I wish that Israel had annihilated Hamas in the Gaza, but at least they dealt them a very painful blow, and drove a political wedge between Hamas and the Gaza Palestinians. The Gaza Palestinians saw themselves being used as human shields by a Hamas which never dared to fight the IDF in the field; they saw themselves murdered randomly as "collaborators," and they saw the humanitarian aid sent them being stolen and resold at a major profit. The reputation of Hamas has been hurt badly.
I assume that Israel timed the truce for the US Inauguration, to prevent Obama from trying to "solve" the "peace problem" at Israeli expense as his first Presidential action. Note that the way the Israelis worded the truce, they can easily resume the war if Hamas resumses its own attacks on Israel.
I do not see what difference it makes, given that the "international community" is already gathered at Cairo with the intention of dictating truce terms to Israel. All it means, as far as I am concerned, is yet more evidence that Olmert is an inadequate leader.
I do not see what difference it makes, given that the "international community" is already gathered at Cairo with the intention of dictating truce terms to Israel.
Ah, but will Israel take dictation? From anyone but America herself? Or even from America? Remember that most of the "international community" has very limited powers to harm or favor Israel. This is because most of it is either heavily-occupied elsewhere (Russia, China), too cowardly to put its muscle where its mouth is (France, Germany) or is simply weak (Sweden). There are also some countries (particularly Russia and China) who just like to see the conflict continue so that they may fish in troubled waters.
All it means, as far as I am concerned, is yet more evidence that Olmert is an inadequate leader.
I agree, particularly because the existence of a Palestinian-ruled Gaza is Olmert's fault. But (a) Olmert may have genuinely learned from his mistakes, and (b) Olmert probably won't be in charge for much longer, anyway.
If that was the point, it was a ridiculously expensive and bloody way to achieve nothing. Even supposing that Obama is anti-Israeli - and frankly, right now we cannot be sure - what good will it do to indulge in such a damp squib of an operation, stopped half-way through, except to convince him that he can stop any further Israeli attempt at self-defence just by raising his voice?
I'm afraid this sounds all too likely. But if a country's leader takes that country into the horrors of war for any reason, he or she has a duty to carry it through to a successful end, an end that makes sense of all the suffering on both sides, that genuinely changes matters - and changes them as far as possible in a positive direction. Otherwise all the suffering, expense and bloodshed have been simply wasted. And here they seem to me to have been wasted. If and when Tsahal withdraws, Hamas, however badly mauled, will still be in control of Gaza. Men killed in battled will be replaced; tunnels destroyed will be dug deeper; and in a year or two we will all be exactly where we were before the campaign. I hope Israeli citizens remember this at the election.
If and when Tsahal withdraws, Hamas, however badly mauled, will still be in control of Gaza. Men killed in battled will be replaced; tunnels destroyed will be dug deeper; and in a year or two we will all be exactly where we were before the campaign. I hope Israeli citizens remember this at the election.
I hope they do, too.
A firm Israel may actually make gains under Obama, because though his and especially his advisors' expressed sentiments are pro-Palestinian, all I've seen so far indicates that he is a mendacious weakling. Faced with a choice between disappointing his advisors and actively damaging America's position in the Mideast by antagonizing our most important ally in the region, he may very well choose to disappoint (or even "throw off the bus") his advisors.
Dubya wouldn't have done this, but then George W. Bush is a much stronger man.
At first, I thought they called for a unilateral ceasefire just to show that even when the IDF wasn't attacking, Hamas was still launching rockets (as an excuse to go back and continue the fighting) but... it seems that isn't so.
Hearing Olmert say that all of the objectives have been met is absurd, though. And the army clearly disagrees.
I'd also been operating under the... delusion, I suppose, that when Israel negotiated a ceasefire with Gaza, they'd at least get Gilad Shalit back, in whichever form...
Yes, I had forgotten about poor Corporal (was it?) Shalit. I am glad to see you haven't.
I would not be surprised if the army knew where they can find him, alive or dead, but that they have obstacles in the way. There is a rumour that they know where the whole high command of Hamas is holed up - but that it happens to be, in their own despicable way, in a bunker dug directly under a hospital full of women and children. Repulsive. I am reminded of an old war story: Field-Marshal Rommel was having serious problem with fuel supplies - indispensable to a desert tank army - because the British were sinking too many Italian transports. A particularly uninspired Italian officer had the bright idea of passing the oil in ships disguised as Red Cross transports. Rommel exploded: "I am doing everything in my power to keep this war within the bounds of law and custom, and you give the English such encouragement to attack Red Cross transports?" The order, of course, was swiftly countermanded. Rommel later died for his part in the July 20 plot against Hitler.
I keep wondering if this had anything to do with it. It was a major live event on Israeli television and must have had a substantial impact on public support for the offensive.
I'll pass the question to ashesofautumn, who either is now or has recently been in Israel. But one would hope that the Israelis would have more sense than to fall for a fairly obvious piece of war propaganda. (Yes, children do die in war - so do teen-agers, young adults, middle-aged, ageing, elderly and decrepit persons. The issue is what the war is meant to achieve, and whether it can be achieved.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
I assume that Israel timed the truce for the US Inauguration, to prevent Obama from trying to "solve" the "peace problem" at Israeli expense as his first Presidential action. Note that the way the Israelis worded the truce, they can easily resume the war if Hamas resumses its own attacks on Israel.
no subject
no subject
Ah, but will Israel take dictation? From anyone but America herself? Or even from America? Remember that most of the "international community" has very limited powers to harm or favor Israel. This is because most of it is either heavily-occupied elsewhere (Russia, China), too cowardly to put its muscle where its mouth is (France, Germany) or is simply weak (Sweden). There are also some countries (particularly Russia and China) who just like to see the conflict continue so that they may fish in troubled waters.
All it means, as far as I am concerned, is yet more evidence that Olmert is an inadequate leader.
I agree, particularly because the existence of a Palestinian-ruled Gaza is Olmert's fault. But (a) Olmert may have genuinely learned from his mistakes, and (b) Olmert probably won't be in charge for much longer, anyway.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
I hope they do, too.
A firm Israel may actually make gains under Obama, because though his and especially his advisors' expressed sentiments are pro-Palestinian, all I've seen so far indicates that he is a mendacious weakling. Faced with a choice between disappointing his advisors and actively damaging America's position in the Mideast by antagonizing our most important ally in the region, he may very well choose to disappoint (or even "throw off the bus") his advisors.
Dubya wouldn't have done this, but then George W. Bush is a much stronger man.
no subject
Hearing Olmert say that all of the objectives have been met is absurd, though. And the army clearly disagrees.
I'd also been operating under the... delusion, I suppose, that when Israel negotiated a ceasefire with Gaza, they'd at least get Gilad Shalit back, in whichever form...
no subject
I would not be surprised if the army knew where they can find him, alive or dead, but that they have obstacles in the way. There is a rumour that they know where the whole high command of Hamas is holed up - but that it happens to be, in their own despicable way, in a bunker dug directly under a hospital full of women and children. Repulsive. I am reminded of an old war story: Field-Marshal Rommel was having serious problem with fuel supplies - indispensable to a desert tank army - because the British were sinking too many Italian transports. A particularly uninspired Italian officer had the bright idea of passing the oil in ships disguised as Red Cross transports. Rommel exploded: "I am doing everything in my power to keep this war within the bounds of law and custom, and you give the English such encouragement to attack Red Cross transports?" The order, of course, was swiftly countermanded. Rommel later died for his part in the July 20 plot against Hitler.
no subject
no subject