." Israeli politicians hoping to demonstrate their ability to properly protect Israeli citizens have capitalized on a perfect opportunity.

As Israel's parliamentary elections draw near, politicians must be perceived as willing to do whatever it takes to protect Israel from the threat of rocket fire from Gaza. The aerial assault's main objective was to create a "shock and awe" effect, just as President Bush had done in his invasion of Iraq, that would produce a chaotic atmosphere facilitating a complete elimination of Hamas' military and security infrastructures and guarantee a sweeping and final victory.

Ehud Barak has been preparing Israelis for a full-on attack for some time now and stressed that he didn't intend to mislead them.

"It won't be easy and it won't be short," he said, offering an outlook that is more earnest and realistic than President Bush ever offered Americans in the run up to the Iraq War.

Israeli leaders who seem too keen on compromising with the Palestinians are likely to lose support from constituents. Aware of the fragile leadership in Israel following Prime Minister Olmert's corruption charges, Hamas leaders may have planned the increase in rocket attacks, despite warnings, to test both Israel and America's weakened image in the Middle East.

In a televised address, Olmert said it was his aim "to change the situation in the southern part of Israel." The campaign word of 2008 rolled off his tongue effortlessly. Change.

The change of leadership in America and the economic crisis are precisely what has so many in Israel worried.

America's reputation among many Arabs is damaged, as shown by this month's shoe-throwing spectacle. The general failure of the War in Iraq and the general perception of America's blind support for Israel are seen as one in the same, breeding new wells of anger and hatred that may be tapped to recruit new trainees for terrorism.

Any provocation coming from armed groups in the region -- for instance, Hamas' rockets -- may be an attempt to see how an unpopular, overstretched and economically bust America will come to Israel's rescue when its own economic and military viability is in question.

In the run-up to the general election, we were reminded that the next American president will be tested in the first 6 months of his presidency and that a 3 a.m. phone call was sure to come. But President-elect Obama is gonna need a switchboard and team of operators to field all the calls he'll be receiving.

Israel's ailing government has been preparing the Israeli people for a full-fledged effort to get rid of Hamas once and for all. In the days leading up to the attack, Israeli officials carefully and cunningly claimed they did not want the ceasefire to end, reminding the world it was Hamas that ended it in order to create the perception that Israel had not planned or hoped for an escalation of violence despite the reconnaissance missions they ran prior to the actual attacks. Hamas, on the other hand, argued that the economic blockade and strangulation of Gaza was what prompted them to end the truce.

Israel's insistence that their actions are defensive measures would work better if they had not prevented the international press from entering Gaza just a few weeks before they launched the assault.

As the attacks occurred, I was in Kuwait walking through The Avenues, one of Kuwait's newest mega-malls. With smooth, polished marble below me and dazzling chandeliers above me I was completely oblivious to the maelstrom raining above Gaza.

At home, flipping between channels, my family all gathered around the television and watched as Arab leaders and demonstrators from across the region blasted Israel and condemned the international community for its lack of leadership and fairness in ending Israel's escalating attacks.

Their statements were woven with startling images of bloodied bodies strewn across demolished buildings and rubble. Their comments often amounted to a blurred and blended stream of anger, frustration and curses of America and Israel and I wondered if any of this would ever reach an American audience.

Baghdad, Beirut, Amman, Cairo and Istanbul all saw large protests including both burning tires and candles. But in Lebanon, Jordan and Syria, all of whom are geographically and emotionally much closer to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, it is there that the most roaring responses were heard.

In Amman, a city whose inhabitants are predominantly of Palestinian origin, the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood called Arab rulers that have established terms with Israel criminals and demanded they cut ties.

In Lebanon, hundreds of thousands were in the streets to support the Palestinians in Gaza, and many demonstrated near the Egyptian embassy in Beirut.

Egypt, which brokered the six-month cease-fire between Hamas and Israel, has struggled to end the violence after President Hosni Mubarak met with Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, and has also been unable to bring the clashing factions of Fatah and Hamas together.

