Wednesday, December 24, 2008

Gaza, Politicians, and a Feckless Media

Here's an image that was up on Y-net earlier today.

Yoav Guetta of Ashkelon, 10 years old, after his house was hit and partially destroyed by a Palestinian Grad missile earlier today.

This picture will never appear in the Guardian, or at the BBC. Actually, given that it's Christmas Eve, it won't appear anywhere outside Israel. Which is too bad not because of its propaganda value, but because it explains part of what will be in the news right after Christmas, when whatever retaliation Israel chooses creates good pictures of Palestinian suffering.

Israel's critics often erroneously assume the Israelis aren't aware of Palestinian suffering, and castigate them for not finding out. I don't remember ever seeing a piece of self reflection in which such a critic asks themselves if they've acquainted themselves adequately about the Israeli perspective.

There's an interesting discussion taking place in Israel these days. Rockets aimed solely at civilians are raining down on towns near Gaza, and also on towns that aren't so near (the Palestinian range is getting longer because while they're dismal failures at creating better lives for themselves, they're great at inventing ways of hurting Israelis). On the one hand you've got politicians from left and right facing elections, who are screaming for retaliatory actions against Gaza. On the other hand you've got Ehud Barak, Minister of Defense, apparently backed by many of the generals, who are wary of wielding the destructive power they've got, and who consequently appear irresolute and callous towards Yoav Guetta and hundreds of thousands of other civilians. In this argument I'm on the side of the hesitators, at least for the moment.

Not, mind you, because I think nothing can be achieved by violence and one must seek a rational accommodation with Hamas. It was only a few years ago, remember, when far worse Palestinian terror which was killing hundreds of Israeli civilians was stopped through the power of violence. The combination of killing or arresting most terrorists in the West Bank, followed by the justifiable assassinations of the top Hamas leaders in Gaza did the trick, not anything else, and certainly not sitting down to talk with the poor Palestinians.

Violence most certainly can achieve political goals, as human history consistently shows these past 5,000 years or so. Yet it must be wielded carefully, the violence: effectively, and morally. The West Bank isn't Gaza, and what worked in the one in 2002-2003 probably won't work in the other in 2009. We also ought not forget how a knee-jerk use of violence in Lebanon in 2006 ended badly: instead of killing thousands of Hezbullah fighters, as we should have, we killed a few hundred, a number that was too small, along with hundreds of Lebanese civilians, a number that was vastly too large.

So if Barak (supported by Olmert, who is still Prime Minister) is carefully preparing an effective response to the Palestinian insistence on killing Israelis, I think it's worth waiting a bit if needed. Setting things up so that the Obama administration sees who's insisting on violence and who's being reluctant is also a worthy consideration. As long as sometime soon - say, in the fullness of not much time - something effective is done.

My preference would be to kill the Hamas leaders from the top down, rather than from the rank and file up. But then again, fortunately it isn't my brief.


Anonymous said...

The Best mohammed T-shirt art is from Sweden. Watch and read the info at,
Don´t translate read in English.

Anonymous said...


You happen to be right! And, it is a choice. To kill Gazan leaders.

When Drudge posted the headline, he said the Egyptians WARNED the leadership in Gaza that they'd be targeted.

As to "throwing rockets" it's on par with terror tantrums. Because, so far? These homemade rockets really don't do all that much damage.

What the rockets capture is headlines. And, for this reason, they continue.

Plus, who knows what the journalists want?

There's elections coming in February. Olmert, who did nothing wrong, has been knocked out ... Which is a shame.

While if you look to Illinois; you'll see Fitzgerald (nicknamed "Fitzas") also trying to "get Obama. In the same fashion he once tried to get Bush and CHeney. But you'd have to remember PLAME. You'd have to remember the accusations WHICH WERE FALSE!

As to Fitzas, he's on par with Mazuz. Unless you take seriously, that Mazuz will have an Olmert hearing in February.

On the other hand, behind the scenes, you have Mad[e]OFF with the money. And, you'd realize what really happened!

Madoff and Talansky BOTH have fed well at the "charity ball."

Will Gaza erupt into war?

Let me explain something to you. Dubya has ALWAYS wanted the Saud's to become the "new" Turks. But Dubya had shoes thrown at his head, in Iraq by a SHI'ITE man who didn't buy into Dubya's plans.

When Olmert went into Lebanon, Bush kept telling him ... TO GO INTO SYRIA AND REMOVE ASSAD's head!

Didn't happen.

And, now?

Bush would LOVE Olmert to solve Abbas' problems. Sure. Take off some Gaza leadership. Because right away, the "quartet" would hand Gaza to Fatah.

Fatah lost Gaza!

And, Hamas? Is trying to show ARABS that they're "gaza" leadership.

So the Jews get some flying noise-makers.

With elections coming.

Of course, you're told Bibi is a winnah!

But sit tight.

Surprises always happen after people go and vote.

You'd be surprised how many Israelis have already figured out that it was "charity money" behind Talansky.

Of course, what wasn't known was how Madoff "made off with all da money."

You think $50-billion?

I'd more than double that amount.

How did this happen, you might want to ask?

Because besides politicians ... there were some very greedy billionaires out there. And, I believe they dreamt even bigger than the Saud's!

They dreamt they'd INCREASE their fortunes to a place that no one would ever be able to touch them. And, this "feeder stream" would "take care of the religious" for CENTURIES.

No. Madoff made off with the money. But at least when you wonder why anyone would have given him so much, you gotta remember the temptation. GREED. To be a player after you're dead. To leave so much money inside the "charity" nobody could stop the lunacy.

The Saud's are the same way.

ANd, Dubya? Is a stinking manager! He was gonna do better than his father!

You know his father, back in 1991, didn't kill Saddam. And, didn't get elected.

But you want explanations?

First, open your eyes.

And, wait a bit. Because I can almost guarantee that a lightbulb will go off in your head. (No. No damage.)

And from Gaza? Not much damage. But Ehud Barak will lead Labor to LESS SEATS.

Olmert? WHere can he go to regain his reputation? Maybe? He can write a book. If you won't believe him, you could laugh.

And, Swindler's List. WHen you can see who the "dreamers were" ??? Again, you could laugh. Or not.

I know longer see a writer on the order of Herman Wouk, writing these days. (Herman Wouk brought you Captain Queeg in all his glory.)

ut you still have to wait for the talent to show up.

As to Gaza, Arik Sharon is in a coma. Solutions aren't all that easy to come by, anymore.

We just wait for the curtain to go up now, on the next act. Don't bother to guess. No one knows the future.

Hey! Maybe, Morris Talansky will write a book? He could talk about charities ... and how much money really was once just out there "for the taking." Well? Bernie Madoff knew! He even knew how to convince the charity heads to "give it to him."

You want gaza to be quiet? Well, that's not what's "quiet" right now.