Dana (Israeli),
Thanks for your insight, from an insider. Here are some things to consider from an outsider.
On the one hand, you suggest that during the truce, Hamas didn't "stop bombing Israel" - just did so less frequently? I haven't heard of any credible news sources making this claim. It seems that both sides honored the truce and that only after efforts and negotiations failed (Hamas wanted more freedom of operations within Gaza, a more open border for supplies, medicine, food to be imported and Israel rejected this out of fear of weapons and terrorists being brought in..) did rocket attacks begin anew.
First of all, Hamas does not have the capacity to "bomb Israel," as I understand it, rather the launches are of a fairly primitive variety at a town or two within their reach. Something like a few killed and 16 injured?
Secondly and much more significantly, you say that an "increase in security and control over 'Palenstine', including the West Bank, by Israel, has been in direct response to terrorist attacks within Israel by Palestinians." Do the terms "security and control" include aircraft bombing raids? (http://www.indybay.org/
You may be keen to the fallacy here, and the same is true with many U.S. politicians who don't distinguish between acts of terrorism on the part of people around the world and the capitalistic, imperialist system that concentrates power and resources in the hands of the few at the expense of the many, including the planet's natural ecosystems. Terrorism exists because people are desperate. They are willing to kill, be killed to achieve things like freedom from oppression and occupation, food, water, land, control over their own resources, etc. Until the "developed" nations of the world recognize this, every single effort to "Stomp out terrorism" and every "War on Terror" will do nothing but add fuel to the fire. It gives reason and cause for more suicide attacks, not less. The U.S. is a prime example - by definition this country was started by terrorists, willing to defy, kill and wreak havoc on the British who were occupying, over-taxing, extracting copious resources and oppressing citizens of the colonies.
The international community is making a different point from what you say - "these actions have been directly instigated by violence against Israelis, within Israel." That is, the response by Israel is greatly disproportionate, extremely aggressive and effectively killing (either directly with bombs or indirectly by cutting off supplies, food, water, medicine, etc.) primarily innocent civilians in Gaza. The three-day death toll in Gaza climbed to 345 with more than 1400 injured. Do you think this will stop attacks from Hamas, reduce chances for attacks from others, like Iran, or somehow quell suicide bombers? Do you think it's an appropriate response to the rocket fire by Hamas in southern Israel?
Barghuoti makes this point and offers what I believe to be true; the feeble rocket attacks by an starving, desperate people is a symptom of a greater problem - the oppression and occupation of Palestinians by Israel and the lack of a truly autonomous, contiguous land for Palestinians. I also agree with him that much like in the film "Wag the Dog" or in many U.S. political maneuvers, the politicians of Israel are attempting to "look tough" in defense of their nation-state at a time of elections. I'm sorry, but all the lives - even one of the lives - lost and shattered, on either side, to me are more precious than political advancement.
Until the Zionist movement is silenced, a proper nation-state is awarded to the deserving Palestinian people, the same basic tenants will persist. In my opinion, what Israel should fear more than anything, certainly more than Palestinian rocket fire or the loss of some of "their land" to Palestinians or the creation of a nation called Palestine - is their overly aggressive actions unifying the Arab world against them. That would be devastating for all parties involved.
Thanks for considering an outsider's point of view,
Pedro (Californiano)
On 12/31/08, Dana Shapiro wrote:
For records sake, after the truce ended two weeks ago, Hamas (Palestinians) were the ones to reinstate violent behavior. During the truce, Hamas didn't actually stop bombing Israel, they just reduced the velocity of attacks. While a nonviolent strategy in reaction to Israel's attack would be morally respectable, as suggested by Barghouti, it is definitely not the reality. Barghouti sounds like a relatively rational politician, too bad he's not representative of the governance in Gaza.Almost all the increase in security and control over 'Palenstine', including the West Bank, by Israel, has been in direct response to terrorist attacks within Israel by Palestinians. So, while I agree that many if not all of Israel's actions over the past 2 years have created major problems (except for reducing suicide bombings, which it has success achieved), these actions have been directly instigated by violence against Israelis, within Israel.--On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 7:21 PM, pedro <slopedro@gmail.com> wrote:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId= 98861148
check this NPR story out! Mustafa Barghouti says the ones benefiting from the violence are Israeli politicians, much the way Bush benefited in public opinion (by a vast majority of Americans) by striking in Afghanistan and Iraq in the eyes of the US public, at first at least...
this one is decent too...Scott Lasensky of the U.S. Institute of Peace
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId= 98861151
Dana Shapiro
Department of Man in the Desert
Social Science Unit
J. Blaustein Institutes for Desert Research
Ben Gurion University of the Negev
Sede Boqer Campus - Israel 84990