"Today everybody has to stand by the Palestinian people's side and stop this blind military action," Ahmed Aboul Gheit, Egypt's foreign minister said. But he also blamed Hamas for ignoring warnings that Israel would attack if they continued to send rockets to Gaza.

Hamas will never heed any warnings from Israel and will continue to fire rockets indiscriminately because it is their only means of fighting. Accordingly, Israel will always "retaliate" and justify their actions by focusing only on a short period of time where they can appear to be defending themselves against Hamas' largely laughable rocket attacks. This way they can drive a narrative that overlooks the oppressive, brutal blockade that encourages the continuation of rockets.

While Arab countries have unanimously condemned the attacks on Gaza, some seem to want to wait to see whether Israel's gamble that their attacks will diminish Palestinian support for Hamas will materialize before getting too involved.

When Amr Moussa, the head of the Arab League, called for the UN Security Council to meet to discuss the situation in Gaza and called for an emergency meeting with foreign ministers of the Arab League, Arab ministers postponed it, citing preoccupations with other affairs.

Hisham Youssef, a spokesman for the Arab League, said that the responsibility does not lay with the Arab league and instead deferred to the UN, claiming they have not taken any responsibility for stopping the offensive on Gaza.

There are many obstacles facing any lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians, but the elephant in the room -- or at least one of the bigger elephants-- is the lack of Arab unity on promoting the rights of Palestinians and trusting a unified Palestinian movement to secure a path towards peace.

Israel has shown no indication that it plans to change its course of action, despite the UN Security Council's call for an immediate halt to the violence, and they don't have to. So far, they have succeeded in diverting attention away from the crippling blockade and isolation imposed on Gaza and successfully framed their excessive use of violence as a defensive measure to protect Israelis from the fear of aimless rockets.

Once again the United Nations, with all its resolutions and supposed authority, is powerless when it comes to Israel's right to defend itself at all costs. Since the U.S. and Britain both hold veto power Israel will never have to take any decision taken by the UN seriously.

President-elect Obama and soon to be Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have spent much time arguing in the past about who would be more ready to lead America on day one. But following Israel's ambitious attack on Gaza, they are both going to have to show up more prepared than their predecessors since it is likely that a renewed anger towards Israel and America will send many figurative shoes flying their way.

Comments

[SEQUOIABISON]

This is why we liberals voted for Obama, to end the lopsided support of one nation over another and return to being an evenhanded honest broker for peace.

I think the entire world is impatiently awaiting the Obama inauguration and hoping he will bring a new dynamic to this seemingly never ending problem? Nero has occupied the white house for what feels like an eternity, our nightmare will soon be over.

[nzuixx]

I know Israel has the right to defend itself. In this case, how do you go on a rampage Bombing these people who are so boxed in in Gaza? If the option is killing Hamas leaders, then get HAMAS LEADERS. You can't look for peace by trying to wipe out Hamas and think it won't spur up other young Muslems in to the act of Terrorism around the world.

As for the Bush Administration, there is nothing else they can do after messing up on everything. What else do you expect from them than put out a statement that Israel has a right like we all know to defend itself.

It is sad to see what is happening to Palestinians and you kill all these people to win an election in February? Amazing!!! The world stand besides and look , while the blood of children are being spilled on the streets of GAZA.

What else can we do, but wonder if the next administration in the U. S. will continue this line of thinking if they claimed, they did oppose the war in Iraq which in itself killed about a million Iraqis.

Is it all worth it? Give Israelis more aid, more weapons to kill innocent people, what for? what for?

[booboo111]

The problem as I see it is that Hamas will never accept Israel as a neighboring state. Regardless if you accept that Israel was created justifiably or not, the fact is that it is "THERE" and it's not going anywhere, and the sooner Hamas, Iran and all enemies of Israel accept this fact, the better it will be for all concerned. When one makes a lousy business investment and loses alot of money, you don't keep pouring more money in to to try to save a losing proposition. You simply cut your losses, get out and move on. Just how long in to the future, and how many lives will be sacrificed to make a point that you can't do anything about? Almost every country that exists today, was once part of some other country. How far do you think the native Americans, whose land was stolen, would get trying to violently to retrieve their lost territory? Not very far. Israel has nukes and they will not hesitate to use them if they feel their survival is at stake, as would anyone. Just make the best deal you can and move on, especially if you're negotiating from a position of weakness. That's what any rational person or country would do.

[Overd0g]

The response is proportional. The proportion is 100:1.

[tehuti]

More like 350:1

[CFAmick]

Ultimately, the Israelis are fooling themselves if they think that "separate but equal" is the only possibility. The police state must end.

[gageeandbaba]

the reason the "media" is saying that Israel is responding is b/c they only ask Jewish sources and reporters. If you think I'm lying, watch clips from morning Joe today, prob tomorrow and beyond. EVERY guest they had on regarding the conflict was Jewish (which doesn't mean all Jewish people are this way). There are OTHER opinions as well. I watched Washington Journal on C-SPAN an almost every article that they read on air regarding this conflict was written by a Jewish person. Again I don't see why there is a disproportionate amount of one demographic group who CLEARLY has a conflict of interest.

[wadenelson1]

Israel needs to deal with Gaza/Hamas like you would a 5th grader. Allocate 600 trucks of supplies each month. For ever rocket, 20 trucks are deleted. Put up giant "scoreboards" where every Gaza resident can see them. Any month with zero rockets the base # increases by 100 trucks.

Gradually add in other carrots and sticks. Every 3 months that go by without a rocket launch, Israel builds a new school or hospital in Gaza. A single rocket launch cuts off cigarette imports for 2 months.

The num-nuts on both sides can't seem to realize they're precipitating Armageddon. You can't starve a million people without breeding more stop-at-nothing terrorists NOR can you continue to fire rockets at a Superpower.

[exhale09]

Boy do I agree with your post Wadenelson1.

I'm sick and tired of Americans taking a side ...EITHER SIDE...of this insanity.
Both sides are demented. YOU ARE KILLING EACH OTHER's children!

I am sick of it. The world is sick of it. Neither side is without blame. I refuse to condone or dismiss killing by either side as justifiable anymore.

ENOUGH!

[uc1000]

I agree but a country with embassies worldwide, a standing military, and a responsibility to distribute goods to an occupied people should be looked on with the burden of most responsibility. A kid who who is straved by their parent is not wrong of they smack their parent.

[ECJLA]

Israelis must eventually recognize that a Jewish state was not legitimately created in 1948. The region had been adversely possessed by non-Jewish Arabs for 1900 years and by people of Muslim faith for 1300 years. A sovereign successor state to Britain in Palestine following WW2 made sense, but the idea that it should be a Jewish one, did not. Indeed it was foreseeable (to anyone with any cultural literacy) that the attempt to carry it out (foolishly endorsed by President Truman) would provoke endless enmity and military conflict.

The whole project is premised on a racist myth that the Muslim world is outside of the pale of Western Civilization. Why do we speak of Judeo-Christian civilization and not Judeo-Christian-Islamic civilization? Islam is part of Western Civilization (the last and most popular of the monotheistic faiths) and will never allow itself to be marginalized. The Palestinians who retain their keys to the homes they were dispossessed from attest to their attachment to their land, private property and bourgeois values.

There is no "clash of civilizations." Through negotiations, and processes of peace, reconciliation, reparations and Palestinian return, a non-religious bi-lingual democratic multi-cultural state could emerge with civil and equal rights for all, along the lines of the Anglo/French Canadian model. Within a few decades the new state would become a stable moderate regional super-power and bastion of Western ecumenical ideals.

Eric C. Jacobson
Public Interest Lawyer
Culver City, California

[sabocat]

I agree wholeheartedly. So does Israeli historian Ilan Pappe.

Ilan Pappe's book should be standard reading on the subject:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4706543509678082810

[Overd0g]

Islam is marginalized. With the exception of innovations in suicide and high explosive fashion, they haven't contributed much in the last 500 years. They run the most repressive governments on earth and are expansionist and intolerant. Of course, large minorities are none of the above, but that's not good enough.

