Monday, July 28, 2014

What Shall We Call the Next Gazan Operation?

Michael L.

Whatever semi-non-ceasefires that may have briefly been in place are now concluded.

From Y-Net we learn:
hamaskid2At least four people were killed, while at least six others were wounded, some critically, by mortar fire on Eshkol near the Gaza border early Monday evening.

At 12:40 pm on Monday the unofficial ceasefire between Israel and Hamas was broken when Code Red sirens blared in the Hof Ashkelon Regional Council as four rockets were fired from Gaza. It was reported that the rockets fell within the Gaza Strip.
Why do I get the feeling that "Operation Protective Edge" is not going quite as planned?  In the mean time, the Obama administration, the European Union, the United Nations, and my neighbor's dog, Harvey, are demanding an immediate ceasefire out of the humanitarian necessity of allowing Hamas to recover and rearm.

I have little faith that Netanyahu has the strength to do what is necessary... if by "what is necessary" we mean the elimination of Hamas as a functioning organization in the Gaza Strip.  It is vital and necessary to destroy the rocket infrastructure embedded in Gazan daily life and it is vital and necessary to destroy those insidious terror tunnels and I could not be happier to see the Netanyahu government engaged in those tasks.

But it is also vital and necessary to eliminate Hamas.

I understand that people might say, "Hey man, you're sitting there in your safe and comfortable perch in the Oakland foothills.  You have no actual skin in the game so, perhaps, you should STFU and leave it to the Israelis."

That's fair enough and if I thought for one second that I had even the merest breath of influence over anything that Israel does, the argument would have considerably more weight.  As it is, however, I do not.

Nonetheless, even if I am wrong to publicly call for the elimination of Hamas as a functioning organization in the Gaza Strip - because I will not have to bare the consequences of such an operation - does it not remain true that Hamas' continuity will result, yet again, in a repeat of the conflict in the not too distant future?

In 2008 there was the weirdly translated Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip.

In 2012 there was Operation Pillar of Defense in the Gaza Strip.

In 2014 we have the even more weirdly translated Operation Protective Edge in the Gaza Strip.

I say that we start up a contest to see who will come closest to naming the next Gazan operation in, say, 2016 or 2017.

Heck, we can do this all century if people insist upon it.

{I recommend against, however.}

8 comments:

  1. "I understand that people might say, 'Hey man, you're sitting there in your safe and comfortable perch in the Oakland foothills. You have no actual skin in the game so, perhaps, you should STFU and leave it to the Israelis.' "

    One response would be that what is just Israeli decisions, we should stay out. But this is not an issue of Israel deciding how to most appropriately respond to Hamas. This is about our government second-guessing Israel's government about whether or not its precautions to protect non-combatant life in Gaza are adequate based on the facile notion that civilians dieing is proof-positive that inadequate protections are in place. If the operation were to proceed to Gaza's cities, where home-based entrances to the terror-tunnels are located and fighting there were to lead to a mushrooming in Israeli casualties with the result that Israelis question whether or not they should continue, then and only then might that argument have merit against calls for Israel to go further.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Speaking of our government, Isi Liebler seems rather unhappy with the Obama administration.

      "His final act of betrayal of Israel was his repudiation of the Egyptian cease-fire which Israel had ‎accepted. Instead, Kerry conspired with Qatar and Turkey to seek to impose new cease-fire ‎terms that would prevent Israel from destroying the tunnels it had discovered, and he ‎provided undertakings that the "blockade" of Gaza and release of Hamas prisoners and other ‎concerns would be reviewed, with no reference to the demilitarization of Hamas. The Israeli ‎Diplomatic-Security Cabinet unanimously rejected this offer, placing Israel in direct conflict ‎with the U.S.‎"

      Delete
  2. Get rid of Hamas? but but but.....

    "House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) says the United States must look to Qatar, an ally of the terrorist group Hamas, for advice in resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

    "And we have to confer with the Qataris, who have told me over and over again that Hamas is a humanitarian organization," she told CNN's "State of the Union" with Candy Crowley."

    They is humanitarians!!!!!!!!!

    http://the-eyeontheworld.blogspot.ca/2014/07/pelosi-qataris-have-told-me-hamas-is.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They keep using that word. I do not think it means what they think it means.

      Delete
    2. Is that true, btw? That's not something from The Onion?

      Delete
  3. Operation

    Nuke the motherfuckers and scrape the whole fucking place down to the bedrock, then napalm what's left and start over with human beings this time.

    But that's just me. In Arabic it's roughly translated as 'Hamas'.

    ReplyDelete