One can have utter revulsion of Hamas's act of terror but at the same time utter despair at Israels response. Patrick Cockburn, in the i likened Hamas's acts to the Tet offensive in Vietnam. He's right, ultimately ended in defeat for the Viet Cong but succeeded in highlighting the weakness of the American side. Israel are not very good at incursions and to enter into guerrilla warfare which can be morale sapping and devastating politically, as the body bags, come home is obstinate folly.
And let us not forget Hezbollah. What if they become involved? Will the US come to Israels aid after pulling out of Afghanistan and Iraq?
Diplomacy will end this. But at the moment it's a long way off
Israel will never turn armed might into strategic security, Olmert said then. If need be, it could win a war against all its enemies combined. But if it wanted peace it had to face the decision it had avoided for 40 years: withdrawal from the occupied Palestinian territories. Military victories and land grabs were futile. Security would come only with political resolution.
Ehud Olmert, the outgoing Israeli prime minister - just before the war against Hamas in 2009.
Agree ... a peace process preceded by an armistice preceded by a ceasefire is a long way away. But it can’t begin with either Netanyahu or the present Hamas high command in place
Another insightful and helpful piece Philip. The atrocity of the Hamas attack cannot go unanswered, however as you point out, even in the heat of such a response there should be a view of what happens next. There is no doubt that Hamas and its sponsors have strategic objectives. It is important that these are understood such that the response avoids aiding and abetting achieving them. In this regard Hamas and its guiding hand care as much for the Palestinians as they did for the victims of their attack. We can only hope that the the personal agenda of the Israeli Prime Minister does not prevail.
One can have utter revulsion of Hamas's act of terror but at the same time utter despair at Israels response. Patrick Cockburn, in the i likened Hamas's acts to the Tet offensive in Vietnam. He's right, ultimately ended in defeat for the Viet Cong but succeeded in highlighting the weakness of the American side. Israel are not very good at incursions and to enter into guerrilla warfare which can be morale sapping and devastating politically, as the body bags, come home is obstinate folly.
And let us not forget Hezbollah. What if they become involved? Will the US come to Israels aid after pulling out of Afghanistan and Iraq?
Diplomacy will end this. But at the moment it's a long way off
Israel will never turn armed might into strategic security, Olmert said then. If need be, it could win a war against all its enemies combined. But if it wanted peace it had to face the decision it had avoided for 40 years: withdrawal from the occupied Palestinian territories. Military victories and land grabs were futile. Security would come only with political resolution.
Ehud Olmert, the outgoing Israeli prime minister - just before the war against Hamas in 2009.
Learning from the lessons of history does not seem to be on the Israeli curriculum.
Agree ... a peace process preceded by an armistice preceded by a ceasefire is a long way away. But it can’t begin with either Netanyahu or the present Hamas high command in place
Another insightful and helpful piece Philip. The atrocity of the Hamas attack cannot go unanswered, however as you point out, even in the heat of such a response there should be a view of what happens next. There is no doubt that Hamas and its sponsors have strategic objectives. It is important that these are understood such that the response avoids aiding and abetting achieving them. In this regard Hamas and its guiding hand care as much for the Palestinians as they did for the victims of their attack. We can only hope that the the personal agenda of the Israeli Prime Minister does not prevail.