[ECJLA]

Many Muslim countries (in what we used to call the global "south") have been colonized and occupied during this same period. Neither oppressive fascism nor communism arose in Islamic regions. Grassroots Muslims entering the political fray have in recent decades been victims of repression and intolerance at least as often as misguided Muslims (such as the Taliban) have been agents of repression and intolerance. Large majorities of everyday "people of the book" (in all three monotheistic faiths) are peace-loving. The epidemic of indecency amongst Western elites in the post-World War 2 period has caused the Middle East crisis and virtually all of the problems of the world, particularly during the almost two decade long era of fecklessness following the end of the Cold war, culminating in a world on fire -- economically, ecologically and dangerously beset by strife in volatile regions.

Eric

[easarsfield]

Eric -

One could effectively argue that the United States was not legitimately created. I have friends that I argue with about the legality of the annexation of Texas (but I won't even get started on that one).

Judeo-Christians share much culturally, and I am guessing this corresponds with the high number of Jews that have been in living in Europe the past 1500+ years. While we share many similarities with Muslims, their culture is overwhelmingly Arab influenced. Even in fairly moderate Middle Eastern countries, Muslim women are veiled and dress differently than 'western' women.

In an ideal world, the area of Israel/Palestine following British Rule would have reverted back to being simliar to what is was during the early Islamic Period, when all three religions were celebrated for the common roots that they shared. And Israel isn't exactly that far off, for the most part people are allowed to practice whatever religion/sexuality they like. Unfortunately, many Palestinians now favor the creation of an Islamic state, Hamas being one of the organizations that supports this objective. I'm not exactly sure they want to co-exist as one nation with Israelis.

[ECJLA]

Easarfield,

Regarding the U.S., that racist mythology I referred to includes specious comparisons of Palestinians to the indigenous Native Americans. With their pagan spirituality and worldview Native Americans were not to the Mayflower arrivals as the predominantly Muslim Palestinians were to the Exodus. That 16th century encounter really did begin a clash of civilizations. And the ethnic cleansing of the native Americans by the early European settlers was abominable, a product of a retrograde colonizer mentality.

The shared Judeo-Christian European culture you refer did and does exist, but unfortunately so does the seemingly irreparable (theological-based) schism within Judaism that led to the founding of Christianity, an enmity that eventually enabled the Nazis to attempt a "final solution" Holocaust.

The approximately 300 million Arabs comprise some 20 plus percent of the world's approximate 1.6 billion Muslims. Some practices in conservative Arab states do not derive from Islam. E.g., Islamic scholars point out that the Koran mentions only that woman should cover their chests (i.e. not show cleavage); it does not mention the veiling of women. Muslim men and women pray separately due to the nature of the prayer position. Family values-oriented Jews and Christians have similar mores.

Unsurprisingly Hamas currently supports the creation of an "Islamic state" in lieu of the present "Jewish state" on Palestinian land. This does not mean that they would reject a non-religious one-state solution and negotiated reparations and equity-based peace and reconciliation.

Eric

[bonze]

The Israeli state is as legitimate as any other state. States are invariably founded on conquest and the exercise of force. Some are more brutal than others; the Israeli government is more democratic than most, and has a better human rights record than most of the other governments in the region. Take for example Saudi Arabia, founded in conquest, a despotic monarchy with a poor human rights record... look through history for a purely virtuous state, you won't find one!

As for "racist myth," Muslim doctrines exhibit great hostility to Judaism and Christianity, holding them superior to polytheists and atheists (who deserve to be killed outright) but inferior to the Muslim faith, deserving only of a bare minimum of tolerance--if and only if they submit to Muslim authority. This is hardly consistent with the modern conception of secular government and individual rights we associate today with the concept of "Western Civilization."

And the idea that Hamas, which has sworn it will establish an Islamic state in Palestine and espouses the rankest forms of Jew-hatred, is going to subscribe to "Western ecumenical ideals"... I wouldn't hold my breath waiting on that. You may not believe in the clash of civilizations--but they do!

[ECJLA]

Statehood was not the error. Jewish statehood was; rather than allying with Muslims to create a successor sovereign power to Britain in Palestine, zionists employed a supremicist instead of a brotherly ethos towards their fellow "people of the book". Had they allied with the majority Muslim populace instead of opting for militarized ethnic cleansing and expropriation, the new state would today likely be an exemplar of Canadian style federation and moderation.

The suggestion that Islam rejects peaceful co-existence with Christians and Jews (or non-theists for than matter) is a calumny.

True: affection, like truth, is the first casualty of war. Hatred is a byproduct of any civil strife, and it would be surprising if a 60 year old conflict didn't produce some on both sides. Especially civil strife fomented by the return after 1900 years of the diaspora group that originated monotheism, a group that in 1948 by force of arms drove most of the current monotheist inhabitants of Palestine into their own largely immiserating diaspora.

Hamas and the majority of Palestinians who voted them into office wish to lead Islamic oriented lives; the majority of Israel"s citizens wish to lead Jewish oriented lives. The structures of a social democracy can enable both to do both in a federated country. Jews and Muslims have a history of getting along fine, and still do in Northern African countries.

Eric

[frankist1676]

"If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I would do everything to stop that, and would expect Israel to do the same thing."
-Barack Obama
(July 2008)

Hmmmm...

[Yasmine]

keep repeating what you do ..............this is MADNESS

[cheforacle]

Excellent piece. As an American Jew who concurrently loves Israel but passionately believes that the failure of achieving a two-state solution obviously means Israel will never be secure, the Palestinians will continue to be oppressed and unable to realize their full potential and that jihadists will utilize the lack of a Palestinian state as a rallying crr, I applaud your bringing your observations from Kuwait to the HuffPo audience.

[esubius]

You say and I quote:

Death on either side of the border is disgraceful, but compare these two figures:

-- Since 2005, nine Israelis have been killed by rockets coming from Gaza.

-- Since yesterday morning, over 300 Palestinians have been killed by bombs and missiles coming from Israel

And if you were put in charge of defending the citizens of Israel would you wait for the Israeli death toll to reach any particular number before you would use force?

It seems to me that Israel is at war with Hamas simply because Hamas has declared war on Israel. With that type of opponent, Israel's response is in my view quite reasonable.

I am disgusted that there seems to be no sense of outrage in the Arab world that Hamas and its allies in Gaza have for years sent rockets into civilian areas of Israel with the sole aim of killing innocent people. The Arab street's outrage exists only when Israel strikes back.

[RandyRosenthal]

Well put.

"I am disgusted that there seems to be no sense of outrage in the Arab world that Hamas and its allies in Gaza have for years sent rockets into civilian areas of Israel with the sole aim of killing innocent people. The Arab street's outrage exists only when Israel strikes back."

[YR]

The Israeli blockade and road blocks accomplishes the same death, though under the radar and never reported.

[exhale09]

I tired of those who keep score over which side killed the most or least. ALL of it is wrong. Period. Wrong and unbelievably stupid.

You first, no You first, no You first, no you first...I'll see your 10 bombs and raise you 100.
Oh Yeah...

Is it THAT simple? Israel is at war with Hamas "simply" because hamas declared war on Israel? Or is there just a bit more to this issue for those who are more intellectually honest?

and when do we hear the Jewish streets outrage as more settlements were built beyond Israel's official borders, replacing Palestinian homes and displacing Palestinian families?

Do you see how there is no end to the tit for tat mentality?

[kerpin]

Things will not change until the Palestinians learn to take responsibility for the actions of their elected officials and stand up to them.

[Discipulus04]

things will not change until the Palestinians learn to move out and leave Israel alone.......ridiculous statement isn't it.

[altohone]

Those justifying the collective punishment have no desire to listen to reason or be proportionate in their response.

The current one state solution where half the people have no say in determining their future can't be called a democracy in any case.

[easarsfield]

HuffPost's Pick

And how did Gaza expect Israel to respond when they elected a group of terrorists to represent their interests? Hamas is an organization that wants to destroy Israel and create an Islamic Palestinian State. Co-existence is the only solution and it's a little hard to negotiate with people that completely disagree.

And your information regarding the blockade is not completely correct. Almost a year ago, in RESPONSE to rocket attacks, Israel began to ease the blockade (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/22/africa/mideast.php). Hmmm, but why did they stop?

