[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I’ve said it more than once that there are no “winners” or “losers” in this latest conflict…just losers…
But with all the “talking heads” in the “Zionist Controlled Media” (Israel BADLY needs a new Public Relations firm if this is anybody’s idea of “control”)…NOT ONCE have I heard them mention that the ONLY motive Israel has…and that is to stop the Hamas Rockets.
Period.
They don’t want to “wipe the Palestinians off the face of the Earth”. (like the millions surrounding Israel want to do to them).
They don’t want to annex Gaza and/or place settlements there.
And to those that day "Israel Broke the “cease fire”:
Bullshit.
There never WAS one, as Hamas rockets continued on a daily basis.
This conflict is about stopping those rockets (whose range has now dramatically increased; can anyone say “IRAN”?)
I’m all ears if someone could give me another motive that Israel might have.
Mufasa[/quote]
Going back to Mufasa’s original post: how about the fact that Gaza has been under siege for years now? Daniel Larison makes good points on the subject:
"For most Americans, the siege conditions do not enter into their thinking about this conflict at all. For many, perhaps most, Americans, the conflict is summed up quite simply: Hamas launches rockets, Israel retaliates; Israel wants peace, Hamas doesn?t. Nothing else needs to be considered.
Already a fairly poor, miserable place, Gaza became more so after it was punished for Hamas? victory and then even more when its fuel supply was cut off, which has hardly weakened the appeal of the most radical anti-Israel views. Gorenberg?s post began with an account of the injuries and fatalities suffered by Gazans who were creating makeshift heating sources to cope with the fuel shortage.
It has never been clear to me what political theory people use when they speculate that depriving a population of basic supplies will provoke dramatic political change for the better. Grinding a people down does not cause them to see the bankruptcy of their own leadership, but causes them to cling to it all the more as their last resort.
Ousting a ruling party or faction is usually a luxury that besieged people do not have, as siege conditions tend to strengthen the grip of those who already hold power. Radicalized populations often possess a siege mentality already, but this is even more true when they are essentially cut off from the outside world.
Many Americans?and perhaps many members of the Israeli government?seem to take their understanding of political revolution from Stargate or something else equally fanciful, according to which oppressed and miserable people will rise up against their own leadership without training, arms,
organization or coherent agenda and they will succeed because they mean well (or because the outcome is deemed desirable by outsiders). What all of these people never seem to understand is that the population will not blame their leadership for the poor conditions,
regardless of the leadership?s myriad flaws, but will readily fall prey to whatever demagoguery the leadership engages in to pin the blame on outside forces that are trying to destroy them.
If the population is already intensely nationalistic in its attitudes after decades of occupation, this demagoguery will be extraordinarily successful, and all of the blame and anger will be directed outward at the government or indeed at the entire nation that they hold responsible for creating the poor conditions."
http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2009/01/01/under-siege/
My problem with the Israeli retaliation isn’t moral really, I think they’re basically justified in their response, and I don’t doubt they are actually pretty careful in their strikes, inasmuch as you can be in launching air attacks into one of the most densely populated places on earth.
But what do the Israelis think they’re going to accomplish? Air strikes will not knock Hamas’ missiles out. A limited ground incursion won’t either.
The only way for them to stop all rockets and/or replace Hamas is an indefinite occupation of the Gaza Strip. Can someone explain to me why this isn’t a replay of the 2006 Lebanon fiasco?