Look at all of the weapons that have been smuggled into Gaza. If Hamas was truly concerned about Palestinians, wouldn't they be smuggling in the items that their people need most? When you are stocking up on weapons and launching rockets at your enemy, what sort of message does that send?? Certainly not a desire for peace.

Hamas deliberately shoots rockets into residential areas of Israel. The only reason that they do not cause carnage is because these are not very sophisticated rockets. I'm sure if they could get their hands on some scuds, things would be much different. I feel terrible for the innocent civilians caught up on both sides, especially the Palestinians given the grave humanitarian crisis they were already facing. It doesn't help when their elected government uses them as human shields by launching rockets from residential areas.

[Ahmed Shihab-Eldin - Huffpost Blogger]

Easarsfield,

Thanks for your comment. As you know, one man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter,"
Though I agree with you coexistence is the only solution.

About the article you posted... I think you may have read it incorrectly.

It didn't report that Israel began easing the blockade IN RESPONSE to rocket attacks. The syntax is a bit confusing so I can see how you read it that way. It was the restrictions imposted in response to intense rocket fire that were lifted.

Here is the quote from the article maybe you will see what I mean:

"Defense Minister Ehud Barak of Israel announced Monday night that he was lifting some of the restrictions imposed last week on Gaza in response to intense rocket fire against Israel by militant groups in the Gaza Strip, which is run by the Palestinians' Hamas faction.

Also, the imports through the tunnel (which have since been bombed today) included many goods such as fuel that the Hamas smuggled from Egypt because the Palestinians needed it. (Read this lede: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/22/hamas-gaza-tunnels-smuggling-egypt)

I agree that it is unfortunate that innocent civilians continue to be killed on both sides, especially those suffering from the blockade in Gaza. Hamas' actions do not necessarily indicate a deep desire for peace, but I think they do show a desire for some form of justice, even if their approach is itself unjust/flawed.

Thanks again,
A

[easarsfield]

haha I definitely agree with the terrorist/freedom fighter comparison, but hey, I'm Irish ;)

And I understand the Palestinian thirst for justice. I met an Imam once who was from Palestine who put it to me this way - "imagine that someone came into your house, completely took it over, and forced you to live in the bathroom. Now tell me, how would you react?" I would be absolutely furious, it's not right.

And yes, the tunnels were used to smuggle goods as well as weapons, but honestly, if the nations that so generously donated weapons to be smuggled in truly cared about the Palestinian people, wouldn't they be a little more concerned with getting them food and the supplies they need in order to prevent the mass humanitarian crisis that has developed? I can't imagine that Israel would be taking out these tunnels if they knew they were being used to smuggle in grapefruit and cigarettes. It is easy to say, "well we need these weapons to defend ourselves against the Zionists!" And I completely disagree, I think over the past several years Israel has demonstrated that they only attack when provoked. When you are stockpiling weapons and firing rockets, you are sending a very strong message.

[easarsfield]

(cont.)

The best thing for Palestinians to do would be to attempt to live peacefully within the land that they've been granted, and then negotiate for more. Demonstrate through actions that you are committed to peace, and then there will be no logical reason for Israel's blockade. Part of the problem is that when they're not fighting with the Israelis, Hamas and Fatah are fighting with each other!

Hamas just strikes me as an organization out for blood. They purposely attack Israeli civilians, and I don"t exactly like the way they treat their own. Even the IRA terrorists attempted to only go after British military personnel and installations.

The violence on both sides will solve no problems. An eye for an eye and the world would be blind.

[exhale09]

Who was representing the Palestinian interests before they elected Hamas?
You know when you are poor people, have no official country of your own, and have no weapons...only rocks.... against a State who has all the weapons and military they need, and that comes at your homes with bulldozers driven by armed military, disposessing your families, do you expect them to stay unarmed and not seek out those who are OFFERING help?

The SETTLEMENTS were a huge mistake by Israel, in my opinion.
Electing HAMAS was the Palestinian's huge mistake.

Both felt they HAD to make those mistakes, and neither will admit to their mistakes